The difference between a strong, confident culture and us

[August1991]

On the other hand, history is awash in examples of paranoid fears about poor minorities swamping the dominant culture with their wicked ways that subsequently came to nowt.

That's the essence of the straw man (or seventh hour-boogey man) argument. Some guy is going to come and kidnap you.

Whether it's Islamic hordes or Global Warming, I think some healthy scepticism is in order. Of course, then again, the water spurting from a fracture in the dyke may suggest something more grave.

Edited December 11, 2007 by August1991

[White Doors]

Canadian Blue.

I have been on here for over a year and have watched your politics go from right to left and now back right again. It has been interesting watching this transformation and all I can say is welcome back and good on you for trying honestly to learn and to be willing to change your opinion on things. Alot of us could learn from your example.

Edited December 11, 2007 by White Doors

[M.Dancer]

Ahem: Hengist and Horsa are not mythical, and you're using Wiki as source material. 'Nuff said.

I dumb things down for your benefit, lest you get confused a la the peloponnesian war.....

Now don't get me wrong as you sometime willfuly do. I'm not saying that Hengist and Horsa didn't exist, I'm not saying that an Arthur didn't exist. I'm saying their lives are more legend than fact. Everything we know about them was written almost 300 years after the fact and relied heavily on legend.

[Sulaco]

Depends, America has generally been a force for good, but at the same time it has also been corrupt. Most notably under the Nixon/Kissinger administration which in my own opinion was about as criminal as an administration could get. Not just for Vietnam, but for the bombing of Cambodia and the support of fascist dictators in the Southern Cone. One also can't help but wonder about the slaughter of East Timor by the Indonesian's under their watch. But once again this is my own humble opinion on the matter.

I tend to agree on the analysis of Kissinger and Nixon. In realpolitik terms Kissinger was da' man - but of course so was the reviled Cardinal Richelieu. I'm not a big fan of realpolitik - in other words.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Sulaco

[Canadian Blue]

I have been on here for over a year and have watched your politics go from right to left and now back right again. It has been interesting watching this transformation and all I can say is welcome back and good on you for trying honestly to learn and to be willing to change your opinion on things. Alot of us could learn from your example.

I wouldn't call myself right wing, I'm more comfortable with socialist since I support the Scandinavian welfare model. I just think it's ridiculous that every person on the left must adopt a dogma of radical tolerance, even if it means tolerating the intolerant.

[ScottSA]

I dumb things down for your benefit, lest you get confused a la the peloponnesian war.....

Now don't get me wrong as you sometime willfuly do. I'm not saying that Hengist and Horsa didn't exist, I'm not saying that an Arthur didn't exist. I'm saying their lives are more legend than fact. Everything we know about them was written almost 300 years after the fact and relied heavily on legend.

I don't understand the reference to the Peloponesian war. You are aware that it didn't take place in Britain, right?

My mention of wki had to do with you sourcing it as evidence of a claim that, to say the very least, is extremely questionable. Wiki is well known for academic and ideological battles fought over the text. Some of us occasionally fight them ourselves.

You claim that we know almost nothing about Hengist and Horsa, and I'll give you that; beyond Bede, there is very little known about the specific events leading into the invasions. Yet, while claiming lack of evidence in the face of evidence in one case, you are adamant that something cooked up by immigrationphiles in the last decade or so, in the face of all counterevidence, is wholly true. Almost the entire rationale behind this "peaceful immigration" thesis rests on the evidence that some sections of the odd village were inhabited by both Britons and Saxons; and even that evidence can't establish that it was even in the same decade! Not to mention the inconvenient fact that the same villages show evidence of being torched. Not to mention the archeological, traditional, literary, historical, placename change, and just about every form of academic evidence available, that the invasions were at the point of a sword, and not through "peaceful trade." What's next? Alfred was a warmonger against the innocent Danes?

[M.Dancer]

I don't understand the reference to the Peloponesian war. You are aware that it didn't take place in Britain, right?

My mention of wki had to do with you sourcing it as evidence of a claim that, to say the very least, is extremely questionable. Wiki is well known for academic and ideological battles fought over the text. Some of us occasionally fight them ourselves.

You claim that we know almost nothing about Hengist and Horsa, and I'll give you that; beyond Bede, there is very little known about the specific events leading into the invasions. Yet, while claiming lack of evidence in the face of evidence in one case, you are adamant that something cooked up by immigrationphiles in the last decade or so, in the face of all counterevidence, is wholly true. Almost the entire rationale behind this "peaceful immigration" thesis rests on the evidence that some sections of the odd village were inhabited by both Britons and Saxons; and even that evidence can't establish that it was even in the same decade! Not to mention the inconvenient fact that the same villages show evidence of being torched. Not to mention the archeological, traditional, literary, historical, placename change, and just about every form of academic evidence available, that the invasions were at the point of a sword, and not through "peaceful trade." What's next? Alfred was a warmonger against the innocent Danes?

I think this post is best covered under the definition of strawman. So nice of you to decide what my position is and where my evidence lies. Saves me lots of time.

Meanwhile, not to be a total buzzkill for you, I am not a proponent of the Saxon Age of Aquarius any more than I am of the Saxon Warmonger-er. I have said that the Saxons came to a depopulated Britain, and they filled a vacuum.

I have never said there weren't battles, what I have said in the past is they weren't as decisive or as large as the chroniclers claimed.

If the had been waves upon waves of blood thirsty Saxons there would be at least some evidence of their passing. What is missing are the vast war graves of either the Romano Britons or the Saxons.Instead when Saxon graves are found, they are found with the dead accompanied by burial goods and a lack of trauma.

My own thought is that given the Saxon migration period lasted decades, some came peacefully and some came as robber barons.

My other thought is that the whole myth of the Saxon overwhelming the local populace serves xenophobes like yourself and it is fitting that like your fears, the myth is unfounded as well.

Here, try reading something learned instead of your usual drek for a change.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba10/ba10feat.html

[M.Dancer]

I don't understand the reference to the Peloponesian war.

Sure you do. You just don't like to be reminded that you don't know what your talking about. And that's the danger of getting your history froim the likes of Steyn, who also generally doesn't know what he is talking about either.....

[M.Dancer]

More....

Nor did the Anglo-Saxons evidently have the means with which to destroy Roman civilisation. Estimates of early population are notoriously speculative, but recent estimates share the same order of magnitude, with a minimal immigrant population of perhaps 10,000 and a maximum migration of perhaps 100,000 people. In contrast, the population of Roman Britain at the end of the 4th century probably numbered three or four million. In this context, an invasion hypothesis relying on a mass migration of Anglo-Saxons to displace the native population and destroy the Roman order seems far-fetched. In fact, archaeological and literary evidence indicate that not until the 7th century did the Scandinavian and northern Germanic peoples, including the Angles and Saxons, adopt the use of mast and sail. A mass-migration across the North Sea using open, clinker-built, oar-driven warships such as the Sutton Hoo, Nydam (northern Germany) and Kvalsund (western Norway) vessels seems to be a logistical impossibility.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba20/ba20feat.html

[ScottSA]

My other thought is that the whole myth of the Saxon overwhelming the local populace serves xenophobes like yourself and it is fitting that like your fears, the myth is unfounded as well.

This, in a nutshell, explains your position. Throw out history and replace it with something more palatable. Historical truth doesn't really matter if it gets in the way of future vision, right?

[ScottSA]

More....

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba20/ba20feat.html

I'll see your claptrap and raise you some real history:

Despite acknowledging the criticisms of the historical sources, and of certain interpretations of the archaeology, Welch criticises some archaeologists for refusing to believe that more than a few immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia were involved in the transition. Such archaeologists, he suggests, prefer instead to favour those interpretations which emphasise the role of small warrior bands successfully gaining control of British regional kingdoms ( ibid :11). Welch's criticisms are based on the viewpoint that, whilst historical sources should be treated with care, the `small - bands' theory "argues that we know much better than both contemporary and slightly later commentators who wrote about events in Britain" ( ibid .). He argues that pottery and brooches found in Anglo-Saxon contexts in Britain "can be matched precisely back to those regions of north Germany and south Scandinavia which were their continental homelands according to Bede" ( ibid .), and that folk costumes, cremation cemeteries and linguistic evidence all indicate the large scale immigration of family groups, or even whole communities, from abroad.

https://www.dur.ac.uk/anthropology.journal/...ll/russell.html

[Oleg Bach]

This, in a nutshell, explains your position. Throw out history and replace it with something more palatable. Historical truth doesn't really matter if it gets in the way of future vision, right?

We depend on money - Mammon worship is an empty religion - powerful cultures depend on hope - a positive approach - rich or poor - and faith - we are weak - the poorest man in Africa has more character than the average western exectutive - who if you took his credit cards away and froze his accounts would not be able to sustain....those that believe in goodness - in God shall I say - are strong - and I am not talking religion either - but pragmatic faith and personal confidence - and the realization that we are all kings and only God has domain.

[White Doors]

That's it damnit. I'm doing it. I really AM going to buy some stock in Alcan. How's the price Morris?

[M.Dancer]

This, in a nutshell, explains your position. Throw out history and replace it with something more palatable. Historical truth doesn't really matter if it gets in the way of future vision, right?

You haven't moved to a straw farm, have you?

Do you see any point in retaining histories that have shown themselves to be mythical? Should we continue to believe that Rome was founded by Trojans? That St. Patrick chased the snakes out of Ireland? That the american civil war was fought over slavery? Yet stubbornly you cling to a version of history that virtually no historian or archaeologist still holds. Congratulations, continue to cling to those beliefs and register your self at a museum for display: Homo Sapian Anachronism

You are the equivalent of the First Nation who adamantly refuses to acknowledge his forebears came from Asia. It doesnt matter whether the history is traumatic or comforting, as long as it is the truth as best as we can divine it.

[ScottSA]

You haven't moved to a straw farm, have you?

Do you see any point in retaining histories that have shown themselves to be mythical? Should we continue to believe that Rome was founded by Trojans? That St. Patrick chased the snakes out of Ireland? That the american civil war was fought over slavery? Yet stubbornly you cling to a version of history that virtually no historian or archaeologist still holds. Congratulations, continue to cling to those beliefs and register your self at a museum for display: Homo Sapian Anachronism

You are the equivalent of the First Nation who adamantly refuses to acknowledge his forebears came from Asia. It doesnt matter whether the history is traumatic or comforting, as long as it is the truth as best as we can divine it.

Speaking of straw, where exactly in this thread have I addressed the founding of Rome, St Patrick and snakes, or the American civil war? Noplace, actually, so I guess we can pass over this reference as entirely irrelevant.

You are making up facts, and borrowing from the "overwhelming consensus" myth. "Virtually no historian or archaeologist still holds" the same views as me? Sorry, but that's not only wrong, but egregious fabrication.

[M.Dancer]

There can be few peoples whose ethnic origins are so fraught with historical problems as those of the English. Bede, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, provide a story of Anglo-Saxon invasion in the 5th century and large-scale slaughter or displacement of native Britons. Many historians doubt the story - believing many or most Britons survived - but evidence to back up their account has always been hard to find.

And another

http://www.york.ac.uk/teaching/history/pjpg/continuity.pdf

And from your own real history link

2

.3. The descriptions of events described by Gildas and Bede were for many years taken as fact, and early archaeological research endeavoured to `fit' the archaeological evidence to the historical sources. In recent decades, however, academic and socio-political emphases have changed, and the historical sources have been re-examined in the light of their own socio-political and cultural influences. Whilst not dismissing the value of the documentary sources entirely, researchers now understand them to be products of a very specific period in Britain's own history, imbued with their own morals and motives. Higham writes "Does Gildas' account deserve any credence? [...] Gildas was uninterested in history for its own sake but he used his own expurgated and partial account of the recent past to underline the sinfulness of the Britons and the plenitude of God's power, so as to reinforce and make terrible his strictures concerning the present" (1992:157).

IE Myth

2.4. The historical sources, then, are now considered by many to be of more use in teaching us about the social and political climate of the periods in which they were compiled, and as records containing first-hand information about the origin myths, legends and traditions of the British people, rather than as strictly factual sources

Again

[Black Dog]

Dispite the liberals best efforts Canadians are starting to speak out against Multiculture and so called Diversity. Buzz words that get the left elected, yet new comers are festing in slums in our major cities. They gig is up, Multiculture equals gettos and ethnic enclaves. Good for getting the vote, bad for society.

It's interesting that ethnic enclaves and ghettos existed long before Pierre Trudeau and official multiculturalism. In fact, if the experience of just about every society that ever toyed with immigration is any indication, the only way to avoid ethnic enclaves and ghettos is to stop immigration altogether. But then who are you gonna get to build the railroads then?

[ScottSA]

It's interesting that ethnic enclaves and ghettos existed long before Pierre Trudeau and official multiculturalism. In fact, if the experience of just about every society that ever toyed with immigration is any indication, the only way to avoid ethnic enclaves and ghettos is to stop immigration altogether. But then who are you gonna get to build the railroads then?

We've finished building the railways, or haven't you noticed? Geez, you're not just stuck in the 1960s, you're stuck in the 1860s!

[ScottSA]

And another

http://www.york.ac.uk/teaching/history/pjpg/continuity.pdf

And from your own real history link

2

IE Myth

Again

We could play this game all day Momo; obviously you've been googling, so you know very well that there's a debate about it, and you know very well that the question is up in the air in any number of facets.

[M.Dancer]

obviously you've been googling

Do you read or just pretend to read other people's posts?

It was from your own link.....and please don't be so pompous to pretend you have all these websites that you use that don't particularly support your ideologically motivated position at your fingertips.....

[ScottSA]

Do you read or just pretend to read other people's posts?

It was from your own link.....and please don't be so pompous to pretend you have all these websites that you use that don't particularly support your ideologically motivated position at your fingertips.....

Whether my position is ideologically motivated or not, it doesn't change the actual facts. Clearly the saxon invasions involved more than a few war bands; they involved massive immigration. Mass immigration was hardly uncommon at the time, and in fact the entire Germanic world was well documented as on the move at the time, so it's not a leap of faith to suggest that at least three tribes came to the undefended shores of a rich land just waiting for the taking. In fact, suggesting otherwirse is not only ahistorical, but requires the suspension of common sense.

[M.Dancer]

Whether my position is ideologically motivated or not, it doesn't change the actual facts. Clearly the saxon invasions involved more than a few war bands; they involved massive immigration. Mass immigration was hardly uncommon at the time, and in fact the entire Germanic world was well documented as on the move at the time, so it's not a leap of faith to suggest that at least three tribes came to the undefended shores of a rich land just waiting for the taking. In fact, suggesting otherwirse is not only ahistorical, but requires the suspension of common sense.

You sound like you are modifying your tune.

Clearly (clearly indeed!) the Saxon migration was a period of centuries not years....

Clearly there were waves that in some case contained warbands and in other cases contained farmers.....

so it's not a leap of faith to suggest that at least three tribes came to the undefended shores of a rich land just waiting for the taking

Yes quite. undefended because it was underpopulated. Never the less the plethora of celtic and romano place names as well as grants and chrater by saxon kings to celtic named individuals suggests that their presence wasn't as overwhelming as you are want to make out when you are on one of your rants.

[Black Dog]

ScottSA:

We've finished building the railways, or haven't you noticed? Geez, you're not just stuck in the 1960s, you're stuck in the 1860s!

I wasn't addressing you. Speak when spoken to.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's interesting that ethnic enclaves and ghettos existed long before Pierre Trudeau and official multiculturalism.

Sure. All the trudeaupian multicultis have done is make the ghettos bigger, more isolated, less integrated, more violent and more agressive.

But you're probably right. The best answer is to stick our heads in the sand and say "it's always been this way"

(sic)

[M.Dancer]

Sure. All the trudeaupian multicultis have done is make the ghettos bigger, more isolated, less integrated, more violent and more agressive.

But you're probably right. The best answer is to stick our heads in the sand and say "it's always been this way"

(sic)

The ghetto I live in has the lowest crime figures in Toronto.