Full Version: The St Pauls Protestors
Are they...
a. Gonna change the world
or
b. Cunts
?
I don't think they're either, I think they're just a little delusional.
Changing the world is a bit exaggerated. But with these movements popping up all over the place I think that something is going to change. Maybe not this year, maybe in thirty.
In the US the OWS protests have awaken Americans to the fact that while they were asleep over the last 30 years enormous wealth has been transferred to the already wealthiest 1% of Americans (actually the top 0.1%) at the expense of everyone else. With this reality brought into the American consciousness I think that something is going to have to change.
I'm not clear about how similar the British situation is to the American one, but I have no doubt that there is enormous wealth/income inequality in Britain as well. One difference is that this inequality is more widely accepted in Britain with its history of class boundaries than it is in America.
In the US the OWS protests have awaken Americans to the fact that while they were asleep over the last 30 years enormous wealth has been transferred to the already wealthiest 1% of Americans (actually the top 0.1%) at the expense of everyone else. With this reality brought into the American consciousness I think that something is going to have to change.
I'm not clear about how similar the British situation is to the American one, but I have no doubt that there is enormous wealth/income inequality in Britain as well. One difference is that this inequality is more widely accepted in Britain with its history of class boundaries than it is in America.
Ladsnet, ever the archetypal authoritarian-- binanry thinking 
I admire the sentiment of these protestors: However I can't help but feel that they would make more of a difference, if they worked for charities, formed co-operatives or stood for public office. Or would be too pro-active, and dossing about is the easy option? Although camping out in the street raises awareness, it doesn't achieve anything practical beyond that-- but I'm knocking them for least making some 'effort' 
One difference is that this inequality is more widely accepted in Britain with its history of class boundaries than it is in America.
Somebody needs to join us in the C21st Britain-- who told you that piece of stunningly nescient misinformation?
. Your bumptiously stubborn prejudices about Britain always make me laugh Parsy What about the Jarrow Marches? Or Tolpuddle Martyrs? Chartism? Abolition of slavery and child labour? The founding of the Co-Operative? The early days of the Labour party? General Strike? That's just for starters! Hardly a history of acceptance of such inequality in this country-- and those movements did change things. Still, let's not the facts get in the way of a bit of ignorant Brit-bashing eh? Yeah those Brit unions: The people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour. What a bunch of greedy bastards.
Because if your antiquated statement were true, then the welfare state wouldn't have been created in the UK. For instance the NHS was created in a feeling of unacceptance that the poor often had inadequate access to healthcare; the mandate to create it, was backed by a massive landslide election victory in 1945. The manifesto that Atlee put foward at the election was pretty much enacted in full.
It was later added to by MacMillan's government (notably end of rationing); thence by Wilson's 1960s government (Open University), a time that saw financial/living conditions improve for many poorer people. At the other end of the scale in the 1970s, we had taxation rates of over 80% for our highest earners (albeit causing a mass exodus of said earners). Since then we've had the introduction of the minimum wage as well, which rises year on year. Britian govt is also a massive donator of foreign aid (per head of population), and the British are biggest charity donators per head in the world.
Up to date, we have over 40 unions planning to strike on 30th November over decimation of pensions in Britain, which will mean many worker longer and getting much less for their retirement. Has America seen such a widespread strike in recent years? Closer to home, Nottingham City Council wishes to outlaw people who stand on street-corners, with advertising boards (for a certain pizza chain) around their necks-- the reasoning is that it is degrading for those workers (many it is claimed, aren't earning the min wage). In my travels across the USA, this practise is common-place and readily accepted.
Britain is no different from any other first world country, in having class boundaries; the defining factor of "class" in this context, is by what job you do-- it's just (rightly or wrongly) that Britain has been blatant about it; it's as much of an obsession, as race is in the USA. Speaking of the USA, I would argue the USA has class boundaries; "rednecks", "white-collar workers" and "blue-collar workers" are symptomatic of this. And isn't the gap between rich and poor in the USA, far wider than the UK too? When the USA has a health-care system or welfare-state that rivals Britain's, then you can claim that Britain is less tolerant of wealth-inequality
"Historic" is the key word in your comment. Class isn't as significant in the UK as it was historically; as Tony Blair once remarked, "we're all middle-class now". Hyperbolic, but he had a point: Most 'working-class' jobs have gone (the numerous disused collieries and former factories/workhouses around my home county of Nottinghamshire, are testament to this). Those still employed in 'working-class' jobs, often earn more than traditional middle-class jobs (a plumber can easily out-earn a teacher). Even the Royals are marrying commoners (Wills & Kate, Zara & Mike)
To me, there are only two (well three if one counts 'underclass' chavs) classes: The super-rich and 'the rest of us'. And what is happening, is that the very richest of UK society are getting richer through excessive bonuses and tax-evasion, while the rest of us are staying the same or more likely getting poorer-- I certainly object to this.
I admire the sentiment of these protestors: However I can't help but feel that they would make more of a difference, if they worked for charities, formed co-operatives or stood for public office. Or would be too pro-active, and dossing about is the easy option? Although camping out in the street raises awareness, it doesn't achieve anything practical beyond that-- but I'm knocking them for least making some 'effort' QUOTE(ParsifalNYC @ Nov 6 2011, 15:34) 
One difference is that this inequality is more widely accepted in Britain with its history of class boundaries than it is in America.
Somebody needs to join us in the C21st Britain-- who told you that piece of stunningly nescient misinformation?
. Your bumptiously stubborn prejudices about Britain always make me laugh Parsy What about the Jarrow Marches? Or Tolpuddle Martyrs? Chartism? Abolition of slavery and child labour? The founding of the Co-Operative? The early days of the Labour party? General Strike? That's just for starters! Hardly a history of acceptance of such inequality in this country-- and those movements did change things. Still, let's not the facts get in the way of a bit of ignorant Brit-bashing eh? Yeah those Brit unions: The people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour. What a bunch of greedy bastards.Because if your antiquated statement were true, then the welfare state wouldn't have been created in the UK. For instance the NHS was created in a feeling of unacceptance that the poor often had inadequate access to healthcare; the mandate to create it, was backed by a massive landslide election victory in 1945. The manifesto that Atlee put foward at the election was pretty much enacted in full.
It was later added to by MacMillan's government (notably end of rationing); thence by Wilson's 1960s government (Open University), a time that saw financial/living conditions improve for many poorer people. At the other end of the scale in the 1970s, we had taxation rates of over 80% for our highest earners (albeit causing a mass exodus of said earners). Since then we've had the introduction of the minimum wage as well, which rises year on year. Britian govt is also a massive donator of foreign aid (per head of population), and the British are biggest charity donators per head in the world.
Up to date, we have over 40 unions planning to strike on 30th November over decimation of pensions in Britain, which will mean many worker longer and getting much less for their retirement. Has America seen such a widespread strike in recent years? Closer to home, Nottingham City Council wishes to outlaw people who stand on street-corners, with advertising boards (for a certain pizza chain) around their necks-- the reasoning is that it is degrading for those workers (many it is claimed, aren't earning the min wage). In my travels across the USA, this practise is common-place and readily accepted.
Britain is no different from any other first world country, in having class boundaries; the defining factor of "class" in this context, is by what job you do-- it's just (rightly or wrongly) that Britain has been blatant about it; it's as much of an obsession, as race is in the USA. Speaking of the USA, I would argue the USA has class boundaries; "rednecks", "white-collar workers" and "blue-collar workers" are symptomatic of this. And isn't the gap between rich and poor in the USA, far wider than the UK too? When the USA has a health-care system or welfare-state that rivals Britain's, then you can claim that Britain is less tolerant of wealth-inequality
"Historic" is the key word in your comment. Class isn't as significant in the UK as it was historically; as Tony Blair once remarked, "we're all middle-class now". Hyperbolic, but he had a point: Most 'working-class' jobs have gone (the numerous disused collieries and former factories/workhouses around my home county of Nottinghamshire, are testament to this). Those still employed in 'working-class' jobs, often earn more than traditional middle-class jobs (a plumber can easily out-earn a teacher). Even the Royals are marrying commoners (Wills & Kate, Zara & Mike)
To me, there are only two (well three if one counts 'underclass' chavs
) classes: The super-rich and 'the rest of us'. And what is happening, is that the very richest of UK society are getting richer through excessive bonuses and tax-evasion, while the rest of us are staying the same or more likely getting poorer-- I certainly object to this.
It's hard to say how effective the protests may be due to the media's reporting of it: they concentrate more on what the protestors are doing or what's being done about them than what they are standing (camping) for. From the media's portrayal, no bankers have lost their jobs but some of the Church have.
The media aren't ignoring the reasons for the protest but I don't feel it's their main focus of attention. Protests in other cities in the UK or around the World are largely ignored.
The protestors have struggled ever since they were refused access to camp within the area of the City & had to compromise by going to St Paul's. When you start your protest by accepting such a compromise you aren't helping your cause.
Another problem the protestors face is if they do (or are portrayed as) disrupting the Remembrance Day service.
The media aren't ignoring the reasons for the protest but I don't feel it's their main focus of attention. Protests in other cities in the UK or around the World are largely ignored.
The protestors have struggled ever since they were refused access to camp within the area of the City & had to compromise by going to St Paul's. When you start your protest by accepting such a compromise you aren't helping your cause.
Another problem the protestors face is if they do (or are portrayed as) disrupting the Remembrance Day service.
Weel said Roger Mellie, that was a staggeringly ignorant statement from ParsifalNYC 
And to answer the original question - no I don't think these protesters will change the world but I certainly sympathise with their position and admire them for standing up against the establishment.
And to answer the original question - no I don't think these protesters will change the world but I certainly sympathise with their position and admire them for standing up against the establishment.
Oh dear. How do I tackle this.
I would like to address some of Roger's individual points, but ... ahem! ... it's a bit long and too many.
If I'm ignorant them I'm willing to learn, as always. And I've learned a lot about Britain from you fine folks. However, how does that saying go? The thing that separates us is a common language. Or something like that. I think there's a bit of that at play here too. Socrates is quoted to have said that he loves it when he is proven wrong because that purges ignorance from him.
Yes, the US has classes. And yes the US has a far wider gap between rich and poor than the UK and probably the entire industrialized world, but that is a fairly recent situation (since about 30 years ago, a trend that started with the Reagan administration). But the US has never had class "boundaries" in the same way that the UK had (yes, I'm aware of the changes in the UK in recent decades). Any shoemaker's son could become CEO of a major corporation. But that top group in the US is very elite and it always has been. It's just that its membership has always been open to anyone who could make it through the door. But, 1% is 1%. There is room for no more. It's my understanding that until a generation ago this kind of mobility was impossible in the UK (or close to it). I recall it being noteworthy that Margaret Thatcher, who was not upper class, became prime minister. Well, Abraham Lincoln became president more than 100 years before that. Not much noteworthy about that. Where am I going with this? I have no idea.
So what did I say?
One difference is that this inequality is more widely accepted in Britain with its history of class boundaries than it is in America.
What did I mean by that? (It may not have been the best choice of words for what I was saying.)
A comparison of Occupy Wall Street with the St. Paul's Protestors may show that to be true (and maybe not). We're not getting enough coverage here of the St. Paul's Protestors (maybe we are, I don't watch TV), but I'm getting the sense that a different "sound" is coming from the two groups. Is it fair to say that one followed from the other? And in the end one group may turn out to have more punch than the other, I would argue for cultural reasons.
Even here on fmf I sense a tendency for our British brethren to stay within "boundaries" where Americans do less so. Or is that just me? (Which is why we're often in hot water with you folks. ) Even though class boundaries in Britain have been disappearing over time it still exists to an extent within the national consciousness. America has a very different consciousness because it has had a different social history. (As I recall, when I was in London last year Roger and I had a related stimulating discussion about self-deprecation.)
I'm not sure what I've said, but there it is. I'm willing to be wrong and to learn. I'm sure I'll get flamed.
Weel said Roger Mellie, that was a staggeringly ignorant statement from ParsifalNYC
Oh, don't be so offended. For Christ's sake. Loosen up a bit.
I would like to address some of Roger's individual points, but ... ahem! ... it's a bit long and too many.
If I'm ignorant them I'm willing to learn, as always. And I've learned a lot about Britain from you fine folks. However, how does that saying go? The thing that separates us is a common language. Or something like that.
I think there's a bit of that at play here too. Socrates is quoted to have said that he loves it when he is proven wrong because that purges ignorance from him.Yes, the US has classes. And yes the US has a far wider gap between rich and poor than the UK and probably the entire industrialized world, but that is a fairly recent situation (since about 30 years ago, a trend that started with the Reagan administration). But the US has never had class "boundaries" in the same way that the UK had (yes, I'm aware of the changes in the UK in recent decades). Any shoemaker's son could become CEO of a major corporation. But that top group in the US is very elite and it always has been. It's just that its membership has always been open to anyone who could make it through the door. But, 1% is 1%. There is room for no more. It's my understanding that until a generation ago this kind of mobility was impossible in the UK (or close to it). I recall it being noteworthy that Margaret Thatcher, who was not upper class, became prime minister. Well, Abraham Lincoln became president more than 100 years before that. Not much noteworthy about that. Where am I going with this? I have no idea.
So what did I say?
QUOTE(ParsifalNYC @ Nov 6 2011, 10:34)
One difference is that this inequality is more widely accepted in Britain with its history of class boundaries than it is in America.
What did I mean by that? (It may not have been the best choice of words for what I was saying.)
A comparison of Occupy Wall Street with the St. Paul's Protestors may show that to be true (and maybe not). We're not getting enough coverage here of the St. Paul's Protestors (maybe we are, I don't watch TV), but I'm getting the sense that a different "sound" is coming from the two groups. Is it fair to say that one followed from the other? And in the end one group may turn out to have more punch than the other, I would argue for cultural reasons.
Even here on fmf I sense a tendency for our British brethren to stay within "boundaries" where Americans do less so. Or is that just me? (Which is why we're often in hot water with you folks.
) Even though class boundaries in Britain have been disappearing over time it still exists to an extent within the national consciousness. America has a very different consciousness because it has had a different social history. (As I recall, when I was in London last year Roger and I had a related stimulating discussion about self-deprecation.)I'm not sure what I've said, but there it is. I'm willing to be wrong and to learn. I'm sure I'll get flamed.
QUOTE(Nosferatu @ Nov 7 2011, 04:47)
Weel said Roger Mellie, that was a staggeringly ignorant statement from ParsifalNYC
Oh, don't be so offended. For Christ's sake. Loosen up a bit.
QUOTE(ParsifalNYC @ Nov 8 2011, 03:52)
Oh, don't be so offended. For Christ's sake. Loosen up a bit.
Oh I wasn't particularly offended, now you've elaborated on your comment it makes a bit more sense although I would still disagree strongly on your perception of British history (I could write an essay on why your comments on Thatcher are complete bollocks, lol) and culture. I would like to point out though that the "Occupy" protests in the US may have been getting a lot of publicity lately but they are by no means a starting point or original idea - there have been anti-capitalist and economic ethhics protests going on around the world now for a few years.
Thanks for your elaboration on your points Parsy, alas some of your further comments are still off the mark. I won't apologise for the length of my last post or the follwing one, since it seems require a lot to burst your know-it-all bubble of arrogant ignorance.
Alas I tend find you need a lot of convincing before you reconsider your prejudices; so hopefully plenty proof to dispel them, may just work
To add to Socrates pearl of wisdom, I would add that you can avoid ignorance in the first place, by avoiding (second-hand) prejudice and thence jumping to false conclusions or logically fallacious deductions; instead preferring to base your views on actual facts and evidence. You would learn better if you questioned more, and assume less. Intelligence is about questioning eveything you know, not knowing everything.
Enlightenment session soon beckons for you Parsy, for the latter option: Socrates is quoted to have said that he loves it when he is proven wrong because that purges ignorance from him? Well I think you need a full irrigation, when it comes to your comments on Britain
>>> But the US has never had class "boundaries" in the same way that the UK had (yes, I'm aware of the changes in the UK in recent decades) <<<
Perhaps so, or could it be there are/were just less blatant or acknowledged in the USA? What about those who live "on the wrong side of the tracks"? I wonder how many "rednecks" and "trailer-trash" folks, have or will get out of their class through the generations? Sincere question there
>>> Any shoemaker's son could become CEO of a major corporation... I sense a tendency for our British brethren to stay within "boundaries" where Americans do less so. Or is that just me? <<<
Aye it is just you... or maybe Icarus as well
Inwhat ways to we stay within our boundaries, or is that just another one of your vague assumptions? Regarding your shoemaker's son analogy: The same can happen with the UK, to give you some current examples: Alan Sugar a salient example. He started out working-life (I think he's mentioned this once or twice ) working out on his father's humble market store; he went to found Amstrad, one of the largest electronics companies in the world.
Duncan Bannatyre came from a poor area of Glasgow; his parents so poor, they could not afford to by him a bike. He now presides a business empire that presides over hotels, health clubs, spas, media, telly, stage schools, property and transport-- with an esitmate fortune of £430mln. His telly colleague Hilary Devey spent her teenage years in a house with bankrupt father who had the bailiffs round, in a poor area of Bolton. She went onto to launch Pallex, the freight company, with a turnover of £~100mln. All people who are far from upper(-middle) class background, who made success for themselves. I could give many more examples to refute your claim that we like "to stay within our boundaries" here.
It's your misunderstanding that "until a generation ago" this kind of mobility was impossible in the UK (or "close to it"). The Feudal System died out centuries ago! Again there are numerous examples of Victorian (much more than a generation ago!) business-magnates, who came from humble backgrounds-- here are a couple...
Take Titus Salt, who was Bradford's largest employer in 1850s, owning several factories across the city. He built the philanthropist village Saltaire and even became Bradford's mayor in the mid-C19th. Not bad for somebody who started out life as humble wool-stapler. Or Solomon Andrews, a contemporary of Sir Titus. In his 20s he was a baker; by the turn of the century, his business empire covered everything from tramways and busses, to draperies and collieries!
>>> I recall it being noteworthy that Margaret Thatcher, who was not upper class, became prime minister. Well, Abraham Lincoln became president more than 100 years before that. Not much noteworthy about that. Where am I going with this? I have no idea. <<<
Nowhere fast, because your preconceptions are false. During our London conversation, we talked about about this very example (Maggie) When I was quick enough to interrupt, I actually picked you up about this; clearly my educational reply was so "stimulating", you've forgotten it since Time for a re-cap...
The noteworthy thing about Maragaret Thatcher, was that she the first female prime-minister of Britain, so her ascendence was seen as trimuph for feminism, rather than class; because there had been plenty of non-upper-class Prime Ministers before her.
Harold Wilson was from a middle-class background (father a chemist, mother a teacher) from distinctly un-posh Huddersfield. Ted Heath was the son of a carpenter (regarded as working-class). Most notably of all Thatcher's predecessors was Ramsey MacDonald, of the Victorian era, who was the illegitmate child of a farm-hand... in terms of Victorian society, you couldn't get much lower than that!
>>> Even though class boundaries in Britain have been disappearing over time it still exists to an extent within the national consciousness <<<
Certainly the govt and advertisers still talk of class (albeit in guise of "demographics" and "socio-economic groups"). However I don't believe it's in the conscious of my colleagues/family/friends; beyond acknowledgement of the unavoidably upper-class royal family-- and even they are marrying 'commoners' now.
Obviously I can't speak for a nation (but at least I live here!), however my peers don't feel restricted. I think they are grateful to have a job, a roof ever their head (not caring about the 'class' of the neighbourhood) and realise they any of us could lose our jobs or businesses, regardless of what 'class' that work is. Besides, as I said previously, so many 'working-class' jobs have disappeared, the ones that exist typically have equally earnings as many 'middle-class' jobs anyway.
Come to think of it, I grew up in a mixed area in terms of 'class', and my fellow school pupils reflect this. Years later, it fascinating to think what became of them. It's true some have stayed within their 'class' (and what's wrong with that if they're happy and achieving?). Yet many 'working-class' kids have become adults running their own business, or highly respected professionals. Some kids from parents with highly respectable professions or posh upper-class houses, have been become adults working in traditionally 'working-class' jobs.
My current colleagues (I do a govt clerical/admin job), have come from a wide variety of previous jobs and backgrounds. I'm sure my colleagues and former school contemporaries are not an isolated bubble, when it comes to Britain's social moblity. And before you say 'class' is clearly on my conscious-- this is one of the very few times I've sat back and really thought about it!
>>> America has a very different consciousness because it has had a different social history. (As I recall, when I was in London last year Roger and I had a related stimulating discussion about self-deprecation <<<
Yes I recall this. As impressed on you then (and have done several times since), our "self-depreciation" is routed in British humour, it's a big national joke, part of our dialogue (much like talking about the weather)-- it's not a class thing. As much as l admire your personality and undoubted intelligence, I feel your lack of common-sense at times precludes you from grasp this, IE 'getting' British humour.
I recall during our conversation about this, you just sutbbornly couldn't/wouldn't accept that our tendency for self-depreciation is generally not borne of self-hatred or 'class issues'-- rather than merely out of irony for amusement: The good-natured concept of laugh at one's self, before others do-- nobody is laughable who laughs at themselves. It seems lost on you that it is seen as a sign of healthy sign of self-esteem to laugh at one's self in Britain {i}-- I suppose it's not a cultural facet that exists in the USA [shrug]. And although Americans can get irony, I find it's not readily appreciated, and Amercians tend to take themselves (too) seriously. Here in Britain 'taking the piss' is quite often a sign of affection, whereas in the USA is perceived as an insult; perhaps ending in one got shot or sued
>>> A comparison of Occupy Wall Street with the St. Paul's Protestors may show that to be true (and maybe not). We're not getting enough coverage here of the St. Paul's Protestors (maybe we are, I don't watch TV), but I'm getting the sense that a different "sound" is coming from the two groups <<<
Barring the NYT (of course), it's my observation that the American media is notoriously insular when it comes to reporting news outside the USA boundaries (which perhaps explains narrow views you have been fed about Britain), so you be forgiven for thinking that the St Paul's portests are insignificant-- however there are backed up similar camps right across the UK (Nottingham Market Square for instance). And the planned strikes here on 30th November will make the Wall St protest look tame
Sense there's a different sound? Well firstly the USA has nothing like the welfare state to help the poor, that we have in the UK, so the USA has a lot more to be angry about. For instance the health system in the USA under the yoke of pharmaceutical corporatatism, totally different to the UK with its tax-funded NHS.
Secondly I think the British tend to be pro-active: We like to set up volunteer schemes, lobby politicians, protest through the media (letters pages in papers, contributions in BBC debates), go on strikes and contribute to charities; after Norway, Brits are often (reportedly) the second-biggest donators to charity in the world. The consensus view in my social circle, is that they admire the sentiment of these protestors, but don't see them as pro-active (considering what they could be doing.)
Is it fair to say the UK protest followed from the USA one? Not really, ultimately. As I demonstrated, the British have a long history of protesting against poverty (confer the movements I mentioned in my last post), long before Wall Street was even built and Lincoln became president of the USA. This why Nostrefrau was right in his charge of "ignorance", because you (conveniently?) ignored all the movements mentioned before.
{i} A demonstration about British self-depreciation being routed in irony...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxmu9HKN4gY
Alas I tend find you need a lot of convincing before you reconsider your prejudices; so hopefully plenty proof to dispel them, may just work
To add to Socrates pearl of wisdom, I would add that you can avoid ignorance in the first place, by avoiding (second-hand) prejudice and thence jumping to false conclusions or logically fallacious deductions; instead preferring to base your views on actual facts and evidence. You would learn better if you questioned more, and assume less. Intelligence is about questioning eveything you know, not knowing everything.Enlightenment session soon beckons for you Parsy, for the latter option: Socrates is quoted to have said that he loves it when he is proven wrong because that purges ignorance from him? Well I think you need a full irrigation, when it comes to your comments on Britain
>>> But the US has never had class "boundaries" in the same way that the UK had (yes, I'm aware of the changes in the UK in recent decades) <<<
Perhaps so, or could it be there are/were just less blatant or acknowledged in the USA? What about those who live "on the wrong side of the tracks"? I wonder how many "rednecks" and "trailer-trash" folks, have or will get out of their class through the generations? Sincere question there
>>> Any shoemaker's son could become CEO of a major corporation... I sense a tendency for our British brethren to stay within "boundaries" where Americans do less so. Or is that just me? <<<
Aye it is just you... or maybe Icarus as well
Inwhat ways to we stay within our boundaries, or is that just another one of your vague assumptions? Regarding your shoemaker's son analogy: The same can happen with the UK, to give you some current examples: Alan Sugar a salient example. He started out working-life (I think he's mentioned this once or twice ) working out on his father's humble market store; he went to found Amstrad, one of the largest electronics companies in the world.Duncan Bannatyre came from a poor area of Glasgow; his parents so poor, they could not afford to by him a bike. He now presides a business empire that presides over hotels, health clubs, spas, media, telly, stage schools, property and transport-- with an esitmate fortune of £430mln. His telly colleague Hilary Devey spent her teenage years in a house with bankrupt father who had the bailiffs round, in a poor area of Bolton. She went onto to launch Pallex, the freight company, with a turnover of £~100mln. All people who are far from upper(-middle) class background, who made success for themselves. I could give many more examples to refute your claim that we like "to stay within our boundaries" here.
It's your misunderstanding that "until a generation ago" this kind of mobility was impossible in the UK (or "close to it"). The Feudal System died out centuries ago! Again there are numerous examples of Victorian (much more than a generation ago!) business-magnates, who came from humble backgrounds-- here are a couple...
Take Titus Salt, who was Bradford's largest employer in 1850s, owning several factories across the city. He built the philanthropist village Saltaire and even became Bradford's mayor in the mid-C19th. Not bad for somebody who started out life as humble wool-stapler. Or Solomon Andrews, a contemporary of Sir Titus. In his 20s he was a baker; by the turn of the century, his business empire covered everything from tramways and busses, to draperies and collieries!
>>> I recall it being noteworthy that Margaret Thatcher, who was not upper class, became prime minister. Well, Abraham Lincoln became president more than 100 years before that. Not much noteworthy about that. Where am I going with this? I have no idea.
<<<Nowhere fast, because your preconceptions are false. During our London conversation, we talked about about this very example (Maggie)
When I was quick enough to interrupt, I actually picked you up about this; clearly my educational reply was so "stimulating", you've forgotten it since Time for a re-cap... The noteworthy thing about Maragaret Thatcher, was that she the first female prime-minister of Britain, so her ascendence was seen as trimuph for feminism, rather than class; because there had been plenty of non-upper-class Prime Ministers before her.
Harold Wilson was from a middle-class background (father a chemist, mother a teacher) from distinctly un-posh Huddersfield. Ted Heath was the son of a carpenter (regarded as working-class). Most notably of all Thatcher's predecessors was Ramsey MacDonald, of the Victorian era, who was the illegitmate child of a farm-hand... in terms of Victorian society, you couldn't get much lower than that!
>>> Even though class boundaries in Britain have been disappearing over time it still exists to an extent within the national consciousness <<<
Certainly the govt and advertisers still talk of class (albeit in guise of "demographics" and "socio-economic groups"). However I don't believe it's in the conscious of my colleagues/family/friends; beyond acknowledgement of the unavoidably upper-class royal family-- and even they are marrying 'commoners' now.
Obviously I can't speak for a nation (but at least I live here!), however my peers don't feel restricted. I think they are grateful to have a job, a roof ever their head (not caring about the 'class' of the neighbourhood) and realise they any of us could lose our jobs or businesses, regardless of what 'class' that work is. Besides, as I said previously, so many 'working-class' jobs have disappeared, the ones that exist typically have equally earnings as many 'middle-class' jobs anyway.
Come to think of it, I grew up in a mixed area in terms of 'class', and my fellow school pupils reflect this. Years later, it fascinating to think what became of them. It's true some have stayed within their 'class' (and what's wrong with that if they're happy and achieving?). Yet many 'working-class' kids have become adults running their own business, or highly respected professionals. Some kids from parents with highly respectable professions or posh upper-class houses, have been become adults working in traditionally 'working-class' jobs.
My current colleagues (I do a govt clerical/admin job), have come from a wide variety of previous jobs and backgrounds. I'm sure my colleagues and former school contemporaries are not an isolated bubble, when it comes to Britain's social moblity. And before you say 'class' is clearly on my conscious-- this is one of the very few times I've sat back and really thought about it!
>>> America has a very different consciousness because it has had a different social history. (As I recall, when I was in London last year Roger and I had a related stimulating discussion about self-deprecation <<<
Yes I recall this. As impressed on you then (and have done several times since
), our "self-depreciation" is routed in British humour, it's a big national joke, part of our dialogue (much like talking about the weather)-- it's not a class thing. As much as l admire your personality and undoubted intelligence, I feel your lack of common-sense at times precludes you from grasp this, IE 'getting' British humour.I recall during our conversation about this, you just sutbbornly couldn't/wouldn't accept that our tendency for self-depreciation is generally not borne of self-hatred or 'class issues'-- rather than merely out of irony for amusement: The good-natured concept of laugh at one's self, before others do-- nobody is laughable who laughs at themselves. It seems lost on you that it is seen as a sign of healthy sign of self-esteem to laugh at one's self in Britain {i}-- I suppose it's not a cultural facet that exists in the USA [shrug]. And although Americans can get irony, I find it's not readily appreciated, and Amercians tend to take themselves (too) seriously. Here in Britain 'taking the piss' is quite often a sign of affection, whereas in the USA is perceived as an insult; perhaps ending in one got shot or sued
>>> A comparison of Occupy Wall Street with the St. Paul's Protestors may show that to be true (and maybe not). We're not getting enough coverage here of the St. Paul's Protestors (maybe we are, I don't watch TV), but I'm getting the sense that a different "sound" is coming from the two groups <<<
Barring the NYT (of course
), it's my observation that the American media is notoriously insular when it comes to reporting news outside the USA boundaries (which perhaps explains narrow views you have been fed about Britain), so you be forgiven for thinking that the St Paul's portests are insignificant-- however there are backed up similar camps right across the UK (Nottingham Market Square for instance). And the planned strikes here on 30th November will make the Wall St protest look tame Sense there's a different sound? Well firstly the USA has nothing like the welfare state to help the poor, that we have in the UK, so the USA has a lot more to be angry about. For instance the health system in the USA under the yoke of pharmaceutical corporatatism, totally different to the UK with its tax-funded NHS.
Secondly I think the British tend to be pro-active: We like to set up volunteer schemes, lobby politicians, protest through the media (letters pages in papers, contributions in BBC debates), go on strikes and contribute to charities; after Norway, Brits are often (reportedly) the second-biggest donators to charity in the world. The consensus view in my social circle, is that they admire the sentiment of these protestors, but don't see them as pro-active (considering what they could be doing.)
Is it fair to say the UK protest followed from the USA one? Not really, ultimately. As I demonstrated, the British have a long history of protesting against poverty (confer the movements I mentioned in my last post), long before Wall Street was even built and Lincoln became president of the USA. This why Nostrefrau was right in his charge of "ignorance", because you (conveniently?) ignored all the movements mentioned before.
{i} A demonstration about British self-depreciation being routed in irony...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxmu9HKN4gY
Thank you for the education Roger. 
You have indeed dispelled some ignorances here (particularly the part about British prime ministers).
However, I'm not the only one with prejudices, misconceptions and tinted glasses. I see in at least one place I wasn't clear (perhaps more), however you don't read carefully what I write.
Rather in some places you appear to have read what you want it to say. In some places we seem to be talking past each other.
You wrote a lot , however I'll address only a couple of points.
My comments about "class" in the US were about "mobility" which you seem to have missed. Class and economic inequality has always existed here. Economic mobility has always been unhindered here. There are many things that make a nation's consciousness unique which shows in its music, literature, humor, etc. This economic mobility is one of the things that has made America what it is today (for better or worse), i.e. the door to the elite is open to anyone who can walk through it. There was a time when if you weren't happy with your lot you could simply pack up and move to the frontier. "Land enclosure" (as it's called) and the disappearance of the frontier occurred here in the 1890s. If I'm not mistaken, in Britain that happened with the Battle of Hastings (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I love that! Remember? ) You get the idea. Yes? Your understanding of the American consciousness suggests that you're due for another visit. (Granted, I was the protagonist here and not you.)
Thank you for the many examples of "shoemaker's sons" who built their own empires. But you missed the mark there. That's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was shoemaker's sons who became head of a major (existing!!!) bank or maybe the Bank of England or head of Britain's largest auto manufacturer, etc. NOT someone who "built" his own major company. Now that you understand what I said I'm sure you'll provide examples. Thank you. I'm looking forward to purging another ignorance.
As for the discussion on self-deprecation you have selective memory there too!
The final point that we agreed on was that there is a difference between self-deprecation which is purely of humor with no subtle baggage attached to it and that which (subtlely or subconsciously) imposes a fence around one's aspirations, beyond which one dares not go. Only the self-deprecator can know which it is, but to come to that understanding might take a few sessions with a Freudian psychoanalyst. When I first started posting here on fmf I was a bit taken aback by how many posters make self-depricating remarks. Yes, it's said with humor, but it's not something that is common among Americans. We're taught to put our best foot forward. Whether it's pure humor or not it does cause one to wonder if it is indeed rooted in a (past) class system. I recall reading once about how Prince Charles got all upset because employees on his staff aspired to moving up in the job ladder. (Not his job though!)
And I've said many times that I don't understand British humor.
You'll be pleased to learn that in today's print edition of The New York Times, save for a mixture of national and international news on pages 1 to 3, pages 4 through 13 were devoted exclusively to international news (including a few full-page advertisements). National News began on page 14.
Every time I visit Britain I find it a challenge finding any international news in the British papers at all! The ones I recall reading are The Guardian and The Telegraph. Should I be reading something else? You gave me a primer on British newspapers, but I've forgotten. Sorry.
You have indeed dispelled some ignorances here (particularly the part about British prime ministers).
However, I'm not the only one with prejudices, misconceptions and tinted glasses. I see in at least one place I wasn't clear (perhaps more), however you don't read carefully what I write.
Rather in some places you appear to have read what you want it to say. In some places we seem to be talking past each other.You wrote a lot
, however I'll address only a couple of points.My comments about "class" in the US were about "mobility" which you seem to have missed. Class and economic inequality has always existed here. Economic mobility has always been unhindered here. There are many things that make a nation's consciousness unique which shows in its music, literature, humor, etc. This economic mobility is one of the things that has made America what it is today (for better or worse), i.e. the door to the elite is open to anyone who can walk through it. There was a time when if you weren't happy with your lot you could simply pack up and move to the frontier. "Land enclosure" (as it's called) and the disappearance of the frontier occurred here in the 1890s. If I'm not mistaken, in Britain that happened with the Battle of Hastings (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I love that! Remember?
) You get the idea. Yes? Your understanding of the American consciousness suggests that you're due for another visit. (Granted, I was the protagonist here and not you.)Thank you for the many examples of "shoemaker's sons" who built their own empires. But you missed the mark there. That's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was shoemaker's sons who became head of a major (existing!!!) bank or maybe the Bank of England or head of Britain's largest auto manufacturer, etc. NOT someone who "built" his own major company. Now that you understand what I said I'm sure you'll provide examples. Thank you. I'm looking forward to purging another ignorance.
As for the discussion on self-deprecation you have selective memory there too!
The final point that we agreed on was that there is a difference between self-deprecation which is purely of humor with no subtle baggage attached to it and that which (subtlely or subconsciously) imposes a fence around one's aspirations, beyond which one dares not go. Only the self-deprecator can know which it is, but to come to that understanding might take a few sessions with a Freudian psychoanalyst. When I first started posting here on fmf I was a bit taken aback by how many posters make self-depricating remarks. Yes, it's said with humor, but it's not something that is common among Americans. We're taught to put our best foot forward. Whether it's pure humor or not it does cause one to wonder if it is indeed rooted in a (past) class system. I recall reading once about how Prince Charles got all upset because employees on his staff aspired to moving up in the job ladder. (Not his job though!)
And I've said many times that I don't understand British humor.
You'll be pleased to learn that in today's print edition of The New York Times, save for a mixture of national and international news on pages 1 to 3, pages 4 through 13 were devoted exclusively to international news (including a few full-page advertisements). National News began on page 14.
Every time I visit Britain I find it a challenge finding any international news in the British papers at all! The ones I recall reading are The Guardian and The Telegraph. Should I be reading something else? You gave me a primer on British newspapers, but I've forgotten. Sorry.
You're most welcome for the education, and thanks for the explanations.
If you are hinting that I have shown prejudices, misconceptions and tinted glasses-- could you please care to give examples of each of these incidents on this thread? I think would not be very constructive or helpful to dubiously accuse me of these things, then not expand on what you mean. Especially you don't live in this country, and you don't provide proof to back up yourprejudices assertions.
Given your (often vague) responses to some of my points; it's not a case that I'm reading what I want to read; but your lack of commonse in not seeing the connection from you had written, to the replies I gave in my last post. Because actually I did read carefully what you put (except for one instance, coming later, oops!), and I considered what you had written; but as you admit yourself you have not been clear in several instances, hence our "talking past" each other. Telepathy is not amongst my talents, I'm regret to say. Although I find your charge baffling, given that have quoted you directly on many occasions. Or is it just cognitive dissonance on you part?
I note your charges of "misunderstanding" and "talking past each other" come when I have challenged or refuted something you have said. Are you so conceited, you think anybody who disagrees with you is mistaken? And that when somebody refutes you, you have supercilliously dismiss them to save face? It says more about you, than the person you seek to patronise. Perhaps more therapy is required, to iron out that superiority complex of yours)
Yes my posts are long (that again, you need to freshen up your act), but you did say you enjoy have your ignorance purged, so needs must. You are proof of the adage: "The less somebody knows, the more stubbornly they know it". There are none so blind, as those who won't see! Your sententious know-it-all bubble needs bursting sometimes, with great weight. However I will gladly defer to your comments about USA moblity, which is why I made inquires (as opposed to assumptions) and posed the questions I did (to have misconception/prejudices, one is sure of one's beliefs and not questioning them).
The rest of my comments in terms of moblity were in reference to your claim that the British "like to stay within their boundaries", which is a false prejudice and I gave a valid refutal. I don't know much about land enclosure (aside that it gives us the beautiful countryside we have today); however I would add that the result of the Battle of Hastings gave Britain positive progress, such as the Domesday Book, trial by jury and Magna Carta.
>>>Your understanding of the American consciousness suggests that you're due for another visit. (Granted, I was the protagonist here and not you.)<<<
OK, but care to inform me about what I have misunderstood "about the American conscious" (another example of a vague reply)? I admit it's a few years since I've visited the USA. However I actually have many American (pen-)friends who keep me in the loop; rather than forming half-baked assumptions, I prefer to ask open questions: I ask them all about it their lives, their view on the USA and it culture-- they give me full and honest answers-- so I'm not completely nescient about American cultural mores (They all warn me about New Yorkers, for some reason... something about NYers being "pretentious" and often having no self-awareness... whatever could they mean).
To be fair, my views about the USA have been expressed subjectively or interogatively on thread-- and besides I've actually talked very little about the USA previously in this thread-- my comments are/were mostly about this country. It's you who insists on putting an American angle on everything on these boards.
>>> Thank you for the many examples of "shoemaker's sons" who built their own empires. But you missed the mark there. That's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was shoemaker's sons who became head of a major (existing!!!) bank or maybe the Bank of England or head of Britain's largest auto manufacturer, etc. NOT someone who "built" his own major company. Now that you understand what I said I'm sure you'll provide examples. Thank you. I'm looking forward to purging another ignorance. <<<
Fair enough, but actually the point you respond to ^, were examples I gave to dispel your odurate misconception that British like to stay within their "boundaries"-- I was just making the *general* remark that rags-to-riches stories are plentiful in Britain-- past and present. So it's you talking past me, and reading what you want to read, so think on before you are consdesending Fair enough about the shoemaker's son anaolgy, that I was one bit of your post I didn't read properly-- I confess I didn't appreciate you meant established companies-- fair cop.
However just because you aren't aware of any examples, it doesn't mean they don't exist. This what I mean by "ignorance" on your part, not least this arrogant assumption of yours, that you think know everything The Titus Salt example is still relevant; he was the CEO (or whatever the term was then) of several large textile firms and factories in West Yorkshire, before he started to run factories under his own company; those large firms would've been amongst the biggest companies in the country, considering how big the cotton/woollen industry was then. Another example from Victorian times was the non-upper-class William Knox, from working-class Newton Abbott (back then an industrial train-repairing centre). He went onto to become a partner in the established Thomas Skarratt Hall mining company, before eventually taking it over-- a company that was worth ~£496 million.
If you want some present examples, the present chairman of John Lewis (often named as second biggest British company, profit £~220mln), Charles Mayfield worked started his working life progressing through the ranks of the army. The Group Chief Executive of Gala-Coral (is/was Britain's largest company, annual sales of £~5.4bln ) is currently Carl Leaver, who started his working life as an admin clerk at a pet-food factory.
Theo Paphitis was of an immigrant family, who grew up in a poor area of north London and he went to a comp school-- his first job was tea-boy and factotum at an insurance-brokers. Since then he has became joint-chairman of NAG Telecom, then a CEO of Milwall Football Club (upper-league football clubs are typically big money here). Closer to home, Nottingham Forest is another successful football club: Chairman Frank Clark, is from working-class Consett in Co Durham... after 'menial' jobs, he was a footy-player until the late-1970s (in the days when footy players weren't paid massive salaries), and he's worked his way up from being manager, to being the club chairman.
A small number of examples for you there, a please to burst your obstinate wiseacre mentality
>>>As for the discussion on self-deprecation you have selective memory there too! <<<
Tu quoque eh? Given you had completely forgotten our London conversation about Lady Thatcher and her predecessor, that's rather like a donkey sneering at a hare for having long ears Although your accusation is false.
I think this is a case of your reading what you to read (you've got FMFitis), because there's no selective memory here on my part: My comment was in the last post (note my emphasis): "Our [the British] tendency for self-depreciation is generally not borne of self-hatred or 'class issues"-- as in "generally" meaning there are exceptions to that. So I never denied/forgot that we agreed that there is a difference between self-deprecation-- which is purely of humour with no subtle baggage attached to it-- and that which (subtlely or subconsciously) imposes "a fence around one's aspirations".
I was just pointing out that you have difficulty grasping the irony of most self-depreciation in this country (you say yourself, you don't get British humour)-- mistaking the former for the latter. You patronisingly pointed it out in me; so I had to go to great pains to explain my own self-depreciation was a joke (I'm happy perfectly with my life, plus I have a great job, thanks).
Whilst your IQ is undoubtedly toweringly high, I don't think your EQ is: You do not need to have an in-depth knowledge of Freudian psychoanalysm to know if somebody is making a genuninely self-depreciative comment; you just listen for the ironic tone (perhaps this is not common amongst Americans too?), or look for the wry smile or smirk. My observation is that you are far too literal (or too sententious) or lacking in commonsense to ever really get it; not necessarily a bad quality per se; but that will ever sink you, if you try to analyse our humour.
Because again you wonder if our humour is "indeed rooted in a (past) class system". A hint of truth possibly, a few sitcoms have been themed on this: However these poke fun at pretention and pomposity (hence your inabilty to appreciate, being so afflicted), rather than ernest self-improvement. I do find it highly amusing that you confess you don't understand British humour, yet you are formulating theories of where it comes from It's like not having the first clue about physics, but then challenging Einstein's Theory Of Relativity.
Our humour is it is rooted in that saying, you always like me quoting:
In America life is serious, but with hope; in Britain life is hopeless, but not serious
I don't know whether you agree with the comment on the US, but it sums up British sense of humour. We put our best foot foward here too (Blitz spirit and all that), but we can still do it without taking ourselves too seriously. And why shouldn't we not laugh about our mistakes, we're all human and we all make them. Nobody likes people who take themselves oh-so-seriously, Piers Morgan and Jeffery Archer we're looking at you. Michael Caine is a brilliant example of somebody who is highly successful and confident, but sends himself up. Even Alan Sugar has been known to poke fun at himself
We British have no problem with and do not take the piss out of success per se, healthy dignity and self-esteem. If owt we take the piss out of those who are arrogant and self-important, because of the inherent riduculousness of these people imperiously believing they are better than other people (which is why I often PML at your posts), merely because of their jobs or higher earnings. In the USA, don't you just shoot people like that or sue them instead? [satirical]
British humour is simply just the want to look on the bright side of life, to quote our second national anthem. I would argue the root of self-depreciative humour is not to do with class-system, but it is rooted in two staples of British humour-- irony and dark humour. In the first instance: Highlighting the faults of something you've done, now matter how succesful you've been-- the humour is derived from the inherent irony of doing this.
Secondly we have humour in schadenfreude here, not least when misfortune strikes ourselves. One common saying here, is: "You've got to laugh, otherwise you cry". When First World War broke out, soldiers of all classes were stuck together in trenches (something that irreversibly broke down class-barriers), yet between them they produced the Yypres Times, a spoof newspaper that grimly poked fun at that situation-- they knew they were cannon-fodder and laughed about it.
This tendency is, in fact, a subtly disguised form of self-aggrandisement. British self-deprecation is actually quite boastful; its primary purpose is to show how relaxed, at ease and confident we are. It's a sign of being so in command that you can undersell yourself. So is British self-deprecation just one big humblebrag? We really are useless; aren't we, utterly useless.
I would also point that self-depreciating humour is not the reserve of the British; Jews the world over are masters of it, especially in times when they persecuted. Even Americans can do it: Joan Rivers, George Hamilton and Johnny Depp being notable examples-- must be that American class-system to blame Even you manage some, saying you "value humility highly"... that's got to be ironic, coming from you...
>>> Every time I visit Britain I find it a challenge finding any international news in the British papers at all! The ones I recall reading are The Guardian and The Telegraph. Should I be reading something else? You gave me a primer on British newspapers, but I've forgotten. Sorry.
<<<
I'll take your word on NYT, I've never read it. I still have a couple of USA newspapers from my visit, and the only foreign stories in them, and concerning American interests abroad! I was amazed by the number of Americans who did not know there were British (or other non-American NATO troops) fighting in A'ghan. Other than that, nowt. Perhaps explains why few Americans I've encountered have heard of Wales, think that the whole of Europe can lumped together in one homogeneous cultural lump, and they talk about the "Queen Of England" [satiricial]
As for our papers, you haven't really challenged yourself, if you've only read The Guardian or Telegraph-- was that it? Two of many papers available here. As well as main international new stories in the regular part of The Times, there's an in-depth section of the paper cunningly called World News. The two of the headline news-stories of today's The Independent, were Italy's borrowing-costs, and Greek PM announcing his new govt-- The Indy is good at global stories I'd say. The Daily Telegraph does have international news in, as does Guardian, obviously you didn't look very hard (or there wasn't that much international news that day)
If our newspapers aren't to you taste, I would also recommend BBC News (Channel) or Channel 4 News, both certainly recognise a world exists beyond British boundaries-- unlike USA television news in my experience. BBC does excellent current airs documentaries from around the world as does Channel 4 on occasion (Unreported World is recommended)
>>> I recall reading once about how Prince Charles got all upset because employees on his staff aspired to moving up in the job ladder. (Not his job though!) <<<
He's royalty, how we expect them to know that much about the real world However this not the first time you've denigrated Prince Charles (no doubt on the basis of equally ignorant NYT articles): Charles did do a Full Monty dance-routine tribute (mercifully fully-clothed) in a dole office once. And Prince Charles was once called a "grovelling bastard" by Spike Milligan, and Prince Charles took it gracefully and thought it was hilarious. So he does have *some* humility
If you are hinting that I have shown prejudices, misconceptions and tinted glasses-- could you please care to give examples of each of these incidents on this thread? I think would not be very constructive or helpful to dubiously accuse me of these things, then not expand on what you mean. Especially you don't live in this country, and you don't provide proof to back up your
Given your (often vague) responses to some of my points; it's not a case that I'm reading what I want to read; but your lack of commonse in not seeing the connection from you had written, to the replies I gave in my last post. Because actually I did read carefully what you put (except for one instance, coming later, oops!), and I considered what you had written; but as you admit yourself you have not been clear in several instances, hence our "talking past" each other. Telepathy is not amongst my talents, I'm regret to say. Although I find your charge baffling, given that have quoted you directly on many occasions. Or is it just cognitive dissonance on you part?
I note your charges of "misunderstanding" and "talking past each other" come when I have challenged or refuted something you have said. Are you so conceited, you think anybody who disagrees with you is mistaken? And that when somebody refutes you, you have supercilliously dismiss them to save face? It says more about you, than the person you seek to patronise. Perhaps more therapy is required, to iron out that superiority complex of yours)
Yes my posts are long (that again, you need to freshen up your act), but you did say you enjoy have your ignorance purged, so needs must. You are proof of the adage: "The less somebody knows, the more stubbornly they know it
". There are none so blind, as those who won't see! Your sententious know-it-all bubble needs bursting sometimes, with great weight. However I will gladly defer to your comments about USA moblity, which is why I made inquires (as opposed to assumptions) and posed the questions I did (to have misconception/prejudices, one is sure of one's beliefs and not questioning them). The rest of my comments in terms of moblity were in reference to your claim that the British "like to stay within their boundaries", which is a false prejudice and I gave a valid refutal. I don't know much about land enclosure (aside that it gives us the beautiful countryside we have today); however I would add that the result of the Battle of Hastings gave Britain positive progress, such as the Domesday Book, trial by jury and Magna Carta.
>>>Your understanding of the American consciousness suggests that you're due for another visit.
(Granted, I was the protagonist here and not you.)<<<OK, but care to inform me about what I have misunderstood "about the American conscious" (another example of a vague reply)? I admit it's a few years since I've visited the USA. However I actually have many American (pen-)friends who keep me in the loop; rather than forming half-baked assumptions, I prefer to ask open questions: I ask them all about it their lives, their view on the USA and it culture-- they give me full and honest answers-- so I'm not completely nescient about American cultural mores (They all warn me about New Yorkers, for some reason... something about NYers being "pretentious" and often having no self-awareness... whatever could they mean).
To be fair, my views about the USA have been expressed subjectively or interogatively on thread-- and besides I've actually talked very little about the USA previously in this thread-- my comments are/were mostly about this country. It's you who insists on putting an American angle on everything on these boards.
>>> Thank you for the many examples of "shoemaker's sons" who built their own empires. But you missed the mark there. That's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was shoemaker's sons who became head of a major (existing!!!) bank or maybe the Bank of England or head of Britain's largest auto manufacturer, etc. NOT someone who "built" his own major company. Now that you understand what I said I'm sure you'll provide examples. Thank you. I'm looking forward to purging another ignorance.
<<<Fair enough, but actually the point you respond to ^, were examples I gave to dispel your odurate misconception that British like to stay within their "boundaries"-- I was just making the *general* remark that rags-to-riches stories are plentiful in Britain-- past and present. So it's you talking past me, and reading what you want to read, so think on before you are consdesending
Fair enough about the shoemaker's son anaolgy, that I was one bit of your post I didn't read properly-- I confess I didn't appreciate you meant established companies-- fair cop. However just because you aren't aware of any examples, it doesn't mean they don't exist. This what I mean by "ignorance" on your part, not least this arrogant assumption of yours, that you think know everything
The Titus Salt example is still relevant; he was the CEO (or whatever the term was then) of several large textile firms and factories in West Yorkshire, before he started to run factories under his own company; those large firms would've been amongst the biggest companies in the country, considering how big the cotton/woollen industry was then. Another example from Victorian times was the non-upper-class William Knox, from working-class Newton Abbott (back then an industrial train-repairing centre). He went onto to become a partner in the established Thomas Skarratt Hall mining company, before eventually taking it over-- a company that was worth ~£496 million.If you want some present examples, the present chairman of John Lewis (often named as second biggest British company, profit £~220mln), Charles Mayfield worked started his working life progressing through the ranks of the army. The Group Chief Executive of Gala-Coral (is/was Britain's largest company, annual sales of £~5.4bln ) is currently Carl Leaver, who started his working life as an admin clerk at a pet-food factory.
Theo Paphitis was of an immigrant family, who grew up in a poor area of north London and he went to a comp school-- his first job was tea-boy and factotum at an insurance-brokers. Since then he has became joint-chairman of NAG Telecom, then a CEO of Milwall Football Club (upper-league football clubs are typically big money here). Closer to home, Nottingham Forest is another successful football club: Chairman Frank Clark, is from working-class Consett in Co Durham... after 'menial' jobs, he was a footy-player until the late-1970s (in the days when footy players weren't paid massive salaries), and he's worked his way up from being manager, to being the club chairman.
A small number of examples for you there, a please to burst your obstinate wiseacre mentality
>>>As for the discussion on self-deprecation you have selective memory there too!
<<<Tu quoque eh? Given you had completely forgotten our London conversation about Lady Thatcher and her predecessor, that's rather like a donkey sneering at a hare for having long ears
Although your accusation is false.I think this is a case of your reading what you to read (you've got FMFitis), because there's no selective memory here on my part: My comment was in the last post (note my emphasis): "Our [the British] tendency for self-depreciation is generally not borne of self-hatred or 'class issues"-- as in "generally" meaning there are exceptions to that. So I never denied/forgot that we agreed that there is a difference between self-deprecation-- which is purely of humour with no subtle baggage attached to it-- and that which (subtlely or subconsciously) imposes "a fence around one's aspirations".
I was just pointing out that you have difficulty grasping the irony of most self-depreciation in this country (you say yourself, you don't get British humour)-- mistaking the former for the latter. You patronisingly pointed it out in me; so I had to go to great pains to explain my own self-depreciation was a joke (I'm happy perfectly with my life, plus I have a great job, thanks).
Whilst your IQ is undoubtedly toweringly high, I don't think your EQ is: You do not need to have an in-depth knowledge of Freudian psychoanalysm to know if somebody is making a genuninely self-depreciative comment; you just listen for the ironic tone (perhaps this is not common amongst Americans too?), or look for the wry smile or smirk. My observation is that you are far too literal (or too sententious) or lacking in commonsense to ever really get it; not necessarily a bad quality per se; but that will ever sink you, if you try to analyse our humour.
Because again you wonder if our humour is "indeed rooted in a (past) class system". A hint of truth possibly, a few sitcoms have been themed on this: However these poke fun at pretention and pomposity (hence your inabilty to appreciate, being so afflicted), rather than ernest self-improvement. I do find it highly amusing that you confess you don't understand British humour, yet you are formulating theories of where it comes from
It's like not having the first clue about physics, but then challenging Einstein's Theory Of Relativity.Our humour is it is rooted in that saying, you always like me quoting:
In America life is serious, but with hope; in Britain life is hopeless, but not serious
I don't know whether you agree with the comment on the US, but it sums up British sense of humour. We put our best foot foward here too (Blitz spirit and all that), but we can still do it without taking ourselves too seriously. And why shouldn't we not laugh about our mistakes, we're all human and we all make them. Nobody likes people who take themselves oh-so-seriously, Piers Morgan and Jeffery Archer we're looking at you. Michael Caine is a brilliant example of somebody who is highly successful and confident, but sends himself up. Even Alan Sugar has been known to poke fun at himself
We British have no problem with and do not take the piss out of success per se, healthy dignity and self-esteem. If owt we take the piss out of those who are arrogant and self-important, because of the inherent riduculousness of these people imperiously believing they are better than other people (which is why I often PML at your posts), merely because of their jobs or higher earnings. In the USA, don't you just shoot people like that or sue them instead? [satirical
]British humour is simply just the want to look on the bright side of life, to quote our second national anthem. I would argue the root of self-depreciative humour is not to do with class-system, but it is rooted in two staples of British humour-- irony and dark humour. In the first instance: Highlighting the faults of something you've done, now matter how succesful you've been-- the humour is derived from the inherent irony of doing this.
Secondly we have humour in schadenfreude here, not least when misfortune strikes ourselves. One common saying here, is: "You've got to laugh, otherwise you cry". When First World War broke out, soldiers of all classes were stuck together in trenches (something that irreversibly broke down class-barriers), yet between them they produced the Yypres Times, a spoof newspaper that grimly poked fun at that situation-- they knew they were cannon-fodder and laughed about it.
This tendency is, in fact, a subtly disguised form of self-aggrandisement. British self-deprecation is actually quite boastful; its primary purpose is to show how relaxed, at ease and confident we are. It's a sign of being so in command that you can undersell yourself. So is British self-deprecation just one big humblebrag? We really are useless; aren't we, utterly useless.
I would also point that self-depreciating humour is not the reserve of the British; Jews the world over are masters of it, especially in times when they persecuted. Even Americans can do it: Joan Rivers, George Hamilton and Johnny Depp being notable examples-- must be that American class-system to blame
Even you manage some, saying you "value humility highly"... that's got to be ironic, coming from you...>>> Every time I visit Britain I find it a challenge finding any international news in the British papers at all! The ones I recall reading are The Guardian and The Telegraph. Should I be reading something else? You gave me a primer on British newspapers, but I've forgotten. Sorry.
<<<
I'll take your word on NYT, I've never read it. I still have a couple of USA newspapers from my visit, and the only foreign stories in them, and concerning American interests abroad! I was amazed by the number of Americans who did not know there were British (or other non-American NATO troops) fighting in A'ghan. Other than that, nowt. Perhaps explains why few Americans I've encountered have heard of Wales, think that the whole of Europe can lumped together in one homogeneous cultural lump, and they talk about the "Queen Of England" [satiricial
]As for our papers, you haven't really challenged yourself, if you've only read The Guardian or Telegraph-- was that it?
Two of many papers available here. As well as main international new stories in the regular part of The Times, there's an in-depth section of the paper cunningly called World News. The two of the headline news-stories of today's The Independent, were Italy's borrowing-costs, and Greek PM announcing his new govt-- The Indy is good at global stories I'd say. The Daily Telegraph does have international news in, as does Guardian, obviously you didn't look very hard (or there wasn't that much international news that day)If our newspapers aren't to you taste, I would also recommend BBC News (Channel) or Channel 4 News, both certainly recognise a world exists beyond British boundaries-- unlike USA television news in my experience. BBC does excellent current airs documentaries from around the world as does Channel 4 on occasion (Unreported World is recommended)
>>> I recall reading once about how Prince Charles got all upset because employees on his staff aspired to moving up in the job ladder. (Not his job though!) <<<
He's royalty, how we expect them to know that much about the real world
However this not the first time you've denigrated Prince Charles (no doubt on the basis of equally ignorant NYT articles): Charles did do a Full Monty dance-routine tribute (mercifully fully-clothed) in a dole office once. And Prince Charles was once called a "grovelling bastard" by Spike Milligan, and Prince Charles took it gracefully and thought it was hilarious. So he does have *some* humility
QUOTE(Roger Mellie @ Nov 9 2011, 21:11)
You're most welcome for the education, and thanks for the explanations.
If you are hinting that I have shown prejudices, misconceptions and tinted glasses-- could please care to give examples of each of these incidents on this thread? I think would not be very constructive or helpful to dubiously accuse me of these things, then not expand on what you mean. Given your (often vague) responses to some of my points; it's not a case that I'm reading what I want to read; but your lack of commonse in not seeing the connection from you had written, to the replies I gave in my last post.
Because actually I did read carefully what you put (except for one instance, coming later, oops!), and I considered what you had written; but as you admit yourself you have not been clear in several instances, hence our "talking past" each other. Telepathy is not amongst my talents, I'm regret to say. Yes my posts are long, but you did say you enjoy have your ignorance purged, so needs must.
I will gladly defer to your comments about USA moblity, which is why I made inquires (as opposed to assumptions) and posed the questions I did (to have misconception/prejudices, one is sure of one's beliefs and not questioning them)
The rest of my comments in terms of moblity were in reference to your claim that the British "like to stay within their boundaries", which is a false prejudice and I gave a valid refutal. I don't know about land enclosure; however I would add that the result of the Battle of Hastings gave Britain positive progress, such as the Domesday Book, trial by jury and Magna Carta.
>>>Your understanding of the American consciousness suggests that you're due for another visit.
(Granted, I was the protagonist here and not you.)<<<OK, but care to inform me about what I have misunderstood about the American conscious (an example of a vague reply)? I admit it's a few years since I've visited the USA. However I actually have many American (pen-)friends who keep me in the loop; rather than forming half-baked assumptions, I prefer to ask open questions: I ask them all about it their lives, their view on the USA and it culture-- they give me full and honest answers-- so I'm not completely nescient about American cultural mores (They all warn me about New Yorkers, for some reason... something about NYers being "pretentious" and often having no self-awareness... whatever could they mean).
To be fair, my views about the USA have been expressed subjectively or interogatively on thread-- and besides I've actually talked very little about the USA previously in this thread-- my comments are/were mostly about this country.
>>> Thank you for the many examples of "shoemaker's sons" who built their own empires. But you missed the mark there. That's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was shoemaker's sons who became head of a major (existing!!!) bank or maybe the Bank of England or head of Britain's largest auto manufacturer, etc. NOT someone who "built" his own major company. Now that you understand what I said I'm sure you'll provide examples. Thank you. I'm looking forward to purging another ignorance.
<<<Fair enough, but actually the point you respond to ^, were examples I gave to dispel your misconception that British like to stay within their "boundaries"-- I was just making the *general* remark that rags-to-riches stories are plentiful in Britain-- past and present. Fair enough about the shoemaker's son anaolgy, that I was one bit of your post I didn't read properly-- I confess I didn't appreciate you meant established companies-- fair cop.
However the Titus Salt example is still relevant; he was the CEO (or whatever the term was then) of several large textile firms and factories in West Yorkshire, before he starting to run factories under his own company (those large firms would've been amongst the biggest companies in the country, considering how big the cotton/woollen industry was then). Another example from Victorian times was the non-upper-class William Knox, from working-class Newton-Abbott (back then an industrial train-repairing centre). He went onto to become a partner in the established Thomas Skarratt Hall mining company, before eventually taking it over-- a company that was worth ~£496 million.
If you want some present examples, the present chairman of John Lewis (often named as second biggest British company, profit £~220mln), Charles Mayfield worked started his working life progressing through the ranks of the army. The Group Chief Executive of Gala-Coral (is/was Britain's largest company, annual sales of £~5.4bln ) is currently Carl Leaver, who started his working life as an admin clerk at a pet-food factory.
Theo Paphitis was of an immigrant family, who grew up in a poor area of north London and he went to a comp school-- his first job was tea-boy and factotum at an insurance-brokers. Since then he has became joint-chairman of NAG Telecom, then a CEO of Milwall Football Club (upper-league football clubs are typically big money here). Closer to home, Nottingham Forest is another successful football club: Chairman Frank Clark, is from working-class Consett in Co Durham... after 'menial' jobs, he was a footy-player until the late-1970s (in the days when footy players weren't paid massive salaries), and he's worked his way up from being manager, to being the club chairman.
A small number of examples for you there.
>>>As for the discussion on self-deprecation you have selective memory there too!
<<<Given you had completely forgotten our London conversation about Lady Thatcher and her predecessor, that's rather like a donkey sneering at a hare for having long ears
I think this is a case of your reading what you to read, because there's no selective memory here on my part: My comment was in the last post (note my emphasis): "Our [the British] tendency for self-depreciation is generally not borne of self-hatred or 'class issues"-- as in "generally" meaning there are exceptions to that. So I never denied/forgot that we agreed that there is a difference between self-deprecation-- which is purely of humour with no subtle baggage attached to it-- and that which (subtlely or subconsciously) imposes a fence around one's aspirations.
I was just pointing out that you have difficulty grasping the irony of most self-depreciation in this country (you say yourself, you don't get British humour)-- mistaking the former for the latter. You pointed it out in me, and I had to go to great pains to explain my own self-depreciation was a joke (I'm happy perfectly with my life, have a great job, thanks).
Whilst your IQ is undoubtedly toweringly high, I don't think your EQ is: You do not need to have an in-depth knowledge of Freudian psychoanalysm to know if somebody is making a self-depreciative comment; you just listen for the ironic tone (perhaps this is not common amongst Americans too?), or look for the wry smile or smirk. My observation is that you are far too literal to ever really get it; not necessarily a bad quality per se; but that will ever sink you, if you try to analyse our humour.
Because again you wonder if our humour is "indeed rooted in a (past) class system". A hint of truth possibly, a few sitcoms have been themed on this: However these poke fun at pretention, rather than ernest self-improvement. I do find it highly amusing that you confess you don't understand British humour, yet you are formulating theories of where it comes from
It's like not have the first clue about physics, but then challenging Einstein's Theory Of Relativity.Our humour is it is rooted in that saying, you always like me quoting:
In America life is serious, but with hope; in Britain life is hopeless, but not serious
I don't know whether you agree with the comment on the US, but it sums up British sense of humour. We put our best foot foward here too (Blitz spirit and all that), but we can still do it without taking ourselves too seriously. And why shouldn't we not laugh about our mistakes, we're all human and we all make them-- even the likes of Alan Sugar does-- he can laugh at himself. We British have no problem with and do not take the piss out of success per se, healthy dignity and self-esteem. If owt we take the piss out of those who are arrogant and self-important, because of the inherent riduculousness of these people imperiously believing they are better than other people, merely because of their jobs or higher earnings. In the USA, don't you just shoot people like that or sue them instead? [satirical
]British humour is simply just the want to look on the bright side of life, to quote our second national anthem. I would argue the root of self-depreciative humour is not to do with class-system, but it is rooted in two staples of British humour-- irony and dark humour. In the first instance: Highlighting the faults of something you've done, now matter how succesful you've been-- the humour is derived from the inherent irony of doing this.
Secondly we have humour in schadenfreude here, not least when misfortune strikes ourselves. One common saying here, is: "You've got to laugh, otherwise you cry". When First World War broke out, soldiers of all classes were stuck together in trenches (something that irreversibly broke down class-barriers), yet between them they produced the Yypres Times, a spoof newspaper that grimly poked fun at that situation-- they knew they were cannon-fodder and laughed about it.
I would also point that self-depreciating humour is not the reserve of the British; Jews the world over are masters of it, especially in times when they persecuted. Even Americans can do it: Joan Rivers, George Hamilton and Johnny Depp being notable examples-- must be that American class-system to blame
>>> Every time I visit Britain I find it a challenge finding any international news in the British papers at all! The ones I recall reading are The Guardian and The Telegraph. Should I be reading something else? You gave me a primer on British newspapers, but I've forgotten. Sorry.
<<<
I'll take your word on NYT, I've never read it. I still have a couple of USA newspapers from my visit, and the only foreign stories in them, and concerning American interests abroad! I was amazed by the number of Americans who did not know there were British (or other non-American NATO troops) fighting in A'ghan. Other than that, nowt. Perhaps explains why few Americans I've encountered have heard of Wales, think that the whole of Europe can lumped together in one homogeneous cultural lump, and they talk about the "Queen Of England" [satiricial
]As for our papers, you haven't really challenged yourself, if you've only read The Guardian or Telegraph
Two of many papers available hereAs well as main international new stories in the regular part of The Times, there's an in-depth section of the paper cunningly called World News. The two of the headline news-stories of today's The Independent, were Italy's borrowing-costs, and Greek PM announcing his new govt-- The Indy is good at globally stories I'd say.
If our newspapers aren't to you taste, I would also recommend BBC News (Channel) or Channel 4 News, both certainly recognise a world exists beyond British boundaries-- unlike USA television news in my experience. BBC does excellent current airs documentaries from around the world as does Channel 4 on occasion (Unreported World is recommended)
>>> I recall reading once about how Prince Charles got all upset because employees on his staff aspired to moving up in the job ladder. (Not his job though!) <<<
He's royalty, how we expect them to know that much about the real world. Although Charles did do a Full Monty dance-routine tribute (mercifully fully-clothed) in a dole office once. And Prince Charles was once called a "grovelling bastard" by Spike Milligan, and Prince Charles took it gracefully and thought it was hilarious. So he does have *some* humility
Roger you are doing a wonderful job of educating Parcy........do you mind me adding a challenge to his opinion about the British preferring to stay within their boundaries? The British Empire covered 1/4 of the world's population, following the logic of our American friend it would seem incredible that countries like India and vast sways of Africa were governed at arms length. Indeed India came under British control because of the trading company the East India Company, we had troops and officials (Indian Civil Service which covered India, what is now Pakistan and also Burma) and similarly we ruled and controlled in Africa. It was only the mid 20th century before India recieved independence and African states received their up until the 1960's. It is also strange to say of an island which is still a major trader that it prefers to stay within it boundaries. I would agree that it has shown less interest in continental Europe but it has always been involved in the Middle East and Asia.
Strangely enough for a country that likes to stay within its own boundaries Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world......................... if we don't travel abroad then it seems awfully good of the world's population to keep on visiting us! I wonder what the relative passport holdings are of peoples of the USA and UK?
On one of your previous posts you mention the inception of the NHS. Prior to this in the 1930 there was a history particularly in the Welsh mining areas of contributory employee hospitals and provision of health service. Probably this inspired Beveridge and also Nye Bevan. Indeed there had been a system of national insurance and limited care for working men from social reforms introduced by Lloyd George around 1910, at the same time old age pensions were introduced.
It is also worth looking to that post war Attlee government's Foreign Secretary to see social mobility - Ernest Bevin, highly respected by all and appointed on the recommendation of King George V1. Indeed Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, and Major came from humble origins, and Cameron is burdened with the shame of having a silver spoon background. I am not sure that in the UK we have had any such powerful political dynasties, in modern times, as the Kennedy's and Bush's........or even the husband and wife Team Clinton.
Post war rationing ended finally in 1954, Churchill was prime minister - two in front of Macmillan. However Macmillan was so affected by the mass unemployment of 1920/30's and also his experience of being shot during World War 1 and spending all day in 'No Man's Land' awaiting rescue, he believed despite being a multi-millionaire in social welfare and as Minister of Housing built more social housing than any minister before or after. Indeed it is worth studying Macmillan's pedgree to show true mobility, both his grandfathers were crofters (pheasnt farmers) and within a generation had founded the publishing house Macmillan.
I don't know about the history of commoners marrying into the royal family, but certainly one most of us will remember is HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and more latterly was there ever any spouse commoner than the Duchess of York
Roger,
Thank you for the education and for dispelling another ignorance (re: shoemaker's sons). Socrates would be proud of me.
Your request for examples of prejudice, misconceptions and tinted glasses is fair enough. But to be fair you are such a prolific writer that to go back and read through your "thorough" posts will be a small research project. I'm not avoiding the issue, but it probably won't happen (unless I have a sudden flash of memory). On Saturday I go out of town for five days (Charlotte, NC) for a professional conference and time is extremely tight. (It's after midnight here and I have more stuff to do and have to get up early.) We'll see.
But a few quickies:
The Battle of Hastings. I learned in a lecture about a year ago (in Oxford no less! given by a barrister) that the Norman Conquest forever changed the land tenure system in England (don't know about Wales and Scotland) and effectively created what we call "land enclosure" which means that there is no free land at the margin. During Woodrow Wilson's presidency (also former president of Princeton University) Wilson gave a speech about how the end of the frontier in the US in the 1890s has forever changed how the country sees itself (or something like that). I've been wanting to find the speech, but haven't had the time to do the research (doing too much other research). The point is that the same thing happened in England 800 years earlier and contributes to the evolution of how the two nations see themselves (with England having an 800-year head start and much smaller in land size).
That's probably the German in me rather than the American.
Republican presidential candidates do that sort of thing all the time. I think it's borne in the American heartland (i.e. the red states).
Those are the same people who accuse New Yorkers of being "pretentious" and often having no self-awareness.
Although I do have a confession to make along those lines. About 15 years ago at a professional society where I do volunteer work I was in charge of the oversight of all international chapters around the world (i.e. chapters of the society outside the US). We were interested in establishing some new chapters in Europe and I was in Eindhoven, NL talking with a professor who was prominent in the society and seeking his help. I told him that we didn't have enough members for chapters in the Netherlands and in Belgium so would it make sense to have a single Benelux chapter? "Heavens NO!" he said. "We Europeans hate each other."
That was around the same time that I referred to a Scotsman as an Englishman.
Be patiend with me. I'm learning.
And thanks to Humpty Dumpty for the additional "education".
You'll be pleased to know that this ignorant American already knew EVERYTHING in your first paragraph.
As for the rest, you did misunderstand me. (Am I having a problem communicating? ).
By "staying within their boundaries" I was specifically referring to class boundaries (past, present, explicit, implicit, subtle ... whatever).
Good night!
Thank you for the education and for dispelling another ignorance (re: shoemaker's sons). Socrates would be proud of me.
Your request for examples of prejudice, misconceptions and tinted glasses is fair enough. But to be fair you are such a prolific writer
that to go back and read through your "thorough" posts will be a small research project. I'm not avoiding the issue, but it probably won't happen (unless I have a sudden flash of memory). On Saturday I go out of town for five days (Charlotte, NC) for a professional conference and time is extremely tight. (It's after midnight here and I have more stuff to do and have to get up early.) We'll see.But a few quickies:
The Battle of Hastings. I learned in a lecture about a year ago (in Oxford no less! given by a barrister) that the Norman Conquest forever changed the land tenure system in England (don't know about Wales and Scotland) and effectively created what we call "land enclosure" which means that there is no free land at the margin. During Woodrow Wilson's presidency (also former president of Princeton University) Wilson gave a speech about how the end of the frontier in the US in the 1890s has forever changed how the country sees itself (or something like that). I've been wanting to find the speech, but haven't had the time to do the research (doing too much other research). The point is that the same thing happened in England 800 years earlier and contributes to the evolution of how the two nations see themselves (with England having an 800-year head start and much smaller in land size).
QUOTE
My observation is that you are far too literal to ever really get it
That's probably the German in me rather than the American.
QUOTE
It's like not have the first clue about physics, but then challenging Einstein's Theory Of Relativity.
Republican presidential candidates do that sort of thing all the time. I think it's borne in the American heartland (i.e. the red states).
QUOTE
I was amazed by the number of Americans who did not know there were British (or other non-American NATO troops) fighting in A'ghan. Other than that, nowt. Perhaps explains why few Americans I've encountered have heard of Wales, think that the whole of Europe can lumped together in one homogeneous cultural lump, and they talk about the "Queen Of England"
Those are the same people who accuse New Yorkers of being "pretentious" and often having no self-awareness.
Although I do have a confession to make along those lines. About 15 years ago at a professional society where I do volunteer work I was in charge of the oversight of all international chapters around the world (i.e. chapters of the society outside the US). We were interested in establishing some new chapters in Europe and I was in Eindhoven, NL talking with a professor who was prominent in the society and seeking his help. I told him that we didn't have enough members for chapters in the Netherlands and in Belgium so would it make sense to have a single Benelux chapter? "Heavens NO!" he said. "We Europeans hate each other."
That was around the same time that I referred to a Scotsman as an Englishman.
Be patiend with me. I'm learning.
And thanks to Humpty Dumpty for the additional "education".
You'll be pleased to know that this ignorant American already knew EVERYTHING in your first paragraph.
As for the rest, you did misunderstand me. (Am I having a problem communicating?
).By "staying within their boundaries" I was specifically referring to class boundaries (past, present, explicit, implicit, subtle ... whatever).
Good night!
Best to get back on topic (The St. Pauls Protestors) lest certain authorities become displeased (most notably the OP).
Thanks for you explanations, interesting to read what you put about Battle Of Hastings. I must admit that Norman period history of Britain is not something I'm well versed in (I know a lot more about the Romans).
Regarding the Land Enclosure Act, I notice you don't mention the agarian riots/protests of the C16th and C17th, which changed things substantially. Even to this day there are still unenclosed tracts of farmland, I would recommend a visit to Laxton in Notts, if you are interested in such things. I can see why the USA would take a different view about land management; given the country's landmass is about 55 times larger than Britain, and much more sparsely-populated! Given that arable farmland is a lot scarcer in Britain, there's the ethos that has to be selectively and properly managed. The reason our countryside is so beautiful, is that we have had this act, and not let people do what they want with it.
However this still ignores the numerous movements that have happened in Britain (mentioned on my first post in this thread), which have done a lot to enable the poor and improve equality, before the USA was even a twinkle in colonists' eyes. In fact if it weren't for those said movements, British colonists would've been have built the USA they did, and Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have been able to make that speech.
A profilic writer I may be (or a fast typer); but I have to be to provide plenty of proof for you and so there is no avenue for misrepresentation, given your odurate prejudices. However to be fair I endeavour to avoid prejudice/misconceptions/tinted views by basing my views on facts/evidence, so I'm concerned that I may have transgressed! If a view of mine is a subjective view, I express it subjectively; if I'm unsure about something, I express it interrogatively. I only express things as fact, when I have the proof to back it up... at least I try to do those three things As for "rose-tinted"-- I'm just providing a counter-balance to your doggedly one-sided negative slant on Britain. As usual, you try to patronisingly dismiss people when they refute your claims; are you really so haughty, you can't admit you're wrong about something?
I do find it ironic you accuse me of prejudice and having misconceptions, then not having any ready evidence to back your accusations up; which is... errr... prejudiced on your part. If you think those things about things I've put in my posts, then surely you have examples in mind? I think that charge is another one of your stubborn misconceptions (indeed I would argue no such evidence exists). I think being on the moral high-ground, where the air is thin, has given you altitude-sickness; which addled your mind to such an obdurate state. Scorates would be proud eh-- do you think he would entertain cognitive dissonance?
I've never visited New York, so I'll have to take your word on how Americans from other states view NYİ and reply to that.Although I would say that many of your posts would not look out of place in pseuds' corner
However I think the view that Europeans hate each other, is at best irony (not in the case of your German friends mind) or hyperbole (perhaps in a small minority of cases it's true, but such people are just full of hate full stop)-- we are happy visit each others' countries for holidays after all Certainly European countries are very different from other and the cultures between them can be vast, doesn't mean we intensely dislike each other; it just means the countries have strong indentities, and don't want to be lumped together in one homogeneous lump-- that has caused the wars. Rightly so; the best thing about this continent, is the best thing about the human race-- diversity.
As for calling Scottish people English, that's just plain wrong-- simply because England is a separate country from Scotland You were lucky to escape with all your limbs intact! It would be like calling you a Canadian (nothing wrong with Canada, just not your country!)
Humpty:
I didn't mind your contribution at all-- quite the reverse-- I thought I was superb Thanks for the correction on rationing, you're quite on that-- interesting info on Supermac too
Educating Parsy, let's Willy Russell onto it
Whilst I understood what you meant by "boundaries" Parsy, I can see how Humpty misunderstood (I'm burdened with common-sense like that): To answer your attendant question, your posts are sometimes vaguely-written and ambiguous, so it's easy to how confusion can occur. I'm guessing Humpty is not telepathic either Also what you deem as "misunderstanding", is actually just disagreement; unless of course you conceited enough to think that anybody who doesn't agree with you, is ignorant (especially if they refute you...!)
Although you were referring to lack of mobility within class boundaries (past, present, explicit, implicit, subtle ...whatever all refuted), Humpty's comments about Atlee's goverment and other government figures are entirely relevant. It further highlights that social moblity is possible in Britain, even more than a generation ago; that one can rise from the humblest of backgrounds, and get to the highest offices of the land. Indeed since Sir Winston, Cameron is the first 'posh' PM we've had (bar the very brief appointment of Alec Douglas-Home in the 1960s).
As a final note Parsy: I would point also I love the USA, I have been privileged to have visited almost half of all the states, on long coach trips. In fact you once informed me that I'd seen a lot more of the USA, than you have I also have watched many documentaries about the USA (Billy Connolly's Route 66 was a recent favourite of mine). I have many American pals, so I certainly don't have a downer on the country.
So it saddens me when I read your posts on here (and others on FMF); you often make judgemental comments about the British/Britain, frequently and arrogantly passed off as fact (a few brief visits to the UK, a lecture from an Oxford academic and reading a few articles about the UK in NYT, doesn't make you an expert), as if you're some kind of cultural pedagogue. Intelligence isn't (believing) you know eveything, but questioning eveything you know
I'm geuninely intrigued by this strand of criticism you have when it comes to all things UK. Why do you feel the need to be negative about the UK, and seemingly delight in unfavourably comparing the UK with the USA, on a predominantly British forum: Is it way of aggrandising yourself (which would be ironic given the themes in this topic), and you cannot distinguish between confidence and arrogance? For somebody who purports to place value on humility, you have trouble with this difference. Or is it to prove some sense of 'moral superiority' on your part, using your being an American as a conduit of this (the Amercia is numero uno schema)-- hence you're overbearing/egotisitical enough to think we should behave as you do?
I would hope any of the above is not the case (given that would say less about British and reflect a lot more on you). I would hope instead your negative impressions about the British/Britain are borne out of 'ignorance' and misinformation-- and not some vendetta against Britain and its people
What's the German's name Actually I can think of a British sitcom that would be a perfect immersion for you Parsy, Keeping Up Appearances. I reckon you'd see Hyacinth Bucket as a soul-mate
Errmmm... quite what this has got to do with price of eggs, I don't know
I can imagine why Ed Miliband likes these protestors though-- he likes sitting around and being vague
Regarding the Land Enclosure Act, I notice you don't mention the agarian riots/protests of the C16th and C17th, which changed things substantially. Even to this day there are still unenclosed tracts of farmland, I would recommend a visit to Laxton in Notts, if you are interested in such things. I can see why the USA would take a different view about land management; given the country's landmass is about 55 times larger than Britain, and much more sparsely-populated! Given that arable farmland is a lot scarcer in Britain, there's the ethos that has to be selectively and properly managed. The reason our countryside is so beautiful, is that we have had this act, and not let people do what they want with it.
However this still ignores the numerous movements that have happened in Britain (mentioned on my first post in this thread), which have done a lot to enable the poor and improve equality, before the USA was even a twinkle in colonists' eyes. In fact if it weren't for those said movements, British colonists would've been have built the USA they did, and Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have been able to make that speech.
A profilic writer I may be (or a fast typer
); but I have to be to provide plenty of proof for you and so there is no avenue for misrepresentation, given your odurate prejudices. However to be fair I endeavour to avoid prejudice/misconceptions/tinted views by basing my views on facts/evidence, so I'm concerned that I may have transgressed! If a view of mine is a subjective view, I express it subjectively; if I'm unsure about something, I express it interrogatively. I only express things as fact, when I have the proof to back it up... at least I try to do those three things As for "rose-tinted"-- I'm just providing a counter-balance to your doggedly one-sided negative slant on Britain. As usual, you try to patronisingly dismiss people when they refute your claims; are you really so haughty, you can't admit you're wrong about something?I do find it ironic you accuse me of prejudice and having misconceptions, then not having any ready evidence to back your accusations up; which is... errr... prejudiced on your part. If you think those things about things I've put in my posts, then surely you have examples in mind? I think that charge is another one of your stubborn misconceptions (indeed I would argue no such evidence exists). I think being on the moral high-ground, where the air is thin, has given you altitude-sickness; which addled your mind to such an obdurate state. Scorates would be proud eh-- do you think he would entertain cognitive dissonance?
I've never visited New York, so I'll have to take your word on how Americans from other states view NYİ and reply to that.Although I would say that many of your posts would not look out of place in pseuds' corner
However I think the view that Europeans hate each other, is at best irony (not in the case of your German friends mind) or hyperbole (perhaps in a small minority of cases it's true, but such people are just full of hate full stop)-- we are happy visit each others' countries for holidays after all
Certainly European countries are very different from other and the cultures between them can be vast, doesn't mean we intensely dislike each other; it just means the countries have strong indentities, and don't want to be lumped together in one homogeneous lump-- that has caused the wars. Rightly so; the best thing about this continent, is the best thing about the human race-- diversity.As for calling Scottish people English, that's just plain wrong-- simply because England is a separate country from Scotland
You were lucky to escape with all your limbs intact! It would be like calling you a Canadian (nothing wrong with Canada, just not your country!)Humpty:
I didn't mind your contribution at all-- quite the reverse-- I thought I was superb
Thanks for the correction on rationing, you're quite on that-- interesting info on Supermac tooQUOTE
And thanks to Humpty Dumpty for the additional "education".
As for the rest, you did misunderstand me. (Am I having a problem communicating? blink.gif ). By "staying within their boundaries" I was specifically referring to class boundaries (past, present, explicit, implicit, subtle ... whatever).
As for the rest, you did misunderstand me. (Am I having a problem communicating? blink.gif ). By "staying within their boundaries" I was specifically referring to class boundaries (past, present, explicit, implicit, subtle ... whatever).
Educating Parsy, let's Willy Russell onto it
Whilst I understood what you meant by "boundaries" Parsy, I can see how Humpty misunderstood (I'm burdened with common-sense like that
): To answer your attendant question, your posts are sometimes vaguely-written and ambiguous, so it's easy to how confusion can occur. I'm guessing Humpty is not telepathic either Also what you deem as "misunderstanding", is actually just disagreement; unless of course you conceited enough to think that anybody who doesn't agree with you, is ignorant (especially if they refute you...!)Although you were referring to lack of mobility within class boundaries (past, present, explicit, implicit, subtle ...
As a final note Parsy: I would point also I love the USA, I have been privileged to have visited almost half of all the states, on long coach trips. In fact you once informed me that I'd seen a lot more of the USA, than you have
I also have watched many documentaries about the USA (Billy Connolly's Route 66 was a recent favourite of mine). I have many American pals, so I certainly don't have a downer on the country. So it saddens me when I read your posts on here (and others on FMF); you often make judgemental comments about the British/Britain, frequently and arrogantly passed off as fact (a few brief visits to the UK, a lecture from an Oxford academic and reading a few articles about the UK in NYT, doesn't make you an expert
), as if you're some kind of cultural pedagogue. Intelligence isn't (believing) you know eveything, but questioning eveything you know I'm geuninely intrigued by this strand of criticism you have when it comes to all things UK. Why do you feel the need to be negative about the UK, and seemingly delight in unfavourably comparing the UK with the USA, on a predominantly British forum: Is it way of aggrandising yourself (which would be ironic given the themes in this topic), and you cannot distinguish between confidence and arrogance? For somebody who purports to place value on humility, you have trouble with this difference. Or is it to prove some sense of 'moral superiority' on your part, using your being an American as a conduit of this (the Amercia is numero uno schema)-- hence you're overbearing/egotisitical enough to think we should behave as you do?
I would hope any of the above is not the case (given that would say less about British and reflect a lot more on you). I would hope instead your negative impressions about the British/Britain are borne out of 'ignorance' and misinformation-- and not some vendetta against Britain and its people
QUOTE
That's probably the German in me rather than the American
What's the German's name
Actually I can think of a British sitcom that would be a perfect immersion for you Parsy, Keeping Up Appearances. I reckon you'd see Hyacinth Bucket as a soul-mateErrmmm... quite what this has got to do with price of eggs, I don't know
I can imagine why Ed Miliband likes these protestors though-- he likes sitting around and being vague
QUOTE
When I first started posting here on fmf I was a bit taken aback by how many posters make self-depricating remarks. Yes, it's said with humor, but it's not something that is common among Americans.
I don't know about that. Being self-deprecating is sort of a trait where I grew up.
I do love the the Brits sense of humo(u)r. Their sense of irony is wonderful.
This thread has gone way off topic. And I confess to have contributed to that.
(Searches The New York Times for news about the St. Pauls Protestors. )
(Searches The New York Times for news about the St. Pauls Protestors.
)
Found an article by NYT favourite Michael Moore
Thanks for those comments Kev, much appreciated. I'm coming to the conclusion that arguing with Parsy is futile, given he lacks common sense.
Thanks for those comments Kev, much appreciated. I'm coming to the conclusion that arguing with Parsy is futile, given he lacks common sense.
Michael Moore is a douchebag and a hypocrite. He himself is worth USD50million thanks to freedom and capitalism and is therefore EASILY in the "1%". Yet he pretends he is not.
Taxing the rich will worsen the problem. You can't lump all rich people with the theiving bankers.
In a free market capitalist system, you only become rich by providing a service or product that others value. It's a win-win. Most bankers create no value and would've gone bust long time ago.
Honest rich people use their money to invest and create jobs, just look at the dragons on dragons den or someone like Steve Jobs.
Moore's heart is in the right place, but if he wants to help the poor he should be angry at government.
Yes bankers should not be bailed out. Bailing out bankers is not capitalism, it is socialism. Banks should have been left to fail. Banks make money off cheap money, which is provided by government.
If we didnt have centrally-planned monopoly money whose value is decided by one bureaucrat mervyn king, the banks could not survive. Their business model relies on low interest rates which allows them to speculate. These low interest rates help no one except banks and government. Small businesses can't borrow at these low rates anyways, we need higher rates that don't punish savers or the poor. Even better would be if we legalized competition in currencies, free people would choose honest money such as gold or silver which can't be stolen by banks through inflation.
Taxing the rich will worsen the problem. You can't lump all rich people with the theiving bankers.
In a free market capitalist system, you only become rich by providing a service or product that others value. It's a win-win. Most bankers create no value and would've gone bust long time ago.
Honest rich people use their money to invest and create jobs, just look at the dragons on dragons den or someone like Steve Jobs.
Moore's heart is in the right place, but if he wants to help the poor he should be angry at government.
Yes bankers should not be bailed out. Bailing out bankers is not capitalism, it is socialism. Banks should have been left to fail. Banks make money off cheap money, which is provided by government.
If we didnt have centrally-planned monopoly money whose value is decided by one bureaucrat mervyn king, the banks could not survive. Their business model relies on low interest rates which allows them to speculate. These low interest rates help no one except banks and government. Small businesses can't borrow at these low rates anyways, we need higher rates that don't punish savers or the poor. Even better would be if we legalized competition in currencies, free people would choose honest money such as gold or silver which can't be stolen by banks through inflation.
I would point out that Michael Moore article was from Private Eye; although Craig Brown is so good at his art, it could easily be mistaken for the real thing.
Since you like Mervyn King, another from PE...
This was on last night, and I immediately thought of you Parsy
The aforementioned Sir Alan, with Theo and Hilary Devey: Showing you can rise from very humble beginnings, make a success out of your life and business-- and be self-depreciating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2QZCpTDW3w
And it was all for 'charidee' too.
The aforementioned Sir Alan, with Theo and Hilary Devey: Showing you can rise from very humble beginnings, make a success out of your life and business-- and be self-depreciating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2QZCpTDW3w
And it was all for 'charidee' too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.