April 2002 Archives

April 2002 posts

Previous April 2002
More April 2002

Great Alan Watts essay - Relevant to Normal Again -- Dedalus, 22:48:56 04/17/02 Wed

I just found this on the web. The very thing I needed to read this evening. It's called the Value of Psychotic Experience, and it ties in nicely with my own essay about Normal Again. So semi-OT, but if you like Alan Watts, this is definitely for you.

http://www.deoxy.org/w_value.htm

[> Thanks Ded, Just printing it off now. -- Rufus, 23:42:31 04/17/02 Wed

[> Thanks Ded! We be a-readin'! -- OnM, 05:34:14 04/18/02 Thu

[> Fascinating -- Rattletrap, 07:39:09 04/18/02 Thu

[> Thanks - printing it off!;-) -- shadowkat, 08:01:10 04/18/02 Thu

[> Re: Great Alan Watts essay - Relevant to Normal Again -- Dedalus, 10:10:21 04/18/02 Thu

Hope you enjoy. Actually, the last part has nothing to do with psychosis, but it's still interesting in terms of Zen.

[> [> Re: Great Alan Watts essay - Relevant to Normal Again -- Arethusa, 12:38:12 04/18/02 Thu

Very interesting, and reminds me of something I've always like about Buffy-her directness. She can reduce Giles' verbiage to its simplist element. She totally sucks at undercover work-subterfuge. She's action-oriented. "I walk. I talk, I shop. I sneeze." (Restless) She slays, therefore she is. She only confuses and upsets herself when she tries to intellectualize a problem. (She could be perfectly happy with Spike (if she wanted to) were she not constantly reminding herself of what she thinks she should be doing or feeling.)

Then look at Willow, with her busy big brain, always trying to remake the world and everyone in it. And us, intellectualizing what can be a simple visceral experience. See Buffy. See Buffy slay. Pretty Buffy.
Although I've gotten as much enjoyment from thinking about the show as I do watching it!

[> [> [> Forgot to say: Quotes by Psyche -- Arethusa, 12:48:42 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: Great Alan Watts essay - Relevant to Normal Again -- Dedalus, 16:15:05 04/18/02 Thu

That's a fascinating point. I have never put that together about Buffy. Willow, I did notice what she said after raising Buffy, about how her thoughts were "all busy."

Heh.

Buffy/Xander and thoughts for Season 7 -- Charlemagne20, 23:50:17 04/17/02 Wed

People have always used the arguement Buffy has never been attracted to Xander but on some level I have come to the conclusion that there is actually an entirely different reason why she hasn't done the mattress dancing with X.

Season 1

* Buffy turned down Xander for the Prom

Xander lets face it knew that Willow had a crush on him despite all that was going on but yes XANDER was not interested. However Buffy knew that Willow would be immensley hurt by her taking up Xander on his offer which I think she'd be interested if not overly enthusiastic about in his time (Xander is at this point let's face it a geek) and furthermore Buffy has feelings for Angel that are in fact love.

Season 2

* This entire arc has been about Buffy/angel with the ultimate climax yet the words from Angel to Xander in the hospital reveal the ultimate feelings of Xander. He is willing to stare down the most terrifying vampire who has ever lived over Buffy even as it kills him he got there first.

Ouch

Yes Willow/Xander in the first and Last Episode but hey, nobody is perfect. Buffy also showed a deep new respect for Xander in Bewitched, Bewildered, and Bebothered. Had Angel not perished and him not remained with Cordy...something would have happened there...furthermore all thoughts of Cordy dissapated with Buffy under spell.

Season 3

Yes more Xander/Willow in this place and not much room for Bander (any relation to Banderscotch? We have a drink now!) inbetween Cordy/Xander moments but there still there amongst all the Buffy/Angel angst and Faith the Virgnity slayer aspects....and the Xander/Anya

Uhhhh just give me a minute to think of some.

Again no real moments to start dating.

Season 4

* Xander's touching speech to Buffy in the season opener. Had not he been on a swift turn to Anyaville he probably would have been there to pick up the pieces and head off Parker and Riley.

At the start though there's no chance of Buffy/Xander because he's seeing seriously Anya and she's seeing Soldier boy.

* Cave Buffy is sexually attracted to Xander even as she's not attracted to Parker or the rest of the yokals. Since she was reduced to her most primal level she's not obviously treating him like a brother because she doesn't want to complicate their relationship...not because she feels nothing.

Season 5

* The "look" from Xander to Riley regarding his loving Buffy and his open thoughts about such a thing.

At heart Xander is sticking by Anya during this entire season but the undercurrent that marred Cordellia emerges that Xander would go to Hell and back for Buffy but would he do the same for Anya and Cordy? Probably but no more so than he'd do for anyone he was being heoric too.

Buffy in this season is dealing with Dawn and breakup with Riley.

Season 6

* The kicker upfront here is that Xander has been engaged to Anya for six or so months yet hasn't announced it. The part really there is that who exactly is he concerned about? He has a very small social circle yet without Buffy it's not complete....and even with Buffy ESPECIALLY with her he's hesistant

* Okay paging Doctor Freud Xander is not sexually able to perform with his wife after Buffy summer's death. Now I'm not saying he's closing his eyes and thinking of Blonde haired cheerleaders with stakes here but that says something...even with all of his family troubles. His love for buffy I think shined through even above his willow scene at the wedding.

* Buffy is seeing no one but Spike and that's for Sex. Furthermore Xander had a part in her ressurection.

* This may be me reading things in but Xander also looked like he was looking for some Buffy snugglage and NOT Anya snugglage when amnesiac.

Diagnosis

I think Xander will always love Buffy and not as a sister....and will show it in Season 7

-Charlemagne

[> Re: Buffy/Xander and thoughts for Season 7 (Spoilers) -- nightfox7, 00:27:23 04/18/02 Thu

Not that I think much about a B/X, but it could be why he held off telling about the engagement, he didn't want to commit if there was a chance Buffy would come back. He kept going with Anya because he didn't know how to deal with depressed Buffy. At the wedding, he joked "about getting lucky" and that shows that B/X is on his mind even though both have tried to move on.

[> Re: Buffy/Xander and thoughts for Season 7 -- Apophis, 00:38:59 04/18/02 Thu

While it's far too late an hour for me to have anything intelligent to say, I'd like to reiterate that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF A B/X PAIRING EVER OCCURING ON THE SHOW. I am quite willing to put money on that. The only way anyone is going to see any "matress dancing" between the two is in fanfiction. Yeah, Xander faced down Angelus for Buffy. He's also faced death numerous times in defense of every other Scoobie. It's what they do. Xander worships Buffy as a hero; he idealizes her and is in awe of her, but he doesn't romantically love her anymore. Despite your examples, I can't make myself believe that Buffy ever had romantic intentions toward him (barring the times she wasn't in her right mind) I'd like to say more, but it's nearly a quarter to 3, so I'll come back tomorrow or something.

[> [> Okay,if the Xander love is true,how shallow is he? -- AurraSing, 06:31:00 04/18/02 Thu

It bothers me to think that Xander would get engaged to and almost marry Anya despite still being in love with Buffy-isn't this saying that Xander was not only being horrible to Anya but that he has been lying to himself about their "love" for the past two seasons.Was it all just about the easy availibility of sex then?

Frankly,I think that's pretty sad.Pathetic even.

[> [> [> That depends on why he wanted to marry Anya. -- skeeve, 08:15:01 04/18/02 Thu

Here is an age-old question: Why should one buy a cow if one is getting the milk for free?
Here is a more recent question: Why did Xander want to marry Anya?

Who one loves and why is important. So is what one does about it.

[> [> [> [> I want Xander to be the type of guy who absolutely loved her- -- AurraSing, 08:26:50 04/18/02 Thu

and that's why he asked her to marry him.Anya was all hyped about marrying her best friend in the entire world and spending the rest of her life with him.

If Xander married her because he was "settling" then it makes his character a real jerk to me and even worse,it make the potential of a B/X relationship abhorrent to me.

[> [> [> [> [> Why does it have to be romantic love??? -- T- rex, 10:25:40 04/18/02 Thu

Yes, Xander loves Buffy. He also respects her, almost hero worships her. He puts her on a pedestal, which is why he can't stand the thought of Spike and Buffy together. But he doesn't love her in a romantic, "in love" kind of way. Nor does she think of him this way.

I have close male friends, some of whom have been in my life since high school. That was more than 18 years ago. A couple of them I dated briefly, some of them had crushes on me and vice versa. But we grew up, met other lovers, forged other relationships and some of us even got married to these new people in our lives. Yet these men are my friends for life, and they would do anything possible to help me out if I needed them. Why can't it be that way for Buffy and Xander?

Ironically, these guys were my old D&D buddies. I guess we forged bonds with each other while slaying monsters, too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I like the way you think-love does come in many forms. -- AurraSing, 11:03:23 04/18/02 Thu

I think those who trumpet B/X cannot see this type of love being possible between a man and a woman.Why not? That would be an interesting thing to find out.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I like the way you think-love does come in many forms. -- T-Rex, 09:03:27 04/19/02 Fri

Thanks! I'm actually amazed at the variety of forms it comes in. And at how it can change over time in some cases.

That is actually one of the things I love best about BTVS. Not only do the characters grow and change, but their relationships to each other and to the group change, deepen, or lessen as well. Just like life. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> You Know I ask the same question about Spike and Buffy all the time... -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:12:05 04/18/02 Thu

I was quite pleased with the end of season 5, "You don't love me, but I love you, and I'm fine with being your equal" Spike. But I've never been big on "Spuffy" anyhow, so I digress.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You Know I ask the same question about Spike and Buffy all the time... -- Arethusa, 13:44:41 04/18/02 Thu

Digress away. I agree, it would be a happier and healthier relationship if they were just friends and former lovers, although (please, please God) not in a "Friends" way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You Know I ask the same question about Spike and Buffy all the time... -- T-Rex, 07:39:52 04/19/02 Fri

Yes! I agree with both of you! Although I enjoy the Spuffy union and will miss it when it is gone, I don't think that being lovers is the ultimate destination for these two. They have a lot to learn from each other, and the sexual relationship they currently have is merely a necessary stop along the way to TRULY understanding each other and themselves.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you're both right... -- Scroll, 13:04:28 04/19/02 Fri

While I absolutely see the necessity of Spuffy in terms of the storyline, I really don't see ME using this pairing as the way to end off the Buffy series. I definitely seeing them as holding Buffy up as a model of a woman who can stand on her own, with lovers who end up friends and maybe future lovers (but not Xander). But I definitely think they'll return to Buffy's understanding in "I Was Made To Love You" when she realises she needs to learn to be comfortable just being Buffy. She doesn't need a man to be complete.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I want Xander to be the type of guy who absolutely loved her- -- skeeve, 13:26:21 04/18/02 Thu

AurraSing: "If Xander married her because he was "settling" then it makes his character a real jerk to me and even worse,it make the potential of a B/X relationship abhorrent to me."

What is evil about settling who loves and wants you?
From Anya's point of view, Xander and Anya getting married would be a really good thing.
Anya approves, so why should anyone else disapprove?

The "even worse" part of the quote is somewhat amusing.

BTW Nicholas Brendon is in Psycho Beach Party. It's been on the Showtimes lately. It's going to be on again earrrly tomorrow (Friday) morning.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Because Anya seems to be under the assumption that Xander loves her-and 'settleing"is sad.. -- AurraSing, 13:33:07 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And Xander said so in Into the Woods. Hate to think he kept a secret reservation for Buffy. -- Sophist, 15:06:37 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> settling for one one loves and who loves you isn't all that sad -- skeeve, 08:41:52 04/19/02 Fri

When considering whether he should marry Anya, whether and how much he loves Anya is much more important than whether he loves Buffy.

[> [> Re: Buffy/Xander and thoughts for Season 7 -- Goji3, 12:31:14 04/19/02 Fri

You're probably right that it will never happen (we can all dream, can't we?). Xander will probably always hold a torch for Buffy, though I feel that the sexual part of it has died down signifigantly. He still cares for her deeply.

a B/X roll about? Not likely

No Secual love comming from Buffy, Probably.

But Xander will always carry a tourch for her.

If they ever would get together, it would be a comfort-thing, mainly...and then disolve. -- Remember, this show has a recurring habbit of giving us what we want in the worst ways Possible: Angel getting his soul back, Spike and Buffybot, Xander and Faith, the current Spike/Buffy colapse...need I go on?

[> My longer thoughts on the matter -- AurraSing, 11:37:44 04/18/02 Thu

Okay.
I really want Xander to be a good guy.I want Xander to be the nice,normal guy who looks at the madness around him and comes up with a goofy quip.Xander needs to be the rock,the stable one,the man who works with his hands and has goodness in his heart.Xander should be happy and someday I'd like him to be able to look back at his life and feel he was both a hero and friend.

So it's driving me around the friggin wall when almost every board I visit has moaning on and on about B/X,about how much Xander still loves Buffy,about how it's going to be so inevitable the two of them should end up together.
And you know,it would actually be a good thing to me if they did-if it wasn't for the past 2 years of what has happened in the Buffyverse.

As I have said,I want Xander to be a great guy,a good guy.I don't want to think back to seasons 4,5 and most of 6 and think that Xander lived a lie,that his sleeping with and loving Anya was all a lie.Did Xander settle? Did he fool himself and poor Anya into thinking he was in love with her?

Did foolish Anya think she was marrying her best friend,the man she wanted to grow old with and have babies ..was that all a lie?? I wanted to believe that Xander was so head-over-heels in love with his delightful ex-demon that he sincerely wanted to share his life with her.Was that so wrong?

And it is beginning to sicken me to think that there is a remote possibilty that Xander said and did all those things with Anya because she was conveniant,because she was easy,because he could bang her and still picture Buffy in his head.I know men do these sorts of things all the time,but I don't want it to be Xander!!!!!!!!!!

I married for love.Head over heels sort of love.Stick together through thick and thin sort of love.I know what is feels like to be in love so much that being parted for long periods makes me ache inside.I cannot begin to understand how bad Anya must have felt when Xander walked away.I can understand that Xander made a big mistake but what I cannot and will not believe is that a man who seems so good would have gone that far in a relationship if it was a lie.If he is worried about how things may go in terms of marriage,he needs to see a therapist and Anya should be able to talk to him about their life together.

And I know that true love,TRUE LOVE does not have an on/off switch.

I cannot understand how Buffy could possibly accept Xander as the man in her life if she knew that he was lying to himself all this time about loving Anya.For one thing,Buffy would feel guilty (even though it was not her fault) and for another,how could Xander possibly tell her that they could be together if he is still worried about his family's legacy of drinking and abuse.Is that suddenly going to disappear?

I would much rather Buffy be on her own and happy than be with Xander if it's under these sort of circumstances.In fact,I'll stop watching "Buffy" altogether if B/X becomes a reality because I cannot fathom Xander being the kind of man to hurt Anya that badly and then get rewarded for it by getting the Slayer.

[> [> Guys is it so difficult to believe he loved Anya but he loves Buffy more? -- Charlemagne20, 12:32:53 04/18/02 Thu

I mean seriously it's not like you can only love one person in your life but there is a point where you can't help but love someone more. You can suppress that type of feeling but you never lose it.

Xander wouldn't be lying to Anya that he loved her or wanted to spend the rest of his life with her but do I think Xander is "friends" with Buffy alone? No I think he loves and always will

-Charlie

[> "Either you feel a thing or you don't?" Buffy doesn't -- darrenK, 15:23:02 04/18/02 Thu

Sometimes it's tough to outright disagree with someone without seeming rude, but please don't think me rude when I say that I think you're really wrong on this point.

The interpretations that back up your central thesis are flimsy at best. You take moments that really don't have much to do with a Xander and Buffy romance and try to twist them into something they just aren't.

Like the speech Xander gives Buffy in Ep. 1 of season 4 and you try and make it romantic where there is NO romance there, just friendship.

And you try and make a claim that Buffy somehow rejected Xander in Prophecy Girl to spare Willow when Joss went way out of his way to write a scene that left Xander without even a shred of romantic possibility from Buffy.

Xander: "Either you feel a thing or you don't"

Buffy: "I don't"

Xander: "Well, try. I can wait"

Buffy: "Xander..."

All during Season 2, Xander seems happy with Cordelia and throws nary a look Buffy's way, then he declares his love for Willow in Becoming Part 1.

I just don't see any subtext implying that he loves Buffy. And if he does, his character goes from being a romantically busy guy who manages to love Buffy (Season1), Cordelia (Season 2), Willow (Season 2&3) and Anya (Season 4-6) to this sorta of indecisive weirdo who loves every female he knows at the same time.

The worst part of all this is that it ignores what has been revealed about Xander's character. That he is the type of big-hearted person that can go beyond the crushing rejection of season 1 to develop a strong very beautiful friendship with Buffy, something that goes way beyond the passionate wild- monkey-love that the show has shown to be so transitory.

The evidence of this friendship is all over the place, but nowhere is it more explicit than Into the Woods where Xander convinces Buffy that Riley is the long term guy for her. Now, if Xander were able to be so eloquent for Riley couldn't he have made his own declaration at this point? And why convince the woman you love that SOMEONE ELSE IS THE LONG TERM GUY???

The fact is that BtVS is many things, but one of the more important is that it's a DRAMA. In drama, the characters are revealed through action and dialogue. The only indications we have as to what the characters are REALLY thinking and feeling is what they say. And in the 5 years since season 1, Xander has NOT said the first word about still being in love with Buffy.

Meanwhile, the writers have set up a very powerful and adult love/romance between him and Anya. That love is the most important in Xander's life. How do I know? Because that's what everything in this drama indicates. And his holding out on revealing the engagement isn't about Buffy. It was about his fears of commitment, adulthood and growing up. That's the theme of the season.

There's no reason to believe he loves Buffy as more than a friend because no one has said a word about it, least of all Xander.

Joss and co. are good writers. They build everything that happens in little steps. They have not built a foundation for a romance between Xander and Buffy. It just hasn't been there. Even if one were to occur it would virtually be out of the blue.

If one did happen, then BtVS becomes like Melrose Place with all the characters becoming interchangable in each other's beds and the distinct lines between individual relationships blur to the point where they become irrelavant. At that point, the audience loses faith in the show because we suddenly realize that the show is willing to betray us by coming up with hokey plot twists that invoke the type of melodrama where all the main characters end up falling in love and coupling off in a convenient way that keeps them all happy. There's already a show like that. It's called Friends.

[> [> Thank you! -- d'Herblay, 15:35:57 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> In the end though Anya and Xander's romance wasn't adult and it didn't last though -- Charlemagne20, 15:41:30 04/18/02 Thu

It wasn't mature even when it moved beyond the whole having sex for what was enjoyable about it because Xander couldn't share with Anya what his worries were without a magical spell to try and get a "happy ending" (he apparently didn't tell her enough) and ultimately Xander couldn't say upfront that Anya was the one person in his life who could cut through all the malarky.

At heart Xander wants Buffy to be happy and he wanted Anya to be happy but he wasn't able to make himself happy by trying for either one.
Spoilers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
And since we know Anya became a vengeance demon and sleeps with Spike I'm pretty much of the mind that she and Xander weren't meant to be with one another at heart as well.

[> [> [> What??!!?! -- Apophis, 15:49:42 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> Okay, I'm better... -- Apophis, 16:06:26 04/18/02 Thu

Basically, Xander is a horrible person. He loves Buffy, but, since she's not biting his romantic hook, he spends 2 years sleeping with Anya simply because she'll let him. He tells Anya he loves her, asks her to marry him, yet, as before, he is hopelessly in love with Buffy. Come the big day, Xander breaks things off with Anya; not because of insecurities regarding genetic predestination, but because he can't let himself live a lie (despite the fact that he's been comfortably doing so for 2 years). All those worried, angst-filled glances at his menagerie of a family were just his way of making sure they were still there, nothing more. What it comes down to is this: Xander is a hormone-driven beast of a man who doesn't want any woman in his circle of friends out of his lustful reach. He loves Buffy, makes out with Cordelia (their relationship was obviously another scam on his part to get physical gratification), cheats on her with Willow (ditto), spends two years sharing Anya's bed (all the while lying to her about his feelings), and continues his VERY subtle pursuit of Buffy's affections. He also tells Buffy to do her damnedest to get Riley back. Why? So she'll be adequately experienced when Xander decides to step things up?

[> [> [> [> [> Again, why is it so difficult to believe Xander loved Anya but he loves Buffy more -- Charlemagne20, 17:53:27 04/18/02 Thu

They were perfectly happy sleeping together without any prospects of marriage and it certainly wasn't part of any unspoken contract between them. Xander asked Anya to marry him because he wanted to do the right thing by her and he did love her...

However he realized that he couldn't provide for her emotionally and no doubt in part that his feelings for her would never place her as NUMBER ONE. They'd place her as Number 3 or Maybe Number 2 but one...no never.

I don't see how this can be misconstrued as his being a jerk? I mean he wasn't aware of the depths of those feelings even as he tried to brush them off

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Again, why is it so difficult to believe Xander loved Anya but he loves Buffy more -- Apophis, 18:36:52 04/18/02 Thu

Not only wasn't Xander aware of such feelings; the other characters, the writers, and the majority of the audience failed to pick up on such things as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And another thing... (yeah, I know, but I've got nothing better to do) -- Apophis, 18:42:16 04/18/02 Thu

B/Xers ask "What if Xander suddenly realized his long buried feelings for Buffy and that's why he couldn't go through with his marriage?" Well, what if everyone learned that Angel's curse no longer had a happiness clause in it? What if we learned that it was a Skrull impersonating Willow for the last 2 years and the real Willow is straight? What if it was revealed that vampires are actually good guys and the PTB are tools of a cosmic malevolent force? You're making stuff up to rationalize things you want to see happen, not things that are supported by evidence.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have I ever mentioned that you're my hero -- aurelia, 19:37:13 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'd approve of quite a few of those plotlines -- Charlemagne90, 08:39:30 04/19/02 Fri

Xander loves Buffy and I haven't seen any evidence to show me otherwise....I mean seriously where have you gotten this whole friendship thing?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd approve of quite a few of those plotlines -- lele, 17:18:24 04/19/02 Fri

sorry to beat a dead horse, and I do see some of your points b/c things b/n men and women are never that simple, but I think ME have done a wonderful job of setting up two very important non- romantic relationships b/n buffy and a male. 1) Giles- what can I say? He's basically her fatherfigure/mentor. When he left in tabula rasa she was crushed. Giles even said explicitly that he'd like to stay and play the father figure (OMWF) 2)Xander- he's like a brother to her. I truly began to feel this in primeval when the SG joined essences and in Restless during Xander's part of the dream where she actually called him 'big brother' and he seemed to be touched by this sentiment. I feel xander's rxn to buffy's death in his "visions" during hell's bells have more to do with feeling he's failed her somehow. His place in the SG is a very important part of xander's identity. It seems to me that to have buffy die and him not be able to stop it would be emasculating and therefore he would of course show less interest in anya sexually b/c he feels he's not competent and he's also lost his place in the world b/c the SG revolves around buffy and to have her die means they're no longer the SG and he's lost part of his identity. Anyway, I've been rooting for Xander and Anya since his "you make me feel like a man" speech in ITW

[> [> Totally agree and to add to your arguement -- shadowkat, 19:04:40 04/18/02 Thu

If you haven't seen it yet or you have - rewatch Normal
Again. Or see Psyche's transcripts.

Xander in the opening scene says very clearly to Buffy
and Willow - that he:
a. Misses Anya
b. Feels like he's dug a hole in his heart and it won't stop hurting and she is the one in his life
c. She closed the magic shop and it chills him to the bone.

Before in Hell's Bells - the writers deliberately left
out the line in which Buffy says : I guess I missed my chance with you. (Clearly they were afraid of this type of confusion and knew we wouldn't get the joke - they were right. Fans went nuts over the possibility of that line.
I just laughed - how many times have I heard guys say that
to female friends who got married? Thousands.)

Finally - He tells Buffy before she hits him over the head with the frying pan (which does remind me of why he left
Anya - he was scared of hurting her like his dad was hurting his mother - his nightmare was hitting Anya with a
frying pan =love guys!!) that he is so past the "Buffy
Obsession" - he knows it was just an obsession never love.

Also in When she was bad - the very first scene has him and
Willow almost engaged in a kiss, he was past Buffy at that
point.

Let it go. If they were going to get together - it would have happened in Season 4 - perfect opportunity, right before Parker arrived. Didn't happen. He's like her brother
and Willow's like her sister - she will love them till she's
dead. That sometimes is more lasting than romantic love.

[> [> [> Amen -- Apophis, leaving the proverbial building, 19:10:23 04/18/02 Thu

"Curse? What curse?" *Spoilers* -- Arethusa, in a hurry, 05:31:42 04/18/02 Thu

I wrote earlier about how sometimes pain is so severe it never completely goes away, but I missed an obvious conclusion.

Angel is never going to know a moment of complete happiness again.

Now, I really don't care if he gets it on or not. But this could potentially lead to some interesting developments, especially if the theme of betrayal is continued. I"ll be back later to see what you guys think.

[> So what you're saying is... -- Masq, 12:35:15 04/18/02 Thu

If Angel ever gets to make love to Cordelia, he won't lose his soul? It strikes me as pretty likely that the new Cordelia is the kind of woman who could move him emotionally the way Buffy did.

I was speculating that the whole soul-lossage thing might have been the reason for that "paranormal prophylactic " business with Groo. They were foreshadowing a way for Angel to make love to someone he loves without losing his soul--they would find a paranormal prophylactic for him, too.

But now you're guessing that might not be needed? Even in the throws of ecstatic happiness he'd still be tortured by the loss of Connor?

[> [> Re: So what you're saying is... -- Arethusa, 12:44:37 04/18/02 Thu

Yes. Even if he weren't "tortured," he could never be completely, utterly happy knowing that wacko Holtz is raising his son in the most demon-y of demon dimensions.

[> [> [> fanfic who takes on that idea (harsh) -- Lakrids, 14:20:06 04/18/02 Thu

There is a (good) fanfic, who tackles that subject in that way. AU over Ats Birthday read it, but it is harsh
"Another Life", by inamorata
http://fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=651841

Historical note O/T -- Cactus Watcher, 09:27:12 04/18/02 Thu

As expected it was officially announced yesterday that "Ally McBeal" has not been renewed for next year by Fox. Ally McBeal's initial success chased "Buffy" off its original Monday night WB slot. Of course, Buffy is in fact a Fox property... Strange indeed are some tales of fame and fortune...

[> Will the dancing baby come to the Hellmouth? ;) -- LittleBit, 09:37:03 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> Who's skinnier... -- BuffyX, 13:42:52 04/18/02 Thu

...Aly McBeal or Buffy??? I'm gonna say Buffy, since she has the whole petite thang going on.

Oh, by the way, I'm a newbie to this board...I run the Buffyverse Spoiler Board and a lot of my regulars visit here, so thought I'd come by and check it out!! :-)

*BuffyX*

[> [> [> She's only skinnier because she's shorter. -- Apophis, 15:38:51 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> [> BuffyX -- Rufus, 21:59:22 04/18/02 Thu

I'd post there but I have a sight problem that your blue with dark blue lines make it impossible for me to see that board. I'm giving you a hint....thought of just clear blue so I can see what you all are saying?

[> [> [> well, take a look at this -- vampire hunter D, 04:04:38 04/19/02 Fri

I found this. Hope this answers your question (note:some nudity here. Plus it's kinda sick)

http://www.bangedup.com/archives/allymc.jpg

gotta warn you, it is sick. Don't say I didn't warn you

[> [> [> [> Your warning isn't enough to prepare others. -- VampRiley, 12:23:53 04/19/02 Fri

Okay. Now that was nasty.

Yuck.

VR

[> [> [> [> [> I thought the domain name "bangedup.com" spoke for itself . . . -- d'Herblay, 13:18:38 04/19/02 Fri

. . . and it was saying, "d'H, don't go there!"

A New Vampire Slayer (Caution) -- Borderline, 14:47:52 04/18/02 Thu

A New Vampire Slayer

[> Looks like a hoot. ;o) -- CW, 15:04:44 04/18/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Looks like a hoot. ;o) -- Arethusa, 06:10:04 04/19/02 Fri

Too funny. And hey, we know he fought demons, too!

[> what can i say but: gevalt! -- anom, 21:45:37 04/18/02 Thu

[> Does his dad know what he's up to? -- Deeva, 22:07:48 04/18/02 Thu

[> No way! Is the cheeseman in the lead role? ;-) -- Nevermore, 05:32:58 04/19/02 Fri

Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind-Part II: Xander's Dream(quite long -sorry!) -- shadowkat, 18:46:19 04/18/02 Thu

Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind � Part II: Xander�s Dream
(All quotes taken from Psyche Transcripts.)
(* Mild spoilers to Hells Bells. Shouldn�t be any future spoilers)

Xander�s Dream: Loss of Heart

What is that song � it just popped into my head as I�m writing this : �Gotta Have Heart?� Was never very good at remembering the lyrics to songs, but that phrase just won�t let go. It�s fitting though, because I think I remember hearing Xander singing this song in one of the episodes way back in Season 2.

Xander is all about heart. He may not have the brains, he may not have the stamina and he may not have the moral compass or spirit, but boy you have to give the guy credit � he has plenty of heart. Plenty of courage. And don�t courage and heart go hand in hand? Xander describes himself as the �heart� of the group on more than one occasion. He isn�t supernaturally inclined, but he can come through in the clinch, right? So what happens if Xander stops trusting his heart? Stops coming through in the clinch? Heart � animus � loyalty � courage � what if these are ripped from him?

If Xander�s strength is his heart � then it is fitting that his dream begins with him and the gang watching �Apocalypse Now� which is based on a journey into The Heart of Darkness. Is this a journey into the darkness of Xander�s heart? No, I think that may be too literal an interpretation. I think if anything it is about Xander wanting to go on the journey but being unable to due to his own lack of heart, inability to trust his heart. As a result he keeps ending up in the same place, his parent�s basement.

In the beginning of Xander�s dream � we are in the Summer�s House. Only two of our fab four�s dreams start here. And I think it�s important that Xander�s does. The Summer�s House is Xander�s safe haven, just as Tara�s dorm room was Willow�s. In Older and Far Away, Xander is somewhat reluctant to leave Buffy�s House, even when the demon attacks him, I got the impression that he was happy there. And in Normal Again � it is Buffy�s House that he returns to after leaving Anya and everyone for a couple of days. So we start in the safe haven watching what Xander refers to as a gay romp � the feel good movie of it�s time: Apocalyspe Now. In the dream, no one is enjoying it, Buffy is bored and Giles feels it�s somewhat overrated. Xander anxiously states that it gets better, he knows it gets better. Xander�s province is film, he knows all about it. He gets his validation from this knowledge. And he desperately needs the approval of Giles and Buffy. Their disinterest about something as small as a movie he�s rented for them, worries him. Then Xander notices there�s something up with Willow � who appears to be twitching uncontrollably on the couch.

XANDER:What's her deal? (indicating Willow)
BUFFY: Big faker.
GILES: (still looking at TV) Oh, I'm beginning to understand this now. It's all about the journey, isn't it?(Xander rolls his eyes.)
XANDER: Well, thanks for making me have to pee. (Gets up)
BUFFY: You don't need any help with that, right?
XANDER: (heading for stairs) Got a system.

Buffy shrugs off Willow�s dilemma� just as she shrugged in off in Smashed and later at the beginning of Wrecked. Both Xander and Buffy ignore Willow�s dilemma but in different ways. Buffy shrugs it off as nothing. Xander notices it but chooses to do nothing about it � more concerned with his own situation. Throughout his dream, he constantly jogs past situations he�d rather not deal with. Ironic because up until now, I thought of him as courageously confronting the situation head on, guns blazing. Just like Willow before him, the writer shows us another side of Xander and he is not exactly what he appears.

When Giles tells Xander �it�s all about the journey� � Xander immediately takes off to pee. Xander doesn�t really want to go on a journey, he wants to stay in the safe haven. But Xander�s journey begins the moment he tries to avoid it. Buffy offers to help, in a somewhat embarrassing context � but Xander turns her down. A sexual and emasculating reference. How many times in the past three years or six, if you like, has Buffy emasculated Xander? 1) She saves him from the praying mantis. Teacher�s Pet. 2) She comes onto him in When She Was Bad � only to knock the wind from his sails, indicating it was just a game. 3) She pulls Larry off him, when he was trying to protect her from Larry in Halloween. 4.)She calls him one of the girls in Witch (Season 1). I think Willow is not the only one harboring a bit of resentment towards our superhero. Yet ironically, it is Buffy�s house Xander considers his safe haven.

The first segment of Xander�s dream takes place upstairs in the Summers House. This portion links to Buffy�s dream. Both Buffy and Xander go upstairs. And both are told that everyone has left a long time ago. (We�re not at Buffy yet � but remember the similarities between the dreams.) Once upstairs Xander runs into Joyce � Joyce acts as Xander�s guide in the upstairs segment of his dream while later, we�ll see Tara acts as Buffy�s guide, just as Tara acted as Willow�s. Both Joyce and Tara represent celestial mother figures or oracles. In Willow�s dream Tara is sexually displayed on her bed and is asking her uncomfortable questions. In Xander�s dream Joyce is wearing a red negligee and is asking uncomfortable questions � possibly echoing the desires in Xander�s own mind.

If we want to follow the novel Heart Of Darkness � Joyce can also represent � Marlow�s aunt. The first of three women that Marlow encounters on his journey to meet Kurtz. His aunt, described as a bright cheery woman, sends him off with good tidings, telling him to be careful, and make sure to wear the right clothing. She implies that he will send comfort wherever he goes. Here�s Xander�s scene with Joyce:

XANDER: Hey Joyce. Mrs. Summers. (Takes a step closer) We're not making too much noise down there, are we?
JOYCE: Oh, no. Anyway, they all left a while ago.
XANDER: Oh, I should probably go catch up.
JOYCE: (grins) I've heard that before.
XANDER: I move pretty fast. You know, a man's always after-
JOYCE: Conquest?
XANDER: (shrugs) I'm a conquistador. (Pan across Joyce's breasts.)
JOYCE: (we see her face and hear her voice, but her lips aren't moving) You sure it isn't comfort?
XANDER: I'm a comfortador also.

Xander wants to be the �comfortador�, yet he really tends to be all about the�conquest�. As he states way back in Season 2 � �I'll tell you this: people don't fall in love with what's right in front of them. People want the dream. What they can't have. The more unattainable, the more attractive." For Xander it has always been about conquest. He wins Cordy�s heart only to finally become interested in Willow, who is suddenly unavailable. The great irony is that his latest conquest is a vengeance demon who excels at punishing men exactly like Xander. What a coup it would be to his ego to gain Joyce�s heart. It certainly was a coup when he got to sleep with Faith (notice how he brags about it to Giles in This Year�s Girl: �See, I can't be held responsible for the effect I have on women.You see, Faith and I have this little thing between us called history.�) And of course later in Season 5 � he brags about Dawn having a crush on him and is highly annoyed that she likes Spike now. (Bloodties) The Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered spell in Season 2 is classic Xander � he gets all these women who wouldn�t look at him twice suddenly going for him. But he doesn�t like it and his conscience surfaces, or his heart, and he runs. Just like he turns away from Joyce.

(Shot of Joyce. Again we hear her voice although her lips don't move)
JOYCE: Would you like to rest for a while? (Pan over to her bed with the covers turned down. Xander looks from it to her.)
XANDER: Um, yeah. (Confidently) I'd like you. I'm just gonna go to the bathroom first.
JOYCE: Don't get lost. (Slinks into her room.)

In this portion of the dream, Xander imagines Joyce wants him � her lips aren�t moving � so at some level, Xander is cognizant of the fact that the real Joyce would never make these comments. Joyce also tells him that his friends are ahead of him, that �they all left a while ago.� And warns him not to get lost. Xander at this point believes he can catch up.

He ends up in the Summer�s Bathroom � which he thinks is safe, but instead it�s the Initiative lab filled with military guys studying him. Is this a throwback to Xander�s desire to be in the military? The only two characters that dream about the Initiative in any way are Xander and Buffy, perhaps because they both harbored an interest in joining it at one time? Or was that only Xander? When Xander nervously leaves the bathroom to find another � he finds himself in his parents basement � now the nightmare truly begins. Just as Willow�s nightmare truly began the moment she re-entered high school. If Willow associates high school with hell, Xander associates his parent�s basement with it:

(Now he's in his basement, dark. The door at the top of the stairs is closed, doorknob rattling ominously.)XANDER: (loudly) I didn't *order* any vampires.(Knob rattles louder and louder. Then we hear pounding on the door.) (nervous) That's not the way out. (Backing away)

His first response is that it�s vampires � clearly something he both hates and fears. After all vampires have taken away his friend Jesse and got in the way of any relationship he might of dreamed of having with Buffy. He must have wondered over the years if it weren�t for Angel, would Buffy have been interested in him? Clearly not � or she wouldn�t have gone for Riley, Scott Hope, Owen and Parker. But I�m not sure Xander can ever fully understand this. Vampires � Xander associates with the basement. Yet � we get the impression that it�s not vampires � Xander is really afraid of in this dream.

Speaking of vampires � we now have our first sighting of Spike. He didn�t make an appearance in Willow�s dream � but he does in Xander�s. Xander has entered a playground, it is an extremely bright day, the sun is almost blinding and he sees Giles and Spike in matching tweed suits swinging while Buffy sits below them playing like a little girl in a sandbox. Interesting in both Xander and later Giles� dreams Buffy is represented as a child. Do they think of her in this matter? Or is she seen as stunted in both matters of heart and intellect? She hasn�t fully developed these two skills? Could be all of the above. Both do tend to take on a sort of patriarchal role towards her, which is probably why neither will ever be romantically involved with her. Buffy doesn�t want a father or a brother. She doesn�t want to be taken care of. In the dream � she even calls him Big Brother � yes I believe this is partly Xander�s fears speaking, but remember the dream is operating on more than one level � as foreshadowing and as part of Buffy�s dream, they are all linked. But back to Spike and Giles:

SPIKE: Giles here is gonna teach me to be a Watcher. Says I got the stuff.
GILES: Spike's like a son to me. (They both smile and continue swinging)
XANDER: That's good. I was into that for a while, but... (nods toward the street) I got other stuff goin' on.

Xander�s reaction is interesting � instead of being angry about this, he seems to shrug it off. Which when we re-examine the events of the last year makes sense. He started off training to be a Watcher with Giles � back in The Initiative, but got bored of it quickly, moved onto pizza guy, then ice-cream truck guy, and by Season 5, has finally settled into construction. So Spike taking over this role doesn�t really seem to bother him too much � since he didn�t particularly like it that much to begin with. The reference about Spike being a son to Giles � also is interesting. Is Xander picking up on something the other�s aren�t? Is this just a fear? Remember we�re still in Xander�s dream. Perhaps Xander does catch from Giles a sense of fatherly interest in Spike � perhaps it�s how Xander has explained Giles� reluctance to hurt Spike or for that matter reject Spike entirely in Season 4. Remember in Pangs � it is Giles� house Spike is invited into and it is Giles who takes Spike in. Also it is Spike who helps Giles in the New Man and Giles does return the favor in The I in Team. So maybe Xander is on to something?

XANDER: (in playground) You gotta have something. (Looks at Buffy) Gotta be with movin' forward.
BUFFY: (like a proud little kid) Like a shark.
XANDER: Like a shark with feet and ... much less fins.
SPIKE: (like a proud little kid) And on land!
GILES: Very good!

Both Spike and Buffy are depicted as children in this segment of the dream with Giles as their father. They seem to sort of ignore Xander and his intent to move forward. That�s nice, they say, go ahead and use children�s analogies to understand it. The analogy they use is an interesting one � since it relates to at least four male characters in Buffy�s life. First Riley � before he leaves Sunnydale in Season 5, he is told repeatedly by his friends that he must keep moving forward. He appears to have no purpose outside of being Buffy�s boyfriend. Staying in Sunnydale stagnates him. Riley is also shark-like when he is first introduced � with dangerous drugs inside him and his last name is �Finn�. The second � Spike �is also stuck right now between two worlds and needs to move forward. (We�ll have to wait and see if he actually does.) He too can be described as a shark, with pointy teeth. The third � Giles � who was stuck in Season 4 and Season 5 and has finally moved forward in Season 6, leaving Sunnydale to begin a new life elsewhere. The fourth � Angel �left in Season 3 to start a new life and has moved forward. And all of their departures whether current, past, or possibly eminent are painful to Buffy = shark-like. The irony is that the only one who has not moved is Xander, yet he appears to be the one who is trying to. �Gotta be with movin forward.� One can�t help but wonder if Xander sees this trend? And if that is part of his nightmare, not being able to move forward no matter how hard he tries. Being stuck in the basement forever.

The final segment of this portion of Xander�s dream deals with his brotherly concern for Buffy. It should not be confused with romantic concern.

XANDER: Buffy, are you sure you wanna play there?(Buffy gives him a pouty look like a little kid told not to do something.)
It's a pretty big sandbox.
BUFFY: I'm okay. (Suddenly we see her against the backdrop of the desert from Willow's dream. Rocks, sand, scraggly trees) It's not coming for me yet.
XANDER: I just mean ... you can't protect yourself from ... some stuff.
(Buffy looks directly at him. The playground backdrop is back.)
BUFFY: I'm way ahead of you, big brother.
XANDER: Brother?

Buffy�s right � it�s how he�s treating her in the scene. Like a brother. Gently suggesting she might not want to play there, but not overly concerned. A boyfriend would attempt to move her or would see her as older. Buffy is the only woman in Xander�s dream who is not viewed as a sexual object. He views her chastely like a little girl or sister. Someone to protect, to cherish, but not to boink. Meanwhile Giles is telling Spike to put his back into it and swing harder � has Spike switched to the romantic role here � is this a sexual reference in regards to Buffy? Or does it just continue the thread that Spike is being groomed to take Giles� place? (I think we might be reading too much into it, personally.)

Now we have Xander and Anya in the ice-cream truck. Remember the last time Xander was in the ice cream truck he and Anya had an argument about having sex? Anya thought he�d lost interest in her and he claimed he hadn�t? Well � once again they are having an argument. Except this time Anya wants to know where they are going. He clearly has no idea. So she brings up the idea of getting back into vengeance because, hey that at least gave her some direction, some purpose.

ANYA: I've been thinking about getting back into vengeance.(We see her playing with a lollipop in its wrapper.)
XANDER: Is that right?
ANYA: Well, you know how I miss it. I'm so at loose ends since I quit. I think this is going to be a very big year for vengeance.
XANDER: But ... isn't vengeance kind of ... vengeful?

Not only does this scene foreshadow future events � it reveals some of Xander�s fears regarding Anya. Again he has her almost childlike, petulant, depending on him. She is sucking on a lollipop. And suggests as a child might � I think I�ll get back into vengeance. But he doesn�t really appear to be taking her seriously. In his dream women appear to be either children or sex objects. Something Willow may have picked up on in her dream in which he discusses her magic with OZ in sexual undertones.

The next portion of the conversation reveals a great deal about Xander and how he views the world:
ANYA: (petulant) You don't want me to have a hobby.
XANDER: Not a vengeance hobby, no! It's dangerous. People can't do anything they want. Society has rules, and borders, and an end zone. It doesn't matter if-(He hears giggling, turns.)(We see Willow and Tara in the back of the truck, snuggling and nuzzling. Both wearing exaggerated eye makeup.)Do you mind? I'm talking to my demon.

I think we glimpsed a side of Xander that we only guessed existed. He wants rules and order and believes they should exist. But hardly practices what he preaches. His whole speech to Anya is ironic. I want the neat little boxes, please. I want the world to make sense. He reminds me of the radio man who travels down the river with Willard in Apocalypse Now. The radio man who decides to go hunting in the jungle with Willard only to be scared witless by a tiger. The radio man who thinks the world has boundaries and discovers on his journey it doesn�t and in a sense enjoys that � playing with the whores they meet in one place and helping the men on the boat shoot up another boat full of harmless people. He wants the boundaries � but hey I�m talking to my demon who I have sex with and notice it�s �my� demon. Also notice how he has Willow and Tara dressed? Very seductively, almost like whores?

(Shot of Willow in a very short black bustier, Tara in a short black skirt and very revealing white blouse. Tara has one leg bent and Willow's hand is on her thigh. Both have heavy black eye makeup and thick red lipstick.) (Xander stares at them. Both girls smile seductively at him. We hear Tara's voice although her lips don't move.)
TARA: We just think you're really interesting.
XANDER: Oh, I-I'm going places.
WILLOW: I'm way ahead of you. (Caressing Tara's leg.)(Closeup of Willow and Tara grinning at each other, nuzzling. Willow whispers in Tara's ear. They both giggle.)(Pan down to Willow's hand stroking Tara's thigh.)

Xander once again is indulging in sexual fantasy. But they are both painted rather darkly in his dream. Is this how he views lesbians? Willow certainly thought so � in her dream. What does Xander say in Willow�s dream: �Sometimes I do a spell all by myself?� Also Willow suggests in Xander�s dream that she is �way ahead of him�. He may be moving forward, yet he appears to still be behind his friends. Buffy says the same thing in the playground scene: �I�m way ahead of you big brother.� The difference is Willow is portrayed sexually in Xander�s head while Buffy is portrayed as anything but. When they indicate he can join them � their lips don�t move � indicating that on some level Xander knows it�s not real, that they�d never want this, it�s merely what he wants. But he does attempt to join them, leaving Anya behind to drive the car emphatically. It�s the same thing he does in Hell�s Bells, he leaves Anya to deal with the guests, to gesture emphatically. In his head � she doesn�t appear to mind.

Of course they are gone and Xander is once more in his parents basement. He ends up there three times, each time circling back to it. This time, the pounding on the upstairs door is louder, but he doesn�t face it, instead skips out the back door running smack into the cheese man who tells him the cheese slices won�t protect him. Interesting Willow�s cheese was about order, while Xander�s appears to be about protection. Protecting what? What is Xander afraid of? Why does he keep fleeing his basement and avoiding the upstairs? What doesn�t he have the heart to face?

Xander runs into Giles and Anya at the high-school, interesting, both Xander and Willow end up at Sunnydale high. In this portion of the dream, Xander is running from something, but he�s not sure what it is. Giles and Anya try to help him but he can�t understand them � they start speaking French � telling him that it�s no time to play games and he has to come with them back to the house, everyone else has gone ahead. French � a language commonly taught in high school, also considered slightly elite, so this could be a metaphor about Xander�s feelings of inadequacy? The fact that people are speaking above his head or intellect ? Giles and his friends using words he has yet to learn? Again the idea is that the others are way ahead of him, Xander is being left behind. All through Season 4 and part of 5, we get glimpses of Xander�s fear of being left behind by his friends. HE didn�t go onto College like Willow and Buffy. He�s still living at home. He already feels left behind, both intellectually and emotionally. Now in his dream it appears to be physically.

Finally we near the end of Xander�s dream � and it�s back to the beginning, Apocalypse Now � the journey metaphor. Except in this scene he has reached the end of Willard�s journey � he enters Kurtz� camp or the heart of darkness. Kurtz is portrayed by Snyder and the scene is shot exactly like a scene between Marlon Brando (Kurtz) and Martin Sheen (Willard) in the movie. Snyder like Joyce in the beginning of the dream is asking Xander some uncomfortable questions: Where are you from? Were you born there? Where are you heading? Who are you? And Xander�s answers are interesting � he tells Snyder � he comes from his parent�s basement � the very place he keeps trying to escape. He doesn�t appear to know who he is, but he�s not a solider. The solider metaphor is interesting because it links back to how Spike split him and the Scoobies up. Spike convinced Xander that the Scoobies were ashamed of his lack of direction. Made fun of his interest in the military and the military was the only place he could go. (The secret to Xander�s dream may actually be what Spike used against him as I�m beginning to realize it could have been the answer to Willow�s as well � Spike used the witchcraft and Willow�s �lesbian� activities to split her apart from the Gang. She feels powerful about them � but is still worried about what the others� think. Xander feels the same way � he�s proud of his military knowledge that he obtained years ago and his courage, but he also feels insecure about it and worries about what others� think.) Seeing this weakness, Snyder doesn�t stop with the questions � he adds some difficult answers as well.

SNYDER: Are you a soldier?
XANDER: (shakes head) I'm a comfortador.
SNYDER: (contemptuous) You're neither. You're a whipping boy. Raised by
mongrels and set on a sacrificial stone.

Snyder snaps Xander�s confidence in two. Just as Buffy snapped Willow�s by forcing her out of the closet, stripping off her costume. (Except ironically in Willow�s dream the costume was her witch/lesbian persona, the one underneath was the geek. In Xander�s the costume he�s wearing is the solider, underneath is the guy with the quick retort and the crazy shirts who keeps ending up in his parents� basement.)

�You�re nothing�, Snyder tells Xander. �You�re unimportant.� It�s important that it�s Snyder doing it. An authority figure. Xander has always respected and struggled with authority figures. This is the principal of the high school. The second most abusive adult man in Xander�s life next to his father. On top of which � Snyder never got a date in high school, Snyder was a geek, Snyder didn�t have the heart to stand up to the mayor. Snyder is the hollow man. How does Xander reply? With a smart retort, Xander�s method to handling everything � a smart alec retort. �I�ve got a cramp.� �Thanks for making have to pee.� �I was really happy when you got eaten by the snake.� The next segment takes place outside Giles apartment where Giles and Anya and Buffy are trying to help Willow. But can�t. The comments each makes is very appropriate to their characters at least in Xander�s head:

Buffy: I can fight anything right? (But can she, really? Can she fight a friend? A human? Perhaps this segment leaks into Buffy�s dream?)
Anya: Maybe we should slap her? (Looking for the simple approach. Or quick way out? It reminds me of how Spike handles Buffy�s catatonia in Weight of the World.)
Giles: It�s more serious than we thought. (Giles is ignoring Xander in this scene in somewhat the same manner he ignores Willow in the last dream. He sees him, but is distracted by something more important.)

All of them are so focused on Willow�s problem that they fail to see Xander who is once again running from the first slayer. HE ends up climbing through a window into Buffy and Willow�s dorm room, then through a closet only to end up � you guessed it � back in his parent�s basement for the third and final time. Interesting � once again the closet/wardrobe metaphor. Had it appear in two dreams now. Willow talking about the Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe : Wardrobe/closet after her costume is ripped off? Now Xander climbing through the girls� clothes closet� only to end up in his parent�s basement again? Both are running from the first slayer, on the surface their fears appear different � yet are they? Both are afraid of being unmasked. Willow � about the geek inside the powerful witch/lesbian. And Xander�what is it Xander is afraid of? The answer lies in the very last scene:

XANDER: (whispers) That's not the way out. (The door bursts open. Xander looks down at himself, then back up the stairs.)
VOICE: What the hell is wrong with you?(Xander looks chastised.)
(We see a man silhouetted in the doorway above. It's Xander's dad.)
DAD: You won't come upstairs? What are you ... ashamed of us? Your mother's crying her guts out!
XANDER: You don't understand.
DAD: No. You don't understand. (Starts down the stairs, stomping angrily) The line ends here with us, and you're not gonna change that.
(Xander looking down, unable to look at his dad.)You haven't got the heart.

At first it looks like Xander is afraid of his father or the way his father feels towards him. But when you look at the scene again � it appears he is really afraid of being his father. Of going upstairs and taking on his parents� lives. He feels if he keeps moving forward he can avoid this, somehow. But all it does is take him back to where he started. He can�t run from it. Until he has the heart to face his own future, he won�t be able to move on. It�s what Snyder tells him � you�re not a solider, you�re not a comfortador �you�re a whipping boy. Until he can trust his heart, he will continue to be everyone�s whipping boy, especially his parents. But he doesn�t trust his heart � he doesn�t like himself. He believes deep down inside that he was raised by mongrels and he will be sacrificed because he doesn�t deserve anything else. His father is right � he�s ashamed: of his family, of himself, of Anya (his �demon�) and as a result he�s trapped. He can�t let go of his failed aspirations. �Gotta keep moving� he says over and over, and yet no matter how fast he moves � he can�t catch up to his friends. His left behind. Why? As his father puts it, before the heart is pulled from Xander�s chest � �You haven�t got the heart.�

Irony at it�s best. Willow who is portrayed as spirit � is revealed to be without it. Xander who is portrayed as the heart � doesn�t appear to have enough of one to move out of his parent�s basement. Did the first slayer really remove these attributes or have Xander and Willow let go of them on their own?

End Part II. (Coming Soon � Part III: Giles � Loss of The Mind)

Thanks again for reading. Sorry for the length. Hope it adds to the discussion. Looking forward to your comments as always. ;-) Shadowkat

[> Interesting... -- Eric, 20:08:56 04/18/02 Thu

And a tidbit: the word "courage" is from a latin word meaning "with heart".

[> Re: Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind-Part II: Xander's Dream(quite long -sorry!) -- Alvin, 03:15:56 04/19/02 Fri

Just got to say that I really enjoy your posts. I'm curious about your opinion on the scene in Willow's dream during Buffy's rant about men to Riley. In the background Xander is lying on the ground while Harmony cries next to him. I always took it as yet another Xander is going to die, possibly by Harmony with Willow then killing Harmony (because of Harmony's talk of her and Willow's big scene together), but that seems too obvious.

[> [> Re: Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind-Part II: Xander's Dream(quite long -sorry!) -- shadowkat, 07:02:22 04/19/02 Fri

Why is it - I always miss this reference:

"In the background Xander is lying on the ground while Harmony cries next to him. I always took it as yet another Xander is going to die, possibly by Harmony with Willow then killing Harmony (because of Harmony's talk of her and Willow's big scene together), but that seems too obvious."

I looked for it in the Transcript and couldn't find it.
So wasn't sure where it was. I always thought they were
crying because Riley was leaving.

Two things that have occurred to me:
1. I get the strong feeling that Riley/Spike are combined
in the subconsciousness of the characters in these dream
sequences. From the fact that Riley only shows up in the
girls dreams and Spike only shows up in the guys dreams.

That said the whole Riley coming to town hunting a salesman
reminded me of AYW. So I leaped to the conclusion that
her speech had to do with dumping Spike and Riley and
how all men were useless (this being Willow's p.o.v - I can see Willow thinking this.)

But Xander being dead on the ground in the scene does change
that. Therefore - I think maybe it's about Xander's failure
to go through with the marriage. Maybe Riley and Xander are linked in Willow's dream = both military? Both leaving? Failure can be perceived as a sort of death? Harmony's crying over him - over the
failure like Anya? Buffy's railing at Riley - railing for
both Anya and Buffy towards two men who disappointed them,
Riley leaving Buffy & marrying Sam or Xander leaving
Anya and being hurt by Anya as a result? I don't see him
as being killed...the metaphors always seemed to be leading
more towards the need for him to get past things, perhaps
killing off the child and becoming the adult? Not sure.

Hope that made sense...really need to go back to work now.

[> [> [> Was that really Xander? -- ponygirl, 07:53:08 04/19/02 Fri

As far as I can remember the dead guy is lying facedown - we never see who he is.

[> Cool as usual but what do you think about.... -- LeeAnn, 09:00:00 04/19/02 Fri

Xander vs. Spike. Why has Xander been shown as strong or stronger than Spike? as an equal or better fighter? Because Xander is Joss? or so Joss has said. Or because Xander has a heart and Spike doesn't? Or as foreshadowing of a Xander/Buffy relationship where Xander wins.

I'm thinking of several incidents:

In Blood Ties during the confrontation with Glory at the hospital Glory flings Spike away and he is knocked unconscious but Xander is able to hit her with a tire iron before she flings him away.

In The Weight of the World when Spike and Xander go to visit Doc to get information about how to stop Glory, Doc is able to knock Spike down while it is Xander who grapples with him and drives a sword through his chest, thinking he has killed him.

In Normal Again Xander is able to knock Spike ass over tea kettle which is pretty strange because when Buffy punches Spike he generally doesn't even fall down.

Even chipped Spike is much stronger than Xander yet in these scenes it is Xander, the weak human and poor fighter, who does better than Spike against a hell god and who is able to defeat the demon Doc as well as the demon Spike.

What this foreshadows, I don't know. But I bet it means something.

[> [> Re: Cool as usual but what do you think about.... -- shadowkat, 11:15:52 04/19/02 Fri

Or it could just be coincidental writing??

Not sure where you're going with this one. But I think you
might be reaching. I could be missing something...

I found some of those scenes odd but thinking on it here's my take on them for what it's worth: On the Glory bit - Xander did have a tire iron. And Spike had no weapons.
Also Spike was able to hold her for five minutes for Buffy
to punch her. Xander just got a swing in.

Regarding the punch in NA. Spike was holding groceries and
Xander caught him off guard. He usually has his guard up with Buffy. Also Buffy did knock him down pretty easily
in Dead Things in battle with the demon. Maybe they just
don't want to use the stunt double all the time? (They
use the stunt double every time JM's feet leaves the ground.)

Regarding Doc. Spike was hit first. Xander was prepared.
They more or less worked together there.

Xander would have been creamed by the GG demon in NA. Spike
saved him and was clearly stronger in that scene. And if
Xander was stronger - why did he get Spike for muscel?
Also Spike not Xander helped Buffy defeat the demon in OAFA,
Xander got knifed.

No...I think you're reading too much into it. As
for who is Joss? I've heard that the guy who plays Warren
got the role doing an imitation of Joss. And he's said, he's
Joss. Personally I think Sweet is. Heard a really good
argument for it over at the big bad web site.

[> Re: Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind-Part II: Xander's Dream(quite long -sorry!) -- verdantheart, 09:13:14 04/19/02 Fri

Really loving your posts.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe analogies are very interesting to me. Unfortunately it's been a while since I've read it -- I'm going to have to backtrack. But, if I remember aright, in the book the wardrobe is the way to an alternate universe in which the children come to have different identities than they do in the "normal" world. Xander goes through the closet/wardrobe to find himself in his "normal" world, amongst family, actually a hell to him. (Seems like I ought to be able to go on about this further, but, in a hurry now ...)

It also looks like the things uncovered in the dream are coming to pass. The characters are beginning to be forced to face their greatest fears and they are failing, just as they did in the dream. We see that Willow has been stripped of Tara and of her magic (at least active use of it) and Xander was unable to face marriage for fear of becoming his father.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Giles' dream, especially because he hasn't been present (will that blunt the impact?). Will it be up to Buffy to prevail, as she did in her dream?

Keep up the good work! - vh

[> could the real Xander, please stand up?. ;) -- Lakrids, 13:03:00 04/19/02 Fri

Forgiving/Buffy Parallel (Spoilors for AtS Forgiving) -- Amber, 00:10:06 04/19/02 Fri

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but if I'm correct the last time we saw an attempted death by pillow smothering was in Graduation Day Pt. 2. The Mayor tries to smother Buffy who is still unconscious from "feeding" Angel. In that case it was Angel who saved Buffy from the pillow.

When "Forgiving" ended I couldn't help wondering if we were supposed to see some sort of parallel or irony to that, those of us who watch both shows and remember our history, anyway.

Any thoughts on this? Can anyone recall other instances when the pillow has been someone's weapon of choice on Buffy or AtS?

The only other one I can come up with right now is "Weight of the World" when Buffy repeatedly tries to suffocate Dawn with the pillow. Mind you that one was in a dream-state not part of the show's 'real world'.

[> Re: Forgiving/Buffy Parallel (Spoilors for AtS Forgiving) -- mucifer, 08:13:29 04/19/02 Fri

I can only say that it seems to me Angel didnt really mean to kill Wesley just freak him out. It doesnt seem the angry vampire warrior way to kill and he didnt fight the two hospital security guys at all. I saw more of a childish tantrum or a man playing immature mind games against someone defenseless.

I dont know if this has been mentioned before, but, one inconsistancy I see in the show is that Angel is supposed to feel for all the suffering he has caused. Yet, he did horrible things to Wesley who pointed out what Angel should see as his own weak spot.I would think with the prophecy and his own odd behavior which he did acknowledge, Angel would question himself the safety of his child and all of this would only add to his own feelings of selfhatred which he has had in the past. I guess it might be that the writers are saying that even with the soul and the guilt Angel does still have a dark sadistic side to him.

[> [> The mayor used his hand -- vandalia, 08:22:25 04/19/02 Fri

Not a pillow, but if you looked at 'smothering' as a symbol...

I believe the First in Restless tried to kill Willow by stealing her breath (leaving her gasping for air).

[> [> The more I think about Angel's reaction ..... -- truelove, 08:50:39 04/19/02 Fri

Wow! What an episode. Even a reporter said he couldn't wait to see what Angel would do next.
The reaction was many sided --
First: "Don't call Cordelia - she'll be coming back with presents for Connor and he'll be here --"
First: Denial, yes, but also more -- what role does Angel think that Cordy has in Connor's life now that Darla is gone? Does he see her as a mother figure for Connor and was he trying to spare her? I think so.
How far would Angel go to protect those he loves?
Very far, evidently. He threatens to poke out an eye of the Wolfram & Hart kidnapee, summons a demon, appears to be willing to break Lilah's neck (if were her I'd get over my crush on him), and all of that adds up to one very brassed off vampire father. And if Wesley thinks that Angel will say that he understands why through Wesley's actions how Conner was sent to hell, forget that.
The rift appears to be unforgiveable for Angel and even though the Host declares it necessary.
When Cordy finds out what has happened to Conner, I think it will be the end of her and Groo -- she'll feel guilty about taking the vacation, feel bonded to Angel, and will try to be the buffer between Angel and Wesley.
I can't wait to see this play out. Any ideas?
A lot will be riding on Cordy's return too.

[> [> [> Re: The more I think about Angel's reaction ..... -- Robert, 15:19:26 04/19/02 Fri

>> " Even a reporter said he couldn't wait to see what Angel would do next."

Can you provide details?

[> [> [> [> A TV Guide Article on Forgiving and those episodes to come... -- AngelVSAngelus, 17:50:27 04/19/02 Fri

praised the episode for its intensity among other things, and the writer couldn't wait to see what Angel would do next in response to all the things that have transpired.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A TV Guide Article on Forgiving and those episodes to come... -- Robert, 20:51:11 04/19/02 Fri

Thanks

[> [> Re: not the monster but the man(Spoilors for AtS Forgiving) -- Keyster, 20:30:12 04/19/02 Fri

" I guess it might be that the writers are saying that even with the soul and the guilt Angel does still have a dark sadistic side to him."

No, it's BECAUSE he has a human soul that causes him to react like he did.

That is why is was so important for Angel to make the distinction between Angel and Angelus.

It's not the monster but the man. And perhaps that is the most monsterous thing of all.

I feel most Humans would have reacted the way Angel did. Some things are unforgivable regardless of reasons. I don't think the Palestinians and the Israelis can forgive each other regardless of how much they want to. They have inflicted too much pain upon each other to ever forgive.

Since we are talking about death by suffocation how about Giles and Ben?

[> In Weight of the World -- Vickie, 11:54:47 04/19/02 Fri

Buffy smothers Dawn with a pillow. Repeatedly.

I think the "cannot see the victim's face" point that several people have made is an important one. In each case, the would-be killer doesn't really want to look at what he/she is doing.

OT: JM answers questions at JM.com - no spoilers, really! -- Deeva, 10:35:38 04/19/02 Fri

You can click here to go there.

I'm not sure if anyone's interested in this so I just put up the link instead of the whole Q & A.

[> Re: OT: JM answers questions at JM.com - no spoilers, really! -- luvthistle1, 22:28:12 04/19/02 Fri

Thanks for the link, I glad you posted it. It was a great interview.

[> What a PC idiot. -- Steveosaurus, 23:10:04 04/19/02 Fri

My respect for this guy is plummeting.

"The people who are deciding which stories are going to be told are mostly white males."
Diego Gutierrez, Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson, Rebecca Rand Kirshner, Dana Reston, Ashley Gable, Elin Hampton, Thania St. John, Tracey Forbes, etc. will all be pleased to learn that they are white males.

"So most of the characters are going to be white males. And the females are going to be impacting the males but aren't going to be central."
Females not central? What show is he watching?

"I don't have a black friend that I hang out with on a weekly level."
You must be a Klansman. Maybe you should just be friends with whoever you happen to be friends with instead of making a deliberate, unctuous and self-conscious effort to have one black friend, one Chinese friend, one Cherokee friend and so on, just to make a big public show out of how enlightened and tolerant you are. If someone wanted to be my friend, I'd hope it was for I am as an individual, not because they're trying to fill a quota to prove that they're not racist. I'm nobody's trophy honkey!

As a counterpoint to JM's mindless drivel, here is a much more interesting and intelligent article:
http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/diversity.html

[> [> Re: What a PC idiot. -- Andrew, 23:31:56 04/19/02 Fri

I thought that was a little bizarre, but I think he's refering to something he said on the Politically Incorrect show. I think he was intending to criticize network TV in general, and I don't know how he could relate that to BtVS, a show which is everything network TV isn't. My only hope was that he didn't really mean what he said. I'm struggling to find an alternative reading, however.

[> [> Ok, I think you're taking his statements WAY out of context... -- Rob, 23:46:18 04/19/02 Fri

...and since when did being "PC" become so bad? Sometimes it's nice to, you know, not hurt other people's feelings and try to watch your words before you say them. I don't think that it's a bad thing that JM is PC...I don't think enough people are PC.

Speaking of which, I completely, utterly, totally, etc etc disagree with the article on the link you posted. Granted, racial diversity is a tough issue...but the author seems to be implying that it is more racist to have a college full of many different cultures and races than one that is only one race, as long as that race learns about those other races in class. Yes, I know, I'm being extreme, but it is to make the point that, sometimes when people complain about political correctness, whether intended or not, it sounds pretty racist. When faced with the option of sounding too politically correct and overcompensating for that fact, or sounding like a bigot, I'd choose the former.

The author of that piece can speak all he wants about "intellectual diversity" as something that should be embraced, but the fact is that that is something that is very hard to accomplish. The singlemindedness of academia has been going on for a long time. It is much easier to find a finely, blended culturally diverse group of students than to find a professor openminded enough to allow other people's views to be spoken.

I read, also at that site, the "Apology for Racism will Perpetuate Racism," in which it is argued that white people shouldn't feel guilty for slavery, and that if they do, they are perpetuating racism. The only way to fight it is to be completely colorblind. While I don't feel white people have to still be guilty for the actions of our forefathers, colorblindness is definitely not the right idea. That denies blacks of their heritage and their voice. Whether their entrance into this country was happy or not, it is what it is...and it will always be a part of them. Acting colorblind in all situations sounds like denial to me.

After the Holocaust ended, a Jewish phrase came about--"Never Again." The way to prevent these atrocities from reoccuring was to never forget the story, to hold onto our ancestry and heritage, and by those means, to prevent history from repeating. Acting colorblind in this situation could doom history to repeat itself. Slavery is something that should never be forgotten, to make sure it doesn't happen again.

If it's a choice between JM's honest, well-spoken opinions on that website interview, or the pseudo- intellectual thinly-veiled racism of that so-called "Diversity & Multiculturalism: The New Racism" site, I'll take JM any day.

That site just enfuriates me! It's a way for old, white men to not only complain about races blending, but then turn it around and say that that very blending and diversification is the real racism! Give me a break!

Rob

[> [> [> Re: Ok, I think you're taking his statements WAY out of context... -- Phoenix, 12:38:00 04/20/02 Sat

>>>Acting colorblind in this situation could doom history to repeat itself. Slavery is something that should never be forgotten, to make sure it doesn't happen again.<<<

As much as I like JM, like many `right-on` PC liberals, he`s woefully ignorant of the facts, and astonishingly naive. I was one of them myself for too many years to count, until the rose-tinted spectacles came off.

This appears to be a common delusion: slavery is a thing of the past, and it`s something that nasty white men did to poor black people.

It will probably shock y`all rigid to know that slavery is *still* going on - I`m not just talking about bonded servitude either - and here`s the killer: it is a far greater industry then it EVER was at the height of the American Slave trade. Maybe b/c there are a hell of a lot more people around now. And *nobody* does anything. Do some research and look at the stats; you realise what an uphill battle these anti-slavery societies and the UN have. How can they fight something that most of the Western world genuinely believes ended in the past?

One of the reasons it`s allowed to continue, is "faux liberals" are so busy whipping everyone up with guilt, and trying to make up for the sins of their fathers (which is futile), that they often wilfully turn a blind eye to what`s going on.

When all this "reparation" for slavery was first occurring, and the liberals were giving it serious attention in the UK, there was a lot of outrage. Should the UK petition Italy demanding reparation because the Romans enslaved our ancestors? And what about many of those countries currently voting in the UN for the US and Britain and every bugger else to pay up for the `abomination` of slavery - at the very same time that slavery is rife in their own countries??

Many of the anti-slavery people took this opportunity to demonstrate that we`d all been living in blissful ignorance, and they threw up a lot of UN data blah blah. Two prominant guys from the Racial Equality Commission (one black, one white) were asked why they weren`t doing anything - because apparently they were already aware of this info. Their response was *very* illuminating.

Approx 20% of this modern day slavery is in Eastern Europe and it involves a kind of bonded servitude, sending illegal immigrants to Europe as casual labourers, and supplying young girls to the brothels of Europe. This is deemed very bad (well duh!) and much outrage is expressed. But.....

80% of real slavery goes on throughout the African continent and much of the Middle East. It always has done. People forget that the first African slaves brought to Europe were actually *purchased* from their black slave owners, and that many of the `slaves blocks` have been pre-dated by archaeologists to long before Europeans arrived. Just because the West got all prissy about Slavery doesn`t mean the rest of the world - which had been doing it longer - was inclined to stop. And they haven`t.

So, you`d kinda think that this would be something that these Race organizations, and liberal groups would be fighting vigorously against. Not so. It`s not slavery which outrages them so much, it`s `who is the Master, and who is the Slave`, which is their concern.

It is perfectly alright when white men enslave other white men - which they did - because well, that`s what conquerors did with the conquered, and the rich always shaft the poor anyway so it`s no big deal. It is also okay for black men to enslave other black men, because well it`s always been part of the "culture" in Africa or much of the Middle East. Not for us to criticise - that would imply we felt our culture was superior which would be racist. *rolls eyes* I`m pretty sure there would be no problem with black men enslaving white men either. But white men enslaving black men? No, no, no! That`s *different*! And totally unacceptable. Why?

The white liberal seemed more offended that the American Slave Trade was - whisper it quietly - profitable. I find it telling that many of these people are usually vehemently anti-capitalist, and despise their own country. He`d probably have been fine with it, if the Americans hadn`t made a good profit. :P

The black guy on the other hand, got offended for different reasons. Again perfectly ok with blacks being the slavemasters, even today, but when it`s a white guy in a position of Master, that`s what he found offensive. It`s racist innit! A black man as Master to a black slave can apparently be reasoned away with the "rich shafting the poor angle", but never if it`s a white man doing the shafting.

Seems to me, if these people can rationalise slavery like this, it ain`t about righting wrongs. It *is* about racism, but it`s *theirs*. Such people resent the West, and they resent white men. The fact that many of them are white men themselves just makes it a bit sadder to me.

So I would say to any of you who are all supportive of Jesse Jackson`s quest for reparation, you should question whether it is *really* slavery which you are so disgusted with. Because if you genuinely are affronted with Slavery - and not just the "American Slave Trade" of the past - then you need to take a long hard look at what is going on in much of the world,and stop feeling guilt over an unchangeable past.

Handing out thousands of your tax dollars to countries where slavery is still rampant is offensive to me. Though I suppose it`s another way of screwing more "foreign aid" out of the West so those Governments don`t actually have to stop lining their own nests at the expense of the people. Why should those Governments use their money on their own people, when they can get the West to do it for them? Can`t say I blame them for using our guilt against us. It`s our fault for allowing ourselves to be manipulated.

There is far more you can get outraged over today, but nothing will ever change while everybody is feeding their guilt over the past. JMHO. Guilt is a waste. Do some research and get mad. Write to Jesse Jackson and hit him with the data, asking why he isn`t campaigning against slavery *today*, and doesn`t appear to care that black people are still in bondage?

I despise Jesse Jackson. There is no substance to the man. But he knows how to manipulate white guilt and if he can get middle America feeling bad, he will do. People don`t ask too many uncomfortable questions when they are feeling guilt.

So if you asked me whether I would prefer to be labelled `PC` or a bigot, I`d go for the bigot every time. At least they are upfront with their bigotry, and you know where you are with them. The PC brigade hide their bigotry with a fake liberalism, that wouldn`t be out of place in a totalitarian state.

Gosh I do believe that turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry!

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> Re: Ok, I think you're taking his statements WAY out of context... -- Rob, 12:55:02 04/20/02 Sat

"I despise Jesse Jackson. There is no substance to the man. But he knows how to manipulate white guilt and if he can get middle America feeling bad, he will do. People don`t ask too many uncomfortable questions when they are feeling guilt."

I completely agree with you about that...I agree that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. are asses. White people should certainly not feel guilty about slavery. On the same token, however, I don't think it is respectful to either race to be completely colorblind and ignore the fact that slavery ever existed. Slavery shouldn't be seen as an excuse for hatred of whites, but at the same time, being colorblind implies having people of color forget about their cultures and just be...white.

Rob

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, I think you're taking his statements WAY out of context... -- Phoenix, 13:13:31 04/20/02 Sat

Don`t disagree with you Rob.

My problem is when the `PC Brigade` - oh I have so grown to hate them, and am ashamed I used to be one :p - keep going on and on about slavery *in the past*. They really seem to believe it ended then, and they are happy to heap all the blame on European Americans. If they`d give it a rest, and focus on the present, they could direct that anger where it could do some good.

Too many of them prefer to remain in ignorance, or if they are aware of what`s going on, won`t say anything because it will ruin their `cred` if they criticised a `black` Nation. You are quite right that colour should not be playing a part here, but it is: black Nations where slavery is rife are let off the hook precisely *because they are black*. Thou Shalt Not Criticise These Nations. They are seemingly not being held to the same standards as the rest of the world (which I find both racist and patronizing).

Black people are suffering because the PC `ideal` must be preserved at all cost. And it does come at a very high cost. :(

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, I think you're taking his statements WAY out of context... -- Rob, 13:37:35 04/20/02 Sat

Sorry, I meant to address that point, too...I agree with you on that as well. Seeing slavery as only being perpetrated by European Americans, in the past is definitely revisionist history...Not only is it going on now, but it wasn't only white people enslaving blacks. Black tribes were enslaving other black tribes as well. And there have been some stories I've read about black slaveowners in the South.

I see where you're coming from about the "PC Brigade." I don't think I worded my "I'd rather be considered PC" response well enough...What I meant to say was that (1) I don't think JM really was being "PC" in his statements...I think he was making a broad generalization about the society to make a valid point. He didn't seem to be saying that we should be guilty for "white men" running things, but just that that's how society is. He wasn't advocating the "white" majority being thrown down or inserting diversity into TV shows, arbitrarily. In fact, he was saying the opposite...that that's how the world is, and we deal with it; (2) if what JM's remarks are what one would call "PC," then, in this case, I'd side with the "PC" people, but I don't see his side as being "PC." I think it was an honest opinion, and a good one.

Hope that clarifies things!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, yeah I get what you mean now. Agree. ;) -- Phoenix, 13:51:31 04/20/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Color Blindness, Heritage, and the Individual -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:25:19 04/20/02 Sat

I agree with a multitude of points raised in previous posts, including that of slavery being a wrong that's been perpetrated by many people of many different races.
However, the issue of colorblindness being an insult and having the implication that one should be white is something I disagree with. At least, that's not the way I interpreted it. I've always held the opinion that people should be colorblind, not forgetful of their own or other's cultural backgrounds, but not judgemental of anyone because of them or any other aesthetic quality. As a person that has faced the ridicule of others of his own race (for having good grammar, listening to a lot of music that isn't rap or r&b, among other things) and those that are not, that racial predeterminism has haunted me for my entire life, and its given me the opinion that the world would be a better place if judgement were reserved for characteristics and qualities that are not genetically innate in all of us, things like intelligence, morality, behavior, etc.
There is a cultural heritage for any of the number of the races that populate the world, but that does not mean that one is predetermined to adhere to or be defined by them. It always sort of confounds me when I hear anyone refer to a "white" or "black" or "latino" or "Asian" America, because of the fact that they're all pervasive labels, a large banner in which all of these people belonging to these races can be wrapped within one definition. That's called a stereotype. Colorblindness, to me, has always meant that one judged another based upon the most important part of their definition: The Individual.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Color Blindness, Heritage, and the Individual -- Copper, 17:34:46 04/20/02 Sat

Excellent summation, AngelVSAngelus. Colorblindness does not mean that one does not see color, but that one does not judge someone on the basis of color.

Unfortunately, this scares many who prefer to use simplistic boxes. Even the NAACP seems to have fallen into the color box trap rather than eradicating it as ML King dreamed of happening.

Focus on the individual, find commonalities with each individual, and life will be better.

[> [> [> [> I need a history buff to help me with this one -- Traveler, 19:34:09 04/20/02 Sat

Slavery was already becoming less and less profitable before the civil war, due to some of the new innovations of the time. Most historians agree that the south would have ended slavery voluntarily with a few decades even if they had somehow won the war.

Also, the civil war wasn't really about slavery at all. It was about money. The South was paying huge tariffs on the goods it was exporting to the North, even though the country was suppose to be one united whole. Since the country was founded on the idea that the government would never have total power over the states, the South decided they were getting a raw deal and left. Although the South technically started the war, the North pushed them into it. The North didn't force war on the South in order to free the slaves, although Lincoln was certainly opposed to slavery. Rather, the North declared war in order to get southern crops. It's been a long time since I studied history, so if any of you can correct me please do, but I think that's pretty much the way things happened. In generaly, wars are started for political/economic reasons, not for moral/idealistic ones. Also, I would like to point out that racism has always existed and isn't limited to whites, blacks, and jews. There were plenty of racists in the North too; the only difference was that slavery was illegal there, although industrialization created it's own brand of slavery. That's an essay for another time, though.

[> [> [> [> [> Sorry, but what you wrote is the Southern version of history -- Sophist, 20:50:30 04/20/02 Sat

and it doesn't bear much relationship with reality. This is a long and bitter discussion for many people, but I will try to summarize it here.

1. It is true that slavery was probably unprofitable. There were Southerners who made this argument before the War. Such books were banned (part of slaveholder repression and violation of basic civil liberties in order to preserve their peculiar institution). It had probably been unprofitable in VA for 50 years before the War, but there was no chance that it was close to abolition except by violence.

2. The South did not pay tariffs on goods exported to the North. There are no tariffs on exports (prohibited by the Constitution). Tariffs on interstate commerce would have violated the interstate commerce clause. What was happening was that the federal budget was funded by tariffs on imported manufactured goods. Southerners resented these because they wanted to use cotton exports to buy such goods and the tariffs (like any tax) drove up the price. Northerners tended to support tariffs because they used the tariff protection to start their own manufacturing businesses. Southerners could not (or would not) take advantage of this because manufacturing would require a free labor source. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with slavery because it's a free labor system.

3. The North did not need Southern crops. The states of the North produced a surplus of foodstuffs. Cotton was available from India and Egypt. Finished cotton goods could be imported from England, where most Southern cotton was sold anyway. In any case, starting a war is a poor way to gain access to crops. In the short term (5 years here), you lose access to the crops. If the South had left permanently, there is no reason to think that they would not sell cotton to the North.

4. The North did not push the South into the War. The Southern states refused to accept the results of a fully democratic election. They left because they wanted minority rule in place of majority rule. There were, in fact, numerous proposals during the winter of 1860-61 to resolve the crisis. These proposals came after some states had secceeded. Many of them were craven (permanent guarantees of slavery in the Southern states), but all foundered because Lincoln, rightly, would not agree to Southern demands that slavery be permitted in all Territories. The Republican party had run a campaign against such expansion, so the demand for this was tantamount to a demand that the Republican party dissolve and go home. The war was not about money, it was about slavery.

Yes, the North was filled with racists. That made it easy for die-hard Southerners to undertake successful terrorist actions after the War. When the troops were finally withdrawn, the white Southern majority terrorized the freed slaves and imposed the system of legal apartheid that lasted until the Civil Rights Movement.

[> [> [> [> [> [> And you wrote is the Northern version of history :) -- Malandanza, 08:04:10 04/21/02 Sun

"1. It is true that slavery was probably unprofitable. There were Southerners who made this argument before the War. Such books were banned (part of slaveholder repression and violation of basic civil liberties in order to preserve their peculiar institution). It had probably been unprofitable in VA for 50 years before the War, but there was no chance that it was close to abolition except by violence."

While slavery had been a dying institution in the South prior to 1800, the invention of the Cotton Gin (created by clever Yankee inventor, Eli Whitney) revived it. Even in the 1850's (long after the Constitutional ban on the importation of slaves went into effect) there was still much money to be made from slavery -- mostly by the North...

"2. The South did not pay tariffs on goods exported to the North. There are no tariffs on exports (prohibited by the Constitution). Tariffs on interstate commerce would have violated the interstate commerce clause. What was happening was that the federal budget was funded by tariffs on imported manufactured goods. Southerners resented these because they wanted to use cotton exports to buy such goods and the tariffs (like any tax) drove up the price. Northerners tended to support tariffs because they used the tariff protection to start their own manufacturing businesses. Southerners could not (or would not) take advantage of this because manufacturing would require a free labor source. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with slavery because it's a free labor system."

While there certainly were no interstate tariffs, the North made the bulk of the profit from the cotton trade. Cotton was transported by Northern ships to England -- or New England. The North converted the cotton in clothing and sold the result back to the Southerners. Even along the Mississippi, where steamboats could carry the goods, the cotton had to be sold in Northern ports and transported along Northern railroads to Northern mills. A slice of the profits was taken at every stage.

The "Free Labor" you speak about was largely made up of destitute immigrants. Factories had little incentive to pay living wages to their employees -- if a worker got too sick or feeble to work (or was mangled in the machinery), there was a plentiful supply of new immigrants to take his place. In the South, at least, the slaves (especially for the small slaveholders) had to be treated better or the slave would be unable to work. Of course there were atrocities -- large slaveholders might not regret the loss of an individual slave and the situation of Black women in the South was -- well, I can't think of a word that properly conveys the badness of it. In the West, there was the Peonage system -- which was somewhere between indentured servitude and slavery (if a person died owing money in the Peonage system, his children became peons).

"3. The North did not need Southern crops. The states of the North produced a surplus of foodstuffs. Cotton was available from India and Egypt. Finished cotton goods could be imported from England, where most Southern cotton was sold anyway. In any case, starting a war is a poor way to gain access to crops. In the short term (5 years here), you lose access to the crops. If the South had left permanently, there is no reason to think that they would not sell cotton to the North."

Far-sighted English millers had stockpiled large amounts of American cotton before the war began -- the numbers I've seen suggested they had at least a year's supply (and did not expect the conflict in America to last beyond that). The North had bumper crops of food prior to the war and immediately upon its beginning -- in fact, the North sent shipments of food to England during the first years (England had converted much of its arable land into pastures for sheep to feed its mills -- as a result, they experienced food shortages). These two events (plus the alternate sources of cotton you mention) helped keep England from recognizing the Confederacy. It wasn't the North that needed the South's crops -- the South experienced famine during the war. Too much land had been converted to growing cotton and tobacco.

"4. The North did not push the South into the War. The Southern states refused to accept the results of a fully democratic election. They left because they wanted minority rule in place of majority rule. There were, in fact, numerous proposals during the winter of 1860-61 to resolve the crisis. These proposals came after some states had seceded. Many of them were craven (permanent guarantees of slavery in the Southern states), but all foundered because Lincoln, rightly, would not agree to Southern demands that slavery be permitted in all Territories. The Republican party had run a campaign against such expansion, so the demand for this was tantamount to a demand that the Republican party dissolve and go home. The war was not about money, it was about slavery."

It's a mistake to associate sectionalism exclusively with the South. The Northern states threatened to succeed from the union during the War of 1812 -- the time of the Hartford Convention. Because of the 3/5 Compromise (nevermind that Blacks in the South had the same right to vote as Blacks in the North) coupled with the influx of immigrants in the North and the stagnant population increases in the South, the South had lost control of the House forever. In the Senate, free and Slave states were equally split (and some of the "slave states" were only nominally so). Lincoln demonstrated that the South was unecessary in presidential politics. With the loss of the executive branch, the Judicial branch must surely follow. If slavery was not to be extended to the territories, eventually even the senate must fall. The Southerners saw themselves as a disenfranchised people. The Civil War was more about States' rights than slavery. After the war, the Radical republicans turned the war into an antislavery movement.

It's interesting that as the Southern states returned to the union the Northern politicians suddenly realized, to their horror, that the South would have increased representation due to the abolition of the 3/5 Compromise. Effectively, rewarding the South for its rebellion. To get around this predicament, the Northerners decide that in the South disenfranchised Blacks would count as zero people, but Blacks with the right to vote would count as full people. Thus, Blacks gained the right to vote in the South before the North not because of the high-minded ideals of the Abolitionists in the North, because of crass political motivations.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And you wrote is the Northern version of history :) -- Gene, 09:02:20 04/21/02 Sun

I have come to the conclusion that the South was "right for wrong reasons". It should go without saying that slavery was an evil institution (but unfortanately one not only practiced in America, but one STILL being practiced in many areas of the world) and everything should have been done to work for its destruction (I am a fan of John Brown).

That said, the South had a right to secede (again I of course wished they wouldn't have pushed the issue in defense of slavery). And their lost though important in the ending of this evil institution, also had some very negative effects that continues to harm civil liberties.

The 14th Amendment expanded the power of the federal government. The "Federal" (as in Federation) now has became "National" (as in centralized control.) It used to be thought that in most cases the states should have the most authority (except in certain enumerated areas) as the states are closer to the people.

But by turning the "Federal" government into a "National" government (though we still call it "Federal") it shifted the power to a centralized power center (Washington DC). something our founders had always feared.

So to sum it up, although the Civil War freed the slaves, it enslaved all of us under national control. It didn't have to be that way, but unfortunately that is the way it did turned out.

Slavery is why I don't believe that compromise is always the best solution. During the debates regarding the forming of our constitution, there were many voices calling for the end of this evil institution right then and there. But of course they were accused of pushing their moral views on others (sound familiar?) we would probably today call them religious wackos.

So a compromise was made to end the importation of slaves at a certain date. And Slavery became one of our two "original sins".

Those unwilling to "compromise" their faith for the sake of "consensus" are those I have the most respect for.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The myth of the Lost Cause -- Sophist, 15:59:40 04/21/02 Sun

The nice part about the Northern version of the Civil War is that it's rare in history to be on the side of absolute moral rectitude. Slavery being indefensible, the South has a tough argument to make. What's remarkable is that its historians managed for so long to win the spin battle against such overwhelming odds.

While slavery had been a dying institution in the South prior to 1800, the invention of the Cotton Gin (created by clever Yankee inventor, Eli Whitney) revived it.

True enough. However, my point was different than this. I was responding to a claim that slavery would have died out without the war because it was uneconomical. Your statement counters that from one direction, namely that slavery was still profitable. Mine attacked it from another, namely that where slavery was not profitable -- in states like VA where no cotton was grown -- there were no signs that abolition was likely. The institution likely would have lasted far beyond 1865 had it not been for the war.

The "Free Labor" you speak about was largely made up of destitute immigrants. Factories had little incentive to pay living wages to their employees -- if a worker got too sick or feeble to work (or was mangled in the machinery), there was a plentiful supply of new immigrants to take his place. In the South, at least, the slaves (especially for the small slaveholders) had to be treated better or the slave would be unable to work.

There are 2 obvious responses to this. Lincoln made one: yes the factory worker might be poor. But because he was free, he did not need to remain in the factory. He could move West and farm his own land. Or he could save his money and start his own business. The slaves lacked these options even in theory. The other obvious response is that if all those factory workers were treated so poorly, and the slaves were treated "better", why didn't those workers sell themselves to the Alabama cotton plantations?

Of course there were atrocities -- large slaveholders might not regret the loss of an individual slave and the situation of Black women in the South was -- well, I can't think of a word that properly conveys the badness of it.

"Of course there were atrocities". No, the right way to say it is that the system itself was an atrocity. Atrocities were not an unfortunate byproduct of an otherwise beneficial system, they were inherent in the evil.

The Northern states threatened to succeed from the union during the War of 1812 -- the time of the Hartford Convention.

It's more accurate to say that some men from MA and CT threatened seccession because of their unhappiness with the War of 1812. No state ever did so, and certainly no state ever secceeded until SC did in 1860. Those who participated in the Harford Convention were wrong in 1812; their wrong did not make the South right in 1860-1.

. Because of the 3/5 Compromise (nevermind that Blacks in the South had the same right to vote as Blacks in the North) coupled with the influx of immigrants in the North and the stagnant population increases in the South, the South had lost control of the House forever.

Blacks in some Northern states could vote. No southern free blacks could vote. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "because of the 3/5 Compromise" the South had lost control of the House. The 3/5 clause of the Constitution did not cause that loss, it actually preserved Southern influence in the federal government far longer than a truly democratic system would have allowed. Southern whites were rewarded with political influence for holding their fellow human beings in bondage.

The Civil War was more about States' rights than slavery. After the war, the Radical republicans turned the war into an antislavery movement.

This is the heart of the Lost Cause myth. The sad fact is that "States' Rights" were important only because the South wanted to preserve slavery. The contemporary evidence for this is overwhelming, so great that no reasonable person can deny it. No one at the time did deny it. Only after the war did those who had committed treason try to justify it on a more palatable ground.

To get around this predicament, the Northerners decide that in the South disenfranchised Blacks would count as zero people, but Blacks with the right to vote would count as full people.

The Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same penalty for disenfranchising blacks on both North and South alike. The penalty did not treat the freed slaves as "zero", it prevented the whites from continuing to receive a reward for their bad behavior in depriving human beings of their political rights.

I do agree that crass political motives played a large role in this issue. Personally, I care much more about the right principle being written into the Constitution than about the motives of some small- minded people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, Sophist. ::bows:: -- SiWangMu, 19:25:11 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The myth of the Lost Cause -- Malandanza, 22:54:12 04/21/02 Sun

"The nice part about the Northern version of the Civil War is that it's rare in history to be on the side of absolute moral rectitude. Slavery being indefensible, the South has a tough argument to make."

I'm not arguing that slavery was anything other than an evil institution and I'm not saying that the South was right and the North was wrong.

"I was responding to a claim that slavery would have died out without the war because it was uneconomical. Your statement counters that from one direction, namely that slavery was still profitable. Mine attacked it from another, namely that where slavery was not profitable -- in states like VA where no cotton was grown -- there were no signs that abolition was likely. The institution likely would have lasted far beyond 1865 had it not been for the war."

Yes, I was agreeing with you. Without the Civil War, slavery would have survived -- probably into the 20th century, even if in some diminished state.

"[A factory worker] could move West and farm his own land. Or he could save his money and start his own business. The slaves lacked these options even in theory. The other obvious response is that if all those factory workers were treated so poorly, and the slaves were treated "better", why didn't those workers sell themselves to the Alabama cotton plantations?"

Start his own business? If he can't make enough money to buy food for the children, he's going to save and scrape enough to start a business? And city people heading west to become farmers? What do they know about farming? Why didn't the workers sell themselves into slavery? Would it have been legal to own a white man? These are not arguments any more than saying slaves could escape to the west and start over is an argument.

Of course I'd rather starve to death as a free man than live as a slave. I am not defending slavery. What I am saying is that the North profited from slavery just as surely as did the South -- and the North had additional human rights abuses in their factories. Conditions bad enough to make Marx seem like a reasonable alternative. But to suggest that the Civil War was a noble crusade where the high-minded Northern Abolitionists swept south to purify the Union of the evils of slavery and reestablish the democratic principles of the Constitution is revisionist history. Northerners profited from slavery; they bear part of the moral culpability.

re: Hartford Convention "It's more accurate to say that some men from MA and CT threatened secession because of their unhappiness with the War of 1812. No state ever did so, and certainly no state ever seceded until SC did in 1860. Those who participated in the Hartford Convention were wrong in 1812; their wrong did not make the South right in 1860-1.

Not "some men from MA and CT" -- delegates elected by state legislatures from MA, CT and Rhode Island met along with unofficial delegates from New Hampshire and Vermont to revise the Constitution. Their issues are eerily similar to those of the South immediately prior to the Civil War:

The more populous South had a stranglehold on the House -- the delegates wanted to repeal the 3/5 compromise to shift power to the North (making slaves count as zero in the census).

The delegates worried that if new states were allowed to join the Union, they would lose what power they had in the Senate as well -- so proposed that new states require a 2/3 majority in both houses to be accepted into the Union.

The delegates that the executive branch might be permanently lost to them, so set a one term limit on the Presidency and required that a new president be from a different state than the last one (a reaction to the Virginia Dynasty).

The Hartford Convention was an important moment in US history. However, it was delivered to the capital after the Treaty of Ghent had been ratified and after news of Andrew Jackson's victory in New Orleans had been received. The report fell on deaf ears -- and the delegates were seen as disloyal (as well as the Federalist party). In fact, the failure of the Hartford Convention directly resulted in the death of the Federalist party -- hardly an insignificant moment in American politics.

"Blacks in some Northern states could vote. No southern free blacks could vote. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "because of the 3/5 Compromise" the South had lost control of the House. The 3/5 clause of the Constitution did not cause that loss, it actually preserved Southern influence in the federal government far longer than a truly democratic system would have allowed. Southern whites were rewarded with political influence for holding their fellow human beings in bondage."

I'm not sure which states you are referring to when you say that Blacks could vote. Not every white male could vote, nor could women. Yet disenfranchised men and women were counted as full people in the census. The 3/5 compromise was a punishment -- a tradeoff for allowing slavery to continue. The South was punished politically for regarding people as property.

re: States' Rights "This is the heart of the Lost Cause myth. The sad fact is that "States' Rights" were important only because the South wanted to preserve slavery. The contemporary evidence for this is overwhelming, so great that no reasonable person can deny it. No one at the time did deny it. Only after the war did those who had committed treason try to justify it on a more palatable ground."

States' Rights was an issue in U.S. politics from the very beginning -- that's why we have a senate (whose senators, by the way, were originally chosen by state legislatures, not by direct election). During the War of 1812, Northern states withheld their state militias from the Federal Government for the defense of their home state (and to spite Mr. Madison).

In 1832, South Carolina threatened succession over the tariffs of 1832 and 1828 -- during the nullification controversy. Andrew Jackson was willing to go to war to preserve the Union, but a last minute compromise made civil war unnecessary. Still, I wonder whether or not there would have been an American Civil War had Andrew Jackson made good his private promise to "hang every leader...of that infatuated people, sir, by martial law, irrespective of his name, or political or social position" and settled the issue of States' Rights and succession.

To say that States' Rights (as it existed in 1860) was not a factor in the Civil War except as consequence of defending slavery is remarkable. What about the men who died for the South? Most whites in the South did not own slaves -- they were dying for their states, not so that the wealthy Southern aristocracy could continue maintain its lifestyle. Robert E. Lee opposed slavery and was offered command of Union forces, yet he chose to remain loyal to Virginia -- what is this, if not States' Rights?

I'm not sure if this is a real quote, but I found it on what appeared to be a reputable web page -- I searched for verification on another site, but kept ending in some scary places (I am probably on some white supremacist mailing lists now -- I did figure out that excluding the word "heritage" cuts down on the offensive sites), so I don't know if it's authentic. Attributed to Grant: "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." I also came across Lincoln quotes that portray him in a very bad light by today's standards.

You might say, "but for the leaders, it was all about slavery -- the others were merely led on by propaganda." Maybe this is true. But I believe that it is more likely to have been about waning political power than the preservation of slavery.

As for the Southerners being traitors for leaving the Union, remember that our forefathers committed treason when they took up arms against England.

To conclude: Slavery: Bad; Civil War and Emancipation of Slaves (whatever the reasons): Good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The myth of the Lost Cause -- Sophist, 10:27:55 04/22/02 Mon

In no way did I mean to suggest that you were defending slavery. If my post came across that way, I apologize.

Start his own business? If he can't make enough money to buy food for the children, he's going to save and scrape enough to start a business? And city people heading west to become farmers? What do they know about farming? Why didn't the workers sell themselves into slavery? Would it have been legal to own a white man? These are not arguments any more than saying slaves could escape to the west and start over is an argument.

These things not only could happen, they did. In my own family at that time (Irish immigrants they were; said with a proper brogue).

There is no doubt that factory owners of the 1860s treated their workers abominably; I'm not defending them. What I am saying is that those workers were treated better than slaves, both in theory and in fact. Slaves would have been executed for trying to move West. White workers were encouraged to do so ("Go West young man.").

The best example I can think of is the Berlin Wall. For all the nonsense about how communism offered a better life, that wall was there to keep people in, not out. Free workers can vote with their feet. Slaves cannot.

Hartford Convention

I'm not really disagreeing with you on this. My only quibble is that I don't think it was an important moment in American history, nor do I think that anyone else thought so within a few months of the event. It was a moment of foolishness which later served as a convenient weapon of political abuse of those who were there.

States Rights

My point here is that everyone in American politics in the 1850s agreed on the importance of States Rights. It would be harder to find an elected official who disagreed with the concept than it would be today to find an elected official who is a self-proclaimed communist. The Civil War could not have been fought over such a point of unanimous agreement, and it was not.

The Nullification Controversy actually was not a states rights dispute. Calhoun tried to extend the doctrine of states rights to allow each individual state to nullify federal laws. No other state in the nation supported SC on this point. Andrew Jackson, who made his entire political career on the states rights issue, and who set the political tone of the Democratic Party on that point for 100 years, recognized that nullification was not an issue of states rights. So did Madison, whose Virginia Resolutions and Report of 1800 defined the concept.

The specific debates of the 1850s involved the expansion of slavery into the Territories, not the continued existence of slavery in the states where it already existed. The war could not have been fought over the right of states to continue with slavery because the Republican Party was not disputing that point.

I have no doubt that many Confederate soldiers fought out of loyalty to their states (misplaced though that was). That is not at all the same as fighting for states rights.

"Waning political power". I like that. I agree. But the reason they were concerned was that they wanted to preserve slavery, not to accomplish any other goal.

I'm at the office so I can't check the quote from Grant. I may be able to this evening.

I know we're basically on the same side here. I'm sensitive on this issue because I have family members associated with some of those extremist groups you mentioned. Drives me crazy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, but what you wrote is the Southern version of history -- ravenhair, 19:06:07 04/21/02 Sun

The Civil War was fought over states rights, not slavery. Neither the South or the North wanted to tackle the issue of slavery. When Lincoln took office, his administration was willing to allow slavery to continue in those states where it was already legal; he only wanted the practice to be illegal in the new territories.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your post illustrates -- Sophist, 19:29:41 04/21/02 Sun

exactly why the "States Rights" issue is a red herring. Pretty much everyone at that time agreed on States Rights. You are correct that Lincoln never suggested that he would interfere with slavery where it then existed. He was willing to say that because he, like everyone else, respected the so- called rights of states.

You are also correct in identifying expansion of slavery into the Territories as the critical issue. This was not an issue of states rights precisely because the Territories were not yet states.

The states which secceeded did so because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. States rights was merely a means to that end.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Your post illustrates -- ravenhair, 20:03:12 04/21/02 Sun

First, I need to clarify that expansion of slavery or slavery itself was not the critical issue of the Civil War. Again, it was federal regulations imposed on states rights that led to the South's secession from the North. These intrusions included a wide range of issues, including trade & commerce. I think it's often overlooked that many of the Confederate soldiers were non-slave owners and would not have left their families and fought against their own blood solely for the preservation of slavery, an institution they had no part.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'd be interested in seeing -- Sophist, 10:48:55 04/22/02 Mon

the contemporary evidence for such intrusions (not the statements of some historians after the fact). I don't mean to be rude, but there is none. The easiest way to see this (out of many) is to look at the compromise proposals that were floated in Congress during the winter of 1860-1. The most prominent was the Breckinridge plan. It was a series of constitutional amendments, all of which related to the issue of slavery.

This is not to deny that there were other issues which divided the electorate. Most Southerners did oppose tariffs, for example, while they were more popular in the North. The key difference is that people in both sections could and did publically disagree about tariffs. Democrats were generally anti-tariff, Whigs generally supported them. Politicians ran for election and let the voters decide. Same with the debates over the transcontinental railroad, or the sale of federal lands. These were not sectional issues.

Slavery was sectional. Expansion of slavery was the issue in the Mexican War (the Wilmot Proviso); in the Compromise of 1850; in the Kansas-Nebraska Act; in the Dred Scott decision; in the Lecompton Constitution dispute; in the Republican Party platform of 1860. It occupied 90% of the Lincoln/Douglas debates. Slavery was the only issue that ever could break apart the Union, and it was the reason why the Union was in danger.

I'm inclined to agree that most of the ordinary soldiers fought for the Confederacy out of loyalty to their states. That is not the same issue as why their leaders voted to secede.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd be interested in seeing -- ravenhair, 12:49:41 04/22/02 Mon

Sophist wrote:
"I'd be interested in seeing the contemporary evidence for such intrusions (not the statements of some historians after the fact)."

I can dust off my history texts and we can go in circles all day but my argument lies squarely with historical fact, not with some contemporaries' spin on those facts.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Such debates are fascinating to me and why I like coming here and participating in discussions with those of different viewpoints than my own. :)

Have a GREAT week!!

rh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just to correct -- Sophist, 19:48:29 04/22/02 Mon

my own error, the resolutions I had in mind were by John Crittenden, not John Breckenridge.

BTW, one of the pleasant surprises about 19th Century American politics is that they were unfamiliar with the notion of "spin". Candidates for office were quite blunt about their positions and intentions, often expressing themselves in ways that make us very uncomfortable today. If you take a look at the South Carolina secession resolution you'll see what I mean. They made their reasons crystal clear.

[> [> [> [> yes, slavery is still going on. wanna do something about it? -- anom, 23:50:33 04/20/02 Sat

Have a look at iabolish.com & find out how. (You'll have to copy & paste it in--I tried to code a link & it didn't work.) It's the website of the American Anti-Slavery Group, which works against slavery all over the world.

[> [> [> [> [> Ta! -- Phoenix, 22:02:58 04/21/02 Sun

Thanks for the link.

Got one for you. Nothing to do with slavery but it`s a cause worth fighting for. Should hopefully still be there. They keep getting hacked, one suspects by the biotech companies.

There is an underground of `Scientists and Physicians` fighting to give you both sides of the argument re genetically modified food. Just like our PC persecutees these guys also suffer if they speak out.

http://www.psrast.org/

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Way OT in an OT thread. -- Darby, 09:50:51 04/23/02 Tue

Just on the anti-genetic-engineered crops site.

I'll start with the caveat that I've been following the development of the industry since its beginnings, and find much about it to worry me. But I don't like the common approach of ideological websites that fire (read: propaganda) must be fought with fire. They make good, valid points, but can't resist overstating to the point of unreliability. Very much unlike what gets discussed here, where posters respect each other (and us, whose grasp of American History may be fuzzy) enough to skip the hyperbole and just present the varied evidence to support their points.

I've really enjoyed this thread. Thanks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Way OT in an OT thread. -- Phoenix, 10:36:11 04/23/02 Tue

Hi

Lol you have a point. But they *are* Scientists and Physicians and when have you ever known them to cut the waffle and get straight to the juice. ;) I fancy they are in love with their own voices, and forget they are not in a lecture hall. ;)

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> a short(haha) rubuttal since you don't want to chat -- yuri, 00:20:09 04/24/02 Wed

It is very diffucult for me to say all the things I want to say because I've disagreed with something in almost every paragraph you've written (I say this with a smile, not with malice or resentment), so I've decided to just respond to this letter first, since no one else really did, and other people covered most of the other stuff well (smile to you guys.)--

People forget that the first African slaves brought to Europe were actually *purchased* from their black slave owners.

From what I have learned, the slaves in Africa didn't experience anything like the middle passage, or the hopeless race divided society that they were being sold into, and I don't think that the African slaveholders or anyone there knew what was to come.

It is perfectly alright when white men enslave other white men - which they did - because well, that`s what conquerors did with the conquered, and the rich always shaft the poor anyway so it`s no big deal. It is also okay for black men to enslave other black men, because well it`s always been part of the "culture" in Africa or much of the Middle East. Not for us to criticise - that would imply we felt our culture was superior which would be racist. *rolls eyes* I`m pretty sure there would be no problem with black men enslaving white men either. But white men enslaving black men? No, no, no! That`s *different*! And totally unacceptable. Why?

Why? For one, because when white people enslaved black people, there was a definite physical feature that was attributed to the slave class - dark skin, and when every black person white people saw was a slave and treated as less than human, they started to make justifications for it that are still embedded in minds today. And of course people have a "problem" with any slavery, but white-on-black slavery has not only caused the death of, god, I'm not even going to try to recall an estimate, (and yes, other genocides or massacres or slave systems have killed as many -- we must take them all into account but that doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on what's close to us and what most directly affects our lives) but also created a gigantic rift between races that has fostered a racism that must rank up there on the charts of the most devastating prejudices in the world.

The white liberal seemed more offended that the American Slave Trade was - whisper it quietly - profitable. I find it telling that many of these people are usually vehemently anti-capitalist, and despise their own country. He`d probably have been fine with it, if the Americans hadn`t made a good profit.

I'm a little confused by this comment. I am white, "liberal" (though I cringe to use a label with such baggage), anti-capitalist and despise my country, or at least certain aspects of it. I'm proud of those traits, and you use them as offhand slander. And oh yeah, if America was destitute now, I'd just want to push all that slavery nonsense under the rug.

The black guy on the other hand, got offended for different reasons. Again perfectly ok with blacks being the slavemasters, even today, but when it`s a white guy in a position of Master, that`s what he found offensive. It`s racist innit! A black man as Master to a black slave can apparently be reasoned away with the "rich shafting the poor angle", but never if it`s a white man doing the shafting.

You reiterate, and so must I - There is a difference!! When you can separate those in power with those not in power by obvious physical attributes, you find an entirely different complicated web of power than when they look the same. A white master having a black slave is not just the rich shafting the poor. Do you deny that racism exists and greatly affects this situation?

Handing out thousands of your tax dollars to countries where slavery is still rampant is offensive to me. Though I suppose it`s another way of screwing more "foreign aid" out of the West so those Governments don`t actually have to stop lining their own nests at the expense of the people. Why should those Governments use their money on their own people, when they can get the West to do it for them? Can`t say I blame them for using our guilt against us. It`s our fault for allowing ourselves to be manipulated.

Allowing ourselves to be manipulated? How about our "generously" lending money to third world countries that soon plunge into sever debt to us that leaves them worse off than they were before, thereby giving us power and influence over their land and resources? I'm not sure who "those Governments" are in this case, but what about the governments that are destitute and communites that are wrecked and starving because of our misuse of their resources and people and land, all in the name of free trade and capitalism? I must say I don't have much experience in arguing these specific points, so excuse me if the come across crudely, I'm just concerned with getting them out.

all right, whatever, I'm unsatisfied but less tense.

Oh one other thing - your link about GE foods..
I just glanced at the page, so sorry if I'm assuming it's somethign that its not, but I've actually been involved in several campaigns for responsible use of Genetic engineering. I'm assuming, by your comments, that you are somewhat pro-capitalist, and I think it's interesting that you're interested in the dangesr of GE foods, because they are so connected. My understanding of capitalissm is somewhat limited, it seems that ideally it is a system where anyone can accomplish anything if they try hard enough, and are entitled to anything they can earn for themselves. In America this seems to translate to getting as much as possible for quickly as possible, and that's what GE foods do, but in doing so, they ravage the ecosystem, destroy land that was otherwise used by independent farmers, cause countless atrocities across the board, especially for low-income people, all in the name of capitalism, or so it seems to me. I'm tired, I think I may be getting hard to follow, so I'm going to end this "short rebuttal." (ha ha again.)

[> [> [> [> [> Don't be ashamed to call yourself liberal -- dream of the consortium, 13:38:17 04/24/02 Wed

There are still a few of us who bear the label proudly. ;)

[> [> [> You Scare me. -- NWO, 09:35:26 04/21/02 Sun

It sounds like you want to limit free speech.

Of course only to a certain group (every one who disagrees with you).

How convinient.

I doubt you would be as enthusiastic about limiting the speech of people protesting our War against terror in the light of the events of 9/11 even though an legitimate argument can be made that it is divisive at a time when we all need to be united as a nation.

And even though such talk can be deeply, deeply offensive to many of us. Especially those who lost love ones. And those who have served in the armed forces past and present.

Free speech for me, but not for thee seems to be your motto.

Funny, that was the same motto of the Hitler Youth.

[> [> [> [> Funny, I think thou art a troll. -- ....,, 09:49:25 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Funny, I think thou art a intolerant, narrowminded, hateful person -- ......, 10:16:54 04/21/02 Sun

Believing that everyone who disagrees with your world view should be forced to have their speech limited.

Isn't that what you accuse others of doing? Look in the mirror.

[> [> [> [> Right... -- Rob, 12:37:37 04/21/02 Sun

So I disagree with someone and say why and you call that me trying to limit free speech? Isn't what I just wrote my right to speak freely? By writing what I wrote, wasn't I embracing that right?

And I don't see any need to bring 9/11 into this. You really lessen the tragedy of those events and desensitize people to it when you bring it up in every situation. It has no place in this discussion.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> thanks, rob. very well said. -- anom, 19:50:48 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> :o) -- Rob, 06:45:36 04/22/02 Mon

[> [> Backing away... -- LeeAnn, 00:18:12 04/20/02 Sat

Backing away from the evil that is Ayan Rand and her minions. Put Rand in the Buffyverse and she would make everyone from the Master to nerds look like kindergardeners when compared to her evil.

JM seems to have a good heart and a kind one. He sounds like someone it would be a pleasure to know.

[> [> Jeez! Misinterpretation much? -- Slain, 00:27:48 04/20/02 Sat

I don't think JM is saying anything wrong in that interview, and I don't think he deserves to be insulted for it. He showed a lot more political insight than I found on that whole website.

What he was saying about Buffy is that it exists within this climate, and that Joss and ME aren't to blame for not having enough black actors on the show, for example. He was saying the exact opposite of we should "have one black friend, one Chinese friend, one Cherokee friend" - rather he was saying that society itself needs to change to become more equal, and that we can't just fix things by having more black actors on a TV show. Which is absolutely right.

[> [> Re: What a PC idiot. -- Arethusa, 05:07:52 04/20/02 Sat

Ayn Rand's theories have always struck me as a celebration of all that is elitist and non-inclusive. I interpret her ideas as supporting the notion that the inferior are dragging down the superior, to the world's detriment. (Some Enron executives were quoted in our local paper recently saying the same thing.)

[> [> [> Exactly -- Rochefort, 11:29:32 04/20/02 Sat

Yeah, um... JM was referring to television and the entertainment industry as a whole when he spoke of those in charge being white males. And uh...they are. And I never heard anyone actually refer to Rand as some sort of source for multiculturalism. jeez.

[> [> My respect for JM has increased -- Scott, 16:57:27 04/20/02 Sat

There are those out there who do believe that if you disagre with them, you must be evil. If you don't share their point of view then you are a Nazi, facist, skinhead, etc.

They are what they accuse others of being. They demand "tolerance" from others, but they are anything but.

If you disagree with them, social, and sometimes legal wrath comes upon you. They demand "Free Speech" whenever they feel like they are being prevented from saying whatever they want to say, but again they support and enforce strong speak codes against their distractors.

They are hypocrites first and foremost.

It's not a funny situation. It has actually destroyed many lives in America.

For more information go to the web page below.

http://www.academia.org/audio/b_lind.html< BR>

[> [> [> Re: My respect for JM has increased -- Scott, 17:11:35 04/20/02 Sat

They are what they accuse others of being. They demand "tolerance" from others, but they are anything but.

If you disagree with them, social, and sometimes legal wrath comes upon you. They demand "Free Speech" whenever they feel like they are being prevented from saying whatever they want to say, but again they support and enforce strong speech codes against their distractors. Free speech for me, but not for thee is their attitude.

Usually they are phoneys. Trying to overcompensate their own deep seeded racism upon by putting it upon others. Accusing others of what is really in their own hearts. Also they have the "some of my best friends are" complex, choosing their friends to make political statements, instead of trying to get to know them as individuals. To them, they are only trophies. Again to assuage their guilt for their own deep seeded racism. They overcompensate and as a result are unable to form any real personal relationships with these people.

For these people every act, personal, professional, etc is a political act. They always walk around with chips on their shoulders just waiting to "feel offended" so they can beat up on that person, and in that way feel just a little bit better about themselves for "standing up for principles". But by beating up on others they show their own insecurity and feelings of insignificance.

[> [> [> [> Re: My respect for JM has increased -- Phoenix, 19:47:30 04/20/02 Sat

Oh well said! And thanks for that link. ;)

The scary thing is that these halfwits run everything. Dunno about the US these days, but in the UK virtually everything is run by these people. And, my god the damage they do.......

I never forget a few years ago watching a documentary about this guy working in some ghetto type school in America. He was black, and successful, and he firmly believed that the reason black kids were doing so poorly at school was nothing to do with their circumstance or colour, but merely that they lacked proper male role models. This of course also held for white kids sans good male role models. So he decided to demonstrate his theory.

He`d go into the school each day and talk to the kids, encourage them, and help them with their schoolwork. Up until this time the only male role model many of them had were the `gansta` types involved in the drug culture. And you know what....at the end of a year these kids grades shot up, and their self esteem rocketed.

For whatever reason, this guy came to England to demonstrate his methods. Big mistake. Education and Social Work are run by a certain type of PC halfwit: "Wimmin" I won`t call them feminists because it ain`t the feminism I fought for. Anyhoo, off he trots to prove to his sceptics what a wonderful thing he has discovered. Like you do. But things didn`t go according to plan.......

Poor fella was sat in a room surrounded by these sour-faced "wimmin" and well, he had no chance. They weren`t really listening to him, or paying attention to his evidence. They`d already made their mind up before he arrived.

He had two serious strikes against him to start with: he was American (these people not only hate their own country, they truly loathe America), and he was a MAN. That`s very, very bad. The only reason he got in the door was coz he was black. That is very good. If he had been a black gay woman, things could have been so different. :P Sorry, couldn`t resist being facetious there. ;) The irony that these advocates of extreme political correctness actually determine someones merit on colour/gender/sexual orientation is totally beyond them.

Anyway the upshot was our intrepid hero comes out of the meeting all frustrated and angry, knowing that the kids in Britain will not be benefitting from his wisdom. The TV interviewer asked one of these wimmin why the bloke`s ideas were rejected so comprehensively, and after a lot of waffle what it boiled down to was this: by telling women in deprived areas - whether black or white - that their kids could do well in school regardless, if they only had a decent male role model in their lives (even if just visiting in the classroom), well that was tantamount to making a judgement call about the choices many of these women make.

Many women are deliberately having children without any intention of having a male around afterwards. It is the same reason many schools won`t allow kids to make Fathers Day cards (but are encouraged to make them for Mothers Day) on the basis that many kids don`t have Fathers, and one mustn`t appear to imply having a Father around is better than not. I mean WTF??

So the kids in the deprived sink estates must suffer their lot, because of the bigotry and stupidity of political correctness.

Hell, even Science itself is being compromised by these idiots. There was a significant discovery a couple of years ago, by some Professor at Oxford, which would further evolution theory, and enhance our knowledge of biological processes. But it`s being sat on because of political correctness. That`s bloody outrageous!

These morons are killing our society. And there is apparently bugger all that can be done to stop the rot. :(

[> [> [> [> [> Bugger I missed out a significant point.... -- Phoenix, 19:59:19 04/20/02 Sat

Sorry, I meant to say not "kids" per se, but *boys*. It is male children doing so poorly (both black and white - Asian boys do well in school. Certainly in the UK.), and his theory was that *young boys* need good male role models.

Teach me not to type a post when I`m in a snit. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My respect for JM has increased -- Rahael, 20:08:00 04/20/02 Sat

"The scary thing is that these halfwits run everything. Dunno about the US these days, but in the UK virtually everything is run by these people. And, my god the damage they do......."

Really? Britain isn't dominated by Oxbridgy, privileged types? We're run by social workers and teachers? who get paid so marvellously? and who have absolutely no vacancies at all in their profession?

It doesn't sound all that much like you're in touch with black communities in Britian. Otherwise you'd have heard the arguments of people like Tony Sewell who argue about destructive cultures within the Black community. Who talk about absent fathers. You probably miss everything Black feminists are saying about the Black community.

As for male role models within classrooms, yes it does appear as if male pupils are helped by having male role models around. But guess what? recruitment is down for the teaching profession. And its pretty hard to recruit men, let alone women for such a hard career, which gets so much respect, of the kind you show here!

"Many women are deliberately having children without any intention of having a male around afterwards. "

Actually a recent survey showed that the children most susceptible to delinquency and bad behaviour come from two parent homes where the parents are too busy working to pay attention to the children. Not single parent homes.

"Hell, even Science itself is being compromised by these idiots. There was a significant discovery a couple of years ago, by some Professor at Oxford, which would further evolution theory, and enhance our knowledge of biological processes. But it`s being sat on because of political correctness."

If its being sat upon, how come you've heard about it? It would help if you detail exactly what discovery you are talking about, since it might help your argument somewhat. The devil is in the details, you know! How on earth can we judge your claims?

And as for what you can do about it? you might consider taking up community work. Vote.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My respect for JM has increased -- Phoenix, 21:18:14 04/20/02 Sat

Ah. Not a "Guardianista" by any chance? :p

As for the "Science", it`s a couple of years since I read about it, but it was in quite a few papers at the time. Doubt it would have appeared in the `Guardian` though. ;)

As best as I can recall, it went like this. I`ll try to recall as much detail as possible so ya can, y`know, maybe do a little research. Though if you read other media than the Guardian, you may actually recall it. I digress.

This Professor - so sorry I don`t recall his name - was studying Ethiopian runners in the Olympics. He developed a theory about just why black runners were predominant in middle and long distance races. It was something to do with the part of the country they were raised, and the way evolution had developed their leg and certain other muscles. I think there was also a bit about lung capacity being strengthened, affecting the torso shape. Anyhoo, when he had developed his theory, he could tell just by looking at their body shape which area of Ethiopia these runners came from, to about 98% accuracy. I do believe he had a little flutter on races, and did quite well. ;) Some interesting bits about just why many of these hinterlands played such a part in this, and how this knowledge could be appled in various ways to the benefit of all humans.

Anyhoo, when it came to be published, the PC doyens at the University - yes even Oxbridge is `on message` these days -had a collective intake of breath. "You can`t publish that. You can`t possibly say that black men from these countries are better runners than white men, or Chinese or whatever. Or that evolution has developed them to be so. It`s racist!" Oh dear.

To their credit, some black "Community" leaders, were quoted as saying that they found nothing racist at all in this, and it was absurd not to publish. Unfortunately they are in the minority. For others came out with the "this is definitely racist, and it will pander to those who believe black people are physically strong but intellucally....." well you get the picture.

What I find most fascinating tho, is that you have taken my rant against the advocates of Political Correctness, as a personal attack on the "teaching profession". Wasn`t so at all. Was an attack on those who decide policy. And these are a certain type of "faux liberal", who happen to be female in the case I used for demo purposes. Sorry I don`t remember the name of the programme. Frankly I don`t wonder that there are not more men applying to be teachers these days. Can`t be easy being made to feel you are perpetually at fault on account of your gender.

So no, it wasn`t a slur against the *whole* teaching profession - my brother has spent 20 years as a teacher, and I know full well what they have to put up with. But I *am* disgusted with those who call the shots (and it ain`t Oxbridge types).

They`ve been indulging in a gigantic "social experiment" at our kids expense. Hardly any wonder that literacy is at such a low.

No doubt I`ve just been nicely pigeoned holed. FYI I do "vote" and always have done. I`m not black, so confess I can`t relate to your "black feminist", but I am a woman, do I get a point for that? Oh yeah, I was raised on a sink estate, with both black and white kids. Guess what, we had an awful lot in common, like being stuck at the bottom and wanting out. Many of us, both black and white, did get out, and I sometimes bump into a few of them. Even those whose life has turned to crap have not blamed "society" for their failures. Both black and white, male and female, have stood on their own and taken responsibility for their own lives. Those are the people in *my* world.

But I guess it`s easier to blame someone else "it`s *their* fault I failed. They discriminated against me because I was a woman/black/gay/never went to Oxbridge blah blah. The only one who has no excuse is the middle class white guy. Poor sap, everything is his fault!

BTW what makes you so sure I haven`t done "community" work? If you`d read my earlier posts you`d realise that I too was once one of these "PC halfwits" for a good number of years, until I realised how phoney it all was.

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually -- Rahael, 21:33:25 04/20/02 Sat

Every day, I read the Guardian, the Independent, the Times, the Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express, and once a week the TES. It's part of my job.

Ah, and as for that research you quote I caught that on a Channel four documentary. So its not like he's not getting coverage. And I would be surprised if he hadn't got both funding and publishing by now. Oxford as an institution isn't all that powerful. It's alumni is.

As for the attack on the teaching profession; well, you were talking about the future of young children. The PISA study, world wide which published its results for 2001 found that British children compared very well for literacy with the rest of the developed world.

I don't believe I said anything about 'blaming other people'. I just asked you to clarify your argument: as it is, I have no idea who you are targeting exactly, apart from an amorphous and sinister group of people who control everything.

And as for the person who is looking to apportion blame for things in people's lives they should take control of, who exactly is doing that?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually -- Phoenix, 21:41:56 04/20/02 Sat

"And as for the person who is looking to apportion blame for things in people's lives they should take control of, who exactly is doing that?"

The "PC halfwit"! :D

That`s what my posts have really been railing against.

Phoenix
PS: Either you`re up very early or you are a fellow insomniac. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My absolute final word on this!! -- Rahael, 21:53:02 04/20/02 Sat

Insomniac/ person who has been ill and slept solidly for 2 days.

You raise an interesting point. Half wits come in all shapes and sizes. What about the Un PC half wit?

oh, and the Guardian? Actually I always read its tabloid section first of all the papers I read. Because it's a big fan of Buffy. Which is the point of this board. So Guardian readers may be PC, but we watch very good television shows!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My absolute final word on this!! -- Phoenix, 22:08:58 04/20/02 Sat

"So Guardian readers may be PC, but we watch very good television shows!"

Touche! :D

Sleeping solidly for two days is sounding mighty good at the moment. :)

Toodle Pip, hope to spar with you again soon. ;)

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Europe doesn't seem all that PC this morning -- Rahael, a PC half wit, 03:07:27 04/22/02 Mon

Or is it all the PC brigades fault for so rousing the enmity and resentment of working class white people and driving them into the arms of the Far Right?

On the rise in France. On the Rise in Netherlands. Increasingly vocal in Germany, Austria and Scandinavia. Standing for election in 68 local council seats all over Britain.

When I first emigrated here (yes Phoenix, not only am I black, and a woman, I am also an immigrant. Feel free to ratchet up the rhetoric)I saw Britain as a kind of precious haven. Saved my life and all that. But the famed reputation for tolerance, plurality and fairness is starting to get tattered of late. You think PC people predominate? Try walking in my shoes. The little comments. Getting spat at on the street. Paki as a casual aside on the street. When I went to Oxford (and before you start, I got in on the blind entrance exam) fellow students, to my face, referred to me as a token. "We know why you got in". That's right. My exam script was written in funny foreigner script.

Well, looks like things are just going to get a whole lot harder for people like me. Am I overreacting? perhaps. But the power dynamics are so different to the way you potray them, economically, socially, and culturally, it's not funny. I'm proud of getting where I got. I thank Britain for letting me get here. You are right. Class is the most pernicious factor in Britain today, stopping people moving ahead. Which shows why I, and other middle class/upper middle class immigrants have higher achievement rates than white working class people. But I, and other PC halfwits are not unconcerned about poverty, deprivation and injustice.

I just find that the whole PC and anti PC rhetoric is a hollow debate - that it discusses symptoms rather than causes. That it plays into the hands of those out to exploit resentments by giving it the respectable veneer of libertarianism. If the PC culture means that the Conservative Party can no longer announce "If you want a Nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour" GOOD!! May I point out that that MP who used that slogan never was defeated, and sat as the MP for that constituency for about decades until he retired? How exactly does the PC brigade rule Britain? and does this straw man debate just hide the real sinews of power in Britain?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Europe doesn't seem all that PC this morning -- yabyumpan, 09:18:19 04/22/02 Mon

I'm a white british woman (don't know what class,prob working but I don't really give a f***),and i want to give my (hopefully non-patronizing)apologies to Rahael for the way you've been treated. I live in an area of london(hackney)which is very muli-cultral/multi-racial. Although it is no way perfect, as far as i can tell, racism doesn't seem to be a problem. (of course i don't know what's it's like to jewish/black/asian/refugee etc). We have many other problems ofcourse, poverty and one of the highest gun crimes in the country, but from speaking to black/asian/jewish friends, there are few racist incidents.
I forget what it's like in other parts of the country, thank you for reminding me. It's easy to get complacent.
As for the whole PC thing; my understanding is that it came about with people trying to take the opinions and feelings of other people into consideration, what's wrong with that? Like anything else some people went to extemes with it and it was then used as an excuse to say "sod it" and not care but I do think the original idea behind it was good.
As to free speech, I think that absolute free speech is vital in a free society. Stopping someone from saying something doesn't make the thought go away, it just drives it underground to fester. If people are told what they say/think it wrong and shouldn't be said it just builds up resentment and comes out in more subtle and insiduous ways. I think I'd rather have someone come straight out and say they hate me than hide behind a smile and screw me in other ways. I do think education and visability is the key. More people of colour in the media etc, more integration, more history taught at schools from a black/asian perspective.
It is frightening what is happening in europe and to a lesser degree, the uk. I have a friend from the Ivory Coast who was living in France but couldn't stand it anymore so he came here. It's scarey and I don't really know what the answer is apart from what i said above.
I'd like to believe that we will eventually all learn to see each other as individuals and see past you being black and me being blond . Thank you for reminding me not to get complacent.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Live in London too, -- Rahael, 09:41:21 04/22/02 Mon

but unfortunately on the borderline of an area where the BNP are very strong. So, that's where most of my problems have been encountered.

Absolutely agree about free speech. I think the thing about PCness is that in its most benevolent forms, it alerts those who don't think about what they say, who aren't racist, to perhaps reconsider some long held, lazy view; to reconsider using a certain word. That makes things easier for everyone concerned.

I have to say that I have distant relatives living all over Europe, and they have had much worse experiences in continental Europe, most particularly, Germany and France. My family have always considered ourselves lucky that we came here (though for us, the option was deciding between America and Britain).

And finally, finally! I love living in London. Living outside of London while I was at University was a truly surprising experience. You're right. Sometimes, the straightforward verbal attacks are easier to deal with. You put on your invisible armour, you deal with it. You feel strong.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and absolutely no need to apologise! -- Rahael, 09:52:04 04/22/02 Mon

There are always things that hearten me, and convince me that darkness and ignorance doesn't always win through; I get enough of them everyday to retain my optimism about humanity in general. And I am firmly convinced that it is vital for everyone, black and white in Britain to defeat this latest threat to mainstream democracy....one only needs to examine the far right's proposals in the all together.

I find it highly ironic that there's an upsurge of groups advocating repatriation all over Europe, but the working population of Europe is falling, and will fall steadily for the forseeable future.....demography is not on the side of the neo Nazis and their apologists!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: slogan -- verdantheart, 06:23:19 04/23/02 Tue

Good lord! You could actually get away with using a slogan like that in Britain? That's an eye- opener.

For me, it shouldn't be a matter of "PC," it should be a matter of common decency. Those who express so little respect for their fellow man should be ignored -- even shunned, not elected. I hope that I am correct in believing that any such candidate in this country (USA) would not stand a chance (though I might be incorrect ... my own relatives in Alabama make me wonder ...).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: slogan -- Rahael, 06:43:37 04/23/02 Tue

It was actually a slogan used by the winning Conservative candidate in the 1964 General Election in Smethwick. Not only did he win, he represented that constituency UNDEAFEATED, until he resigned a couple of years ago. He was never deselected by the Conservative party. He was never ousted by the electorate. And to my knowledge, he never apologised for it.

And if that example goes back too far, in the 1980s, the Conservative Students called for Nelson Mandela 'to be hanged' as a terrorist.

Jim Davidson, a racist comedian (who is terminally unfunny anyway) who has consistently beaten and abused his long line of wives is still given a prime time 'family entertainment' slot on BBC 1.

I don't go out to message boards bemoaning these and saying these 'people are ruining society :( '. I don't call for them not to be given airtime, or banned. I respect their right to have an opinion, even if I don't respect the opinion itself.

All I want to consistently assert is:

Britain isn't PC. Being 'politically incorrect' is fashionable; its seen as being radical and terribly daring, whereas in fact, it's a pretty safe view to take.

I think 'political correctness' is a chimera, made up by those who want to caricature developments they view as alarming and threatening to society. I can't speak with any authority regarding America, but that's how I perceive Britain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: slogan -- Phoenix, 08:53:53 04/23/02 Tue

Oh puleeze!

Nelson Mandela was, strictly speaking, a terrorist in the 1980s, so it is absurd to use this as evidence of `racism`. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinnes ditto. One could get into many former world leaders who were previously terrorists. They later becomes `good guys` but it doesn`t mean reaction to their previous `terrorism` was misplaced *at the time*.

A racist slogan in 1964, big bloody deal! Stop living in the past. You`re pissed that he wasn`t asked to resign for what he said years earlier? I`m thinking you are not really grasping the concept of a `free society`. This is not yet a fascist state tho God knows the PC halfwits are doing their best to make it so.

Benny Hill was pulled off air because he was deemed sexist and racist. He had the last laugh by becoming huge in America. At least the Americans kept their sense of humour.

Got news for you Rahael. This is *still* a free society. People fought and died over centuries for the right to speak freely. And you`d be happy to silence them because you don`t like what they say? So much for the old "I may not agree with what you say, but I`ll defend your right to say it". There ARE laws against race hatred, but they are only applied to white people.

We have the unedifying spectacle that black Muslims can call for Jews and Americans to be murdered, and their fellow Brits, and they are not arrested. A white rightwing fascist would be.

Not surprisingly the Jewish community are becomming alarmed. But the authorites are so frightened of being called racist they won`t condemn them. In other words, these hatemongers are allowed to call for the murder of Jews and not suffer any punishment *because of the colour of their skin*. That is the real racism.

The PC halfwits cannot see beyond colour, gender, and sexual orientation. They label and judge accordingly. And their whole mission seems to be to exploit the differences rather than celebrate our commonality. They are the foulest of hypocrites.

Give me two political candidates to choose from - one Rightwing, one `PC`. Even tho I lean to the left politically, I`m gonna pick the Rightwinger. Why?

They both piss in the same pot. They both wish to stifle free speech and chip away at the values of democracy; they both pigeonhole you and exploit differences. And they are both obsessed with colour and race. But the rightwinger is honest about his bigotry. Y`know where you are with him and it makes it easier to keep a wary eye out. The PC fella is far more insidious - and dangerous. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. His bigotry is hidden behind fake liberalism, and a contempt for everyone who doesn`t think like him. He is harder to deal with.

They both see racism and bigotry absolutely everywhere. The rightwinger prefers to pretend that ethnic minorities don`t exist. The PC guy pretends that it is larger than it is. His city is `multi- cultural` so he convinces himself this applies throughout the whole land, and therefore it is justified expecting immigrant traditions to take precedence over native traditions. Yet no matter how much he makes the statement, and believes it, only 8% of the population are from ehtnic minorities. 8% doth not a multicultural society make.

May I remind you what day it is today? It`s St Georges Day. Englands National Day. Notice any major parades, or celebrations? The Irish have just had a huge St Patricks Day Parade. The Scots celebrate St Andrews Day, the Welsh St Davids Day. The tiny immigrant population gets to celebrate Diwali, Eid, and whatever other festivals. The local Councils pay for it of course - courtesy of the taxpayers. The English are the only British race who don`t get one. When we ask, we are told "it`s racist, and it might offend others". WTF?

I`ve never been interested in stuff like that, but by God I`m starting to get pissy. The morons who claim this, usually site racist thugs who have highjacked the Union Flag. Demonstrating they do not know the difference between England and Britain. Not the same thing at all. And accusations of racism only seem to apply to the English. Irish terrorists bomb the English as well as their fellow Irish, but that`s obviously not bad enough. What it boils down to is a hatred of the *English* not the British per se.

Have you any conception of the dangers of trying to supress national identity? Take a look at what`s going on in the former Soviet Bloc. Nationalism doesn`t go away. You forcibly repress it you are asking for trouble coz when it eventually erupts it`s gonna be in it`s ugliest form.

Think about it. 92% of the population are native Britons, and of those the bulk are actually English. They are told to respect and honour everyone else`s culture: is it too much to expect that in our own land, we can have *our* culture shown the same respect. Obviously it is.

I watch previously tolerant people become resentful and angry and I fear for the future.

You might think we are a wretchedly racist society that needs to have it`s freedoms curtailed so we don`t say anything to upset you, but I prefer the late Idries Shahs take on our country. He found us tolerant enough not to wish to change us. His daughter - who made the film Behind the Veil - also appreciates our tolerance and freedoms. That`s a bit of a joke now tho. Our freedoms have been steadily eroded, and if `they` have their way they`ll hand over the whole country to Europe. Geez these people don`t even take any note of democratic elections: the Danes voted against joining the Euro, so they will merely give them another election until they vote the right way.

If you take that chip off your shoulder you might find the world a friendlier place. There will always be bigots and racists wherever you go in the world, but the one pinning the label onto you, most of the time, is yourself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very amusing -- Rahael, 09:19:14 04/23/02 Tue

Did you miss the part where I said this about Un PC people in Britain?

"I don't go out to message boards bemoaning these and saying these 'people are ruining society :( '. I don't call for them not to be given airtime, or banned. I respect their right to have an opinion, even if I don't respect the opinion itself. "

I respect your right to your opinion, but I have every right to contest your vague generalisations "oh, society is facing ruin by secretive and powerful forces" And to do so without being accused of having a chip on my shoulder.

You might have noted that the only instances of actual racism I've cited as happening to me are where I've had physical and verbal assults. Beaten up on the street. Spat at. "Wog" "Paki" "Monkey, you smell". You know why? because if I didn't, certain people would claim that I am LYING.

I've always reiterated how grateful I am to be here in Britain - try actually reading what I've said in this thread. If you actually read this board, and read my posts you'll find that I have a detailed knowledge of over 300 years of English (yes, English, not British history). That I venerate Milton, Marvell, Shakespeare, Graves, Larkin, - who was an out and out racist btw - and countless British novelists. I am an anglophile. And yet, if I say that not all of Britain is tolerant, I have a 'chip on my shoulder'. God forbid that I ever stop being satisfied with crumbs.

And as for tolerance, you can criticise the ANC for the methods they used. But GET REAL. Were they allowed to VOTE? And can I point out that the Conservative students didn't condemn him. They called for him to be HANGED. And by the way, my mother was murdered by terrorists. So no lectures please, about how evil they are, and how terrible a weapon violence is.

I'm not the person flinging names around here. Or showing contempt for opinions and experiences as valid as yours.

And by the way, go on to the Guardian Online talkboards. See just how 'PC' Guardian readers actually are. There you'll find many many people who think like you. When I first read them, I cried, because so many of my illusions shattered.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is it? -- Phoenix, 10:19:52 04/23/02 Tue

"If the PC culture means that the Conservative Party can no longer announce "If you want a Nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour" GOOD!!"

Implication being that you are quite alright with him *forcibly* prevented from saying so and that`d be good. No it wouldn`t. You also know full well that he wouldn`t get away with it today.

You no doubt have convinced yourself that France is full of evil racists, because of your comments re the election...

"Or is it all the PC brigades fault for so rousing the enmity and resentment of working class white people and driving them into the arms of the Far Right?"

Well now ya mention it.......

You do recall what happened in Oldham, in the North of England? I live in Manchester, which is not so far away. The riots, the hatred? Not just white against black, also Hindu Asians against Muslim Asians. The seething resentment of the native "white community". They did something unthinkable by voting in significantly large numbers for a Far Right candidate. Most of them were not "racists", even tho they have been now been tagged as such. They just want to live their lives the best they can and give their kids the best start in life. Until about 20 years ago, these communities rubbed along quite well. Speak to the older generation there - of all colours - but now they don`t. Why?

Some of the more honest in the "race relations" industry, had the balls to admit they`d got it wrong. And they are now working to try and put Oldham back together. They are working toward that dirty word for the PC doyens "intergration". Which they used to have.

A few decades ago immigrants came, and they were expected to become part of the culture. Sure they kept aspects of their own culture, but their new land was now theirs too. The Jews have always done this and assimilated well. They never lost their Jewishness, so it ain`t a matter of giving up a culture, but embracing the new one too. That after all is why immigrants come, to be a part of this new culture, to make it theirs. But the PC bigots denied them this. (and please don`t come up with the usual line about immigrants in the 50`s came over to be bus drivers and other shit jobs that the whites didn`t want. Well duh. Plenty of white people worked at those jobs and still do. Life sucks. Get over it. )

First, they encouraged them not to bother learning English - never mind that it makes it difficult to intergrate and find work if you can`t speak the language - and then they encouraged them not to embrace the new culture at all. They in effect pushed them into ghettos. Naturally the new immigrants didn`t complain; it`s a frightening thing moving to an alien culture. How tempting to be able to keep everything the same as the land you left. But this has kept them from being a true part of the country. Unlike 30 years ago, some of them rarely see a white person, and they have no idea what is going on in the rest of the country. They believe the bullshit that it is a "multicultural" country. They are quite happy for the tax payer to provide interpreters and for every official document to be printed in various Asian languages, and they remain oblivious to any resentment growing in the wider community. They remain oblivious that there *is* a wider community!

I know an Asian doctor who when she`d just qualified had to do a further 6 months language course learning a couple of Hindu languages, because many of the patients she`d be treating couldn`t speak English even though they`d been here 20 years. She was quite bitter. "Why the hell can`t they learn English instead of expecting the rest of the country to accomodate them". She`s right. But it`s hardly their fault. They have been encouraged in these expectations by `you know who`.

So now, they are trying to fix things down here. Even the schools have become segregated - not because nasty white people don`t want them in their schools, but because they`ve all been shovelled into their own little areas and they can pretend that they never left India or Pakistan or wherever. Even tho they live in the same land and should have common bonds, there is no common meeting point between the two groups because they never meet. And I`m not just talking black and white. Hindus are kept in one area and Muslims are in another. Everyone preserving their own cultures, while the wider community - the 92% of the population - are kept separate. God forbid that immigrants should be encouraged to claim our flag as *theirs*. PC people don`t want that at all. :(

The same thing can be seen in Northern Ireland - but there it`s the Catholic Church fuelling the divide. They don`t want the schools intergrated in case it weakens the religious beliefs. So kids grow up segregated believing they have nothing in common with their Protestant neighbours and vice versa.

In Oldham they are trying to mix things up a bit, get the schools more intergrated, but it`s gonna take time to fix the mistakes of the past 30 years. So yeah, I feel the `PC halfwits` should carry the can for this. They are the ones who put labels on people, who say you are `black` so you fit in this box, you are `white` so you should go in this box. Whether they started with good intentions is now irrelevant. For now it is they who are the bigots and the racists. They have become the very thing they fought.

You remember Damilola Taylor, the little black boy who was killed in a vicious racist killing by other schoolboys? The treatment of that case was disgusting. If that child had been killed by white boys as has happened in the past, then there would have been far more fuss. But because the racism came from other black children, the Race Industry preferred not to get involved, beyond a few token mealy mouthed words. Implication being that a little black boys life is worth more if he is killed by whites than blacks. Oh for shame!

Then that little girl who was beaten horrendously and starved by her aunt and boyfriend? The Social Workers SAW her bruises, SAW her walking cowed and beaten behind her "guardian" and they did nothing. Why? Because "well she was from the African continent and children often walk 10 paces behind an adult with their eyes lowered and head bowed. It`s about respect. It`s their culture". That little girl died in no small part because of their blinkered bigotry. They are not fit to still be in the job but they are. Nobody is ever accountable.

There is a sector of British girls who do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. Their `right` is to be abused and mutilated, and because of political correctness society turns a blind eye. Clitorectomy is illegal in this country, but many immigrants from Somalia and Nigeria just gotta take their little girl - now a British Citizen and entitled to the same protection as you or I - to some fancy Harley Street Clinic. Why are her parents not arrested? Why is the Doctor not stripped of his licence? Racism. The Doctor is also black of course. So they all have the let out that they cannot be expected to obey the law of the land they live in *because of their colour*. And the old "it`s their culture innit, not for us to criticise as that`d imply our culture was better." This is racism pure and simple and the PC people are the perpertrators. I`m sure that when these girls grow up they will be pleased that their gentials have been mutilated and their sexuality sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness. You wonder why I call them halfwits??

It is automatically assumed that any crime involving a black person has been committed because of their colour. Your house get robbed, it can never be a plain ole house burglary like the rest of us suffer. No it has to be a `race hate crime`. Race and colour are always brought to the forefront, and it is the PC people doing it. Frankly they cannot see beyond their labels, and I no longer believe they are actually capable of doing so.

"There you'll find many many people who think like you."

Wouldn`t wipe my arse on that paper Rahael. You have NO idea how I think either. If you`d read my initial posts, you would have seen that I was once one of you. And now I`m not. My politics were centre left, not rightwing, tho I`m damn sure you have me pegged as a rightwing fascist. :p I know because I know how the PC mindset thinks. Well actually most of them don`t think, but that`s another matter. :p

You were the one who took my initial rant re `PC halfwits` as a personal affront to yourself. You were the one who actually called yourself the halfwit. Not me.

Don`t kid yourself you got me pegged. Assumptions have a nasty habit of biting you on the ass.;)

I don`t actually care this much about any of it anymore. Not really. I`ll have the odd rant when I`m feeling hormonal because the idiocy of it all gets to me at times.

Human beings are little better than domesticated chimps, tho they like to puff themselves up with pride at their cleverness. Arthur Koestler called us "Sleepwalkers" and he was right.

BTW are you familar with Castenadas concept of the "Petty Tyrant"? :D

Cheerio!
Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is it? -- Rahael, 11:21:16 04/23/02 Tue

One of my friends tells me that I'll never 'be British'. Never belong here. Because I wasn't born here. Because I wasn't brought up a native. My ancestors fought in the British army in the Second World War. My great grandfather worked for the British civil service. And still, there are many reasonable people, whom I happen to respect, who think that I am not British.

At the same time she complains about immigrants who stick out like a sore thumb. It's a dilemma isn't it? I'm always wondering how much further I can go. Apparently a passport can't make you British. National identity is complex.

Another friend once told me that I was 'provoking' racists by wearing a Sari to a Ball. To her honestly puzzled mind, making such a statement of 'difference' was provocatory and dangerous. Should I stop cooking rice and curry at home? Would you agree with a Tory MP, who said last year that immigrants were destroying the 'homogeneity of Anglo Saxon culture'? (I'd contest that culture can be homogenous - by its very nature it is heterogenous and full of creative tension.)

Well, I'm against segregated societies. I'm against separate 'Faith' schools. And yes, there is a lot of tension within the Asian community. Within the Black community, between Asians and Blacks. I'm all for teaching immigrants how to read English. It's not PCness which made the Government withdraw Section 11 funding to teach young immigrant children how to read English. It's because they have other spending priorities. Because the poor and underprivileged of whatever background and whatever colour most often get ignored by Government policy.

I happen to think that the real problem in Britain is poverty. The massive and growing gap between rich and poor. That is what underlies the growth of the Far Right in Oldham, not PCness. That is what underlies most riots and ill feeling within communities, throughout history. But it's easier to target groups of people than to think hard about more complex social and economic issues. It's less easy, than thinking of society in terms of 'malaise' and to find one, major, catch all reason for 'everything going wrong'. My historical inclination leads me to distrust such simplistic ideas. Because people are always convinced things are 'falling apart'. And they always seem to need a grand, all encompassing explanation. The real answers are much more mundane. The sky probably isn't falling down, and the reasons why there are tensions are pretty prosaic.

And I was the person who was actually defending the state of British society. That it wasn't unravelling. I don't look around me and see doom and gloom! I see a healthy, vibrant and prosperous society. Communities always face tensions, always face challenges. The way we face them tell us something about who we are.

And the way we debate tell us something about who we are.

I'm not a nationalist of any stripe. I fear jingoism. Defining who you are, always is done by excluding others. I don't think 'Nationalism' is part of human nature, waiting to burst out if denied. Nationalism is a 19th C political and historical construct. And I'd always felt that English identity was always stronger when it was relaxed about itself; secure in it's strength to not have the growth of nationalism in Wales and Scotland.

By the way, I'm not calling for Conservative MPs to be 'forcibly' prevented from uttering racist views (there's always something to be said for racists to vote for Conservative MPs to represent them rather than BNP candidates). I was simply saying that in Britain, people aren't prevented from expressing them. That Britain is a place less controlled by a 'central mind think' than you argue. Though if I were the Conservative leader, I would deselect such MPs, simply because history has shown that British votes dislike extremism. They may agree, even sympathise, but the way the electorate reacts, instinctively, is to favour moderation over dangerous 'rocking the boat' ideas.

As for assumptions about you, I was told that you were 'a sweet person'. I judged you solely by the kind of tabloidese debating points you made. (Though I malign tabloids. I happen to think that the Sun has had an excellent record on editorials about race and immigration in Britain over the last two years. It's certainly more tolerant and I would argue, without prejudice, more sophisticated than the line of argument you've been following here.)

If you'd wanted to argue about PCness, in a more restrained, moderate and civil fashion, we could have had a more constructive discussion. But since you lumped together a whole lot of teachers, social workers, people who are too quick to cry racism, all sorts of people who are apparently controlling British society and 'wimmin' together (I note you made an exception for Black people who don't complain about racism), I am forced to label myself a 'PC halfwit'. Cos I'd rather be in their corner.

The people who control British society are the British people. All of them, all with totally legitimate opinions. All with perfectly good, functioning working minds and with a vote too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, by the way, -- Rahael, 11:42:21 04/23/02 Tue

Just so you can judge my attempts at 'integration', English is my second language. And I came to Britain 12 years ago.

And, also I am intensely interested in English culture, literature, history and art. I think it's fascinating. It's far more complex, rich and sophisticated than those who set themselves up as its aggressive advocates suggest. (I mean, they are always picking the most trite, terrible poetry! Lord, haven't they bothered picking up Marvell or Milton? and how many of them actually bother reading Shakespeare?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, by the way, -- Phoenix, 12:20:34 04/23/02 Tue

LOL

Look at it this way Rahael. You are doing a damn sight better than `native Britons`. Did you see that survey they did a while ago. The nations youth 13-18 was asked some pertinent questions re our history. Apparently an astonishing number of them were under the impression Adolf Hitler was Britains wartime leader; Winston Churchill was at the Battle of Trafalgar; and I do believe they confused Margaret Thather with Boadicea/Boudicca. ;))))))

Ah I envy your love of poetry! Apart from William Blake I never could get into it. Ruined for me at school, alas. ;)

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is it? -- Phoenix, 12:12:33 04/23/02 Tue

"And as for tolerance, you can criticise the ANC for the methods they used. But GET REAL. Were they allowed to VOTE?"

Well they are voting now. Hey they`ve got their country back now, and all is happy and touchy feely now right? Except......

Now Mandela is out of the way, business has resumed as normal. `Necklacing`, garroting, and other deliciously creative means of murder and mayhem. And it`s blacks doing it to other blacks. Tribe against tribe. Oh dear, that wasn`t in the game plan.

I spent a good part of my youth campaigning to "Free Nelson Mandela". Must say I`m very outraged about what is occuring. The Jewel in the African continent is steadily going down the pan. Businesses won`t invest there anymore, it`s too lawless, and many currently there are pulling out. They`ve absolutely got no chance now of hosting the next World Cup or Olympics, which they were angling for.

Surprise surprise, not a peep out of the PC brigade. Ho hum wonder why?

Then of course there is ole Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. What a pistol. As a member of the Commonwealth, Tony Blair could have acted a lot sooner to get them kicked out and condemned. He didn`t. None of them did. The murders, the *racist* killings, didn`t seem to bother this Government which had pledged an "ethical Foreign Policy". Well they were killing White farmers initially and Blair made a ludicrous attempt to convince them to stop by offering them money "here you are Mr Mugabe sir, some dosh for you. Don`t need to kill the farmers to take their land. Have the money instead". They acted surprised when Mugabe said thanky ou very much, trousered the money, and told him to sod off. I do believe he told him he ran a Government of poofters, and was an imperialist racist pig. As were all white men. Kinda funny in a macabre sort of way.

Mugabe overplayed his hand though. He began to rant about the nasty white racists so much nobody was listening to him anymore. And even though he`s finally been turfed out, the killings continue. Mainly his fellow blacks of course. He`s a new Idi Amin in the making. All his old liberal white friends who used to shelter him from the secret police many years ago, well they refused to believe what was happening. Such idealists these people. Admirable in a sense, but when it blinds you to danger it`s downright foolish. They started to get the picture when he began to arrest them, and have them shot for the crime of being white. Even his old priest who risked his neck to shelter him is on his shitlist. Ungrateful little git.

But still, not one word of condemnation from the PC lobby. Implication: racism is only an abomination when it is committed by white on black. Black on Black or Black on white is ok.

After killing off the farmers, the agriculture industry has now gone down the pan. Famine will be here soon. When those poor people are dying in their thousands, do you think the PC halfwits - of whom the Government is the `Chief Halfwit` will accept *any* culpabilty at all? They have as much blood on their hands as Mugabe, but they`ll never, ever take responsibilty. Spineless moral cowards, the lot of them. Mugabe got away with it because of his colour, because people were afraid they`d be denounced as bigots if they stood up and condemned it. Just as they say dick about slavery......

Whoa, come full circle! ;)

Some people think that the only reason people are beginning to take note of modern day slavery is because Europeans are involved. Trafficking in people is far more profitable than drugs these days and carries a lower sentence if caught. But then, they would think that wouldn`t they? Racism, racism everywhere, and no common sense anyway....

The reason why people are condemning when they hear about white people sold into bondage - by other white people - is because it is *safe* to do so. They were reluctant to criticise the far bigger industry of black slave trading, precisely because they *were* black. Thou Shalt Not Criticise a Nation of Colour.

It is a stroke of luck that now Europeans are involved, people can condemn it in *totality* without appearing to criticise a `black` nation or culture. And risk being branded culturally imperialist, or racist. If Europeans weren`t getting involved then it would be far harder to address the problem in these politically delicate times.

>>but I have every right to contest your vague generalisations "oh, society is facing ruin by secretive and powerful forces" <<

Sure you do, except I never said they were a secretive force. They are out in the open baby. They dictate policy, in Education, Government, Law (hell bring Osama Bin Laden over here and the human rights lawyers will get him off). Many of the terrorists guilty of the USS Cole incident are happily living in freedom here. Geez they are even squealing about the rights of the Sept 11th terrorists the Yanks are holding - lot of whom are British Muslims. Most of the country doesn`t give a toss about these guys. They are traitors and murderers. But the PC luvvies do. Oy!

They run the Police, and the Military. The Police don`t catch criminals anymore - which is what they are paid to do. They go on `outreach` courses (whatever the hell that is), and community awareness seminars. And Joe Public suffers from this breakdown in law and order. Hell even on the rare occasions when a criminal gets to court, the Judges will let them go. Can`t be beastly to criminals, it`d violate their human rights.

You wonder why Joe Public is getting resentful? Why I consider Political Correctness a cancer eating away at society?

Okaaay. Rant over.

Oh BTW your friend is an ass. Of course you are British. Britain is an artificial State not a race. You really shouldn`t take these things personally you know. James Herriot, y`know that Vet who wrote books etc, was a Scot born and bred. He lived in Yorkshire for 40 years, and the people loved him and treated him the same as everyone else. But he was always aware that they considered him an `outsider`. He didn`t take it personally, it rather amused him. As he put it, they considered people from the next village Outsiders. Go figure.

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Those aren't friends, Rahael -- Vickie, 17:34:15 04/24/02 Wed

But I'm sure you already worked that out. ;0)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To Rahael and Phoenix -- Ian, 13:19:35 04/23/02 Tue

I know it would probably be better if I just let this thread go away, but in my own small capacity I can also claim this discussion board as my community, so I feel the need to add my voice to this discussion and comment on what I see as a true breach of the civilized deportment of this board.

Rahael, I really respect what you've had to say in this thread, and I'm heartbroken to learn what happened to your mother, and the various slurs you've endured. I also am heartened by your refusal to stoop to name calling and insults, in a situation where I almost certainly could not. I myself am gay, and have experienced enough blind aggression aimed my way to understand how difficult it can be to remain fair and resonable when confronted by crap. You've done a wonderful job arguing your opinions and viewpoint while remaining steadfastly respectful. I respect that, and you.

Phoenix, you make many good points and clearly have a valid perspective (not that you need my blessing, obviously). However, your conduct here bothers me. You disagree. I get that. To an extent, I can even agree with you on some points. However, you have not, in my opinion, made much of an effort to maintain a civilized and respectful tone. Going so far as to call Rahael whiny or accuse her of having a chip on her shoulder goes far beyond the pale.

You are entitled to your opinion. Moreover, I welcome the opportunity to hear your opinions. However, I must respectfully urge you to make a greater effort in discussing the merits of an idea or issue, rather than demeaning yourself and others by belittling the people with whom you disagree.

Just so you know, my reaction here is not PC, which frankly troubles me at times, but rather good old fashioned civility. Before you go so far as to point the finger of blame at people you hold responsible for the derailment of society, you might want to peruse your own posts here. Do your posts treat others with respect? Do they respond to the issues in the posts, or instead seek to devalue those who are posting? Have you stated your case in a way others could learn from, or have you come across as snide and insulting?

Without a certain low standard of common decency and respect, reasonable discourse becomes impossible. One of the great qualities this board is able to maintain--for the most part--is one of mutual respect even in the face of fevered disagreement. Now, I can't speak as someone who never goes too far, but I can speak as someone who at least regrets it when I do.

Besides, if you are at all interested in swaying the opinions of others with the information and perspective that you present, it's just not going to happen with the manner in which you are presenting yourself. I do not intend this to be any form of attack on you personally, but I do not want to see the civility of this board dismissed or destroyed. This is a community. You are a part of it to, but you would do well to respect those you share it with.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awed and gratified into silence..... -- Rahael, 13:47:25 04/23/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> well, well, well, well, well said. -- yuri, 23:01:48 04/23/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hear, hear -- dream of the consortium, 13:51:51 04/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: slogan -- yabyumpan, 10:53:54 04/23/02 Tue

"Think about it. 92% of the population are native Britons, and of those the bulk are actually English. They are told to respect and honour everyone else`s culture: is it too much to expect that in our own land, we can have *our* culture shown the same respect."
I'm interested in what your idea of "native Britons" is. Do you mean the Celts, the Vikings, the Romans? How long does someone have to be in the UK to be considered "native"? 3 generations, 10 or more? Oh and "our culture" is?
"The tiny immigrant population gets to celebrate Diwali, Eid, and whatever other festivals."
These are religous festivals not national days, why shouldn't they be celebrated. Christmas and Easter are public holidays, people who are not christian have to take holiday time to celebrate their festivals. I myself have to take leave to celebrate the Solstices and Equinoxes etc, which considering that they were the festivals celebrated by the original "native Britons" might be considered strange. Christianity was indeed imposed on the "native British" population by immigrants from the middle- east and the invading Roman Army.
"Benny Hill was pulled off air because he was deemed sexist and racist. He had the last laugh by becoming huge in America."
We gave America BH, apologies but you did give us Fantasy Island....
"The PC guy pretends that it is larger than it is. His city is `multi-cultural` so he convinces himself this applies throughout the whole land, and therefore it is justified expecting immigrant traditions to take precedence over native traditions."
Huh!!!!!explain please, with examples.
"If you take that chip off your shoulder you might find the world a friendlier place." Back at you :- )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: slogan -- Phoenix, 13:53:09 04/23/02 Tue

"I'm interested in what your idea of "native Britons" is. Do you mean the Celts, the Vikings, the Romans? How long does someone have to be in the UK to be considered "native"? 3 generations, 10 or more? Oh and "our culture" is?"

Now ya see you are trying to be clever. The Celts, the Viking, The Romans, do not exist anymore as well you know. Those races went in to making up the races of Britain (ie England, Scotland, and Wales). As did the Jutes, the Angles, the Saxons, the Normans. There is no race on earth that is "pure bred" and thank god for it.

But strangely it seems to me, that while it`s ok for an Asian or Afro Caribbean to be proud of their culture, and celebrate their heritage - quite rightly - it`s not ok for the `native` British. ie the Scots, Welsh and English.

The Scots and Welsh are ok, but the English are denied their national identity. You tell a Scotsman, or Welshman he has no culture he is likely to deck you one. If you really don`t know what your culture is, then I`ll say you are ripe for Tony Blairs "Cool Britannia" crap. But I think you do know. And I think you are playing word games, to try and expose me for a nasty bigot. A closet racist. Dear me, you are so transparent. I`m very disappointed.

Whether you like it or not, there is a simmering resentment. Not amongst the young of course because they have little connection to history. Most of them seem to be happy to become a State within Europe.

Many social commentators have noted a new phenomenon: the rise of English Nationalism. This has nothing to do with "British Nationalism" (ie Fascism) it`s to do with people reclaiming their heritage. They want England to secede from the union and have a separate Parlimaent again. After all Scotlands now got one, and the Welsh have got their Assembly. Now there are murmurings that the English should have one too. Some are getting pissy that the people telling them that they have no `national identity` are a bunch of Scots. ;) Quite funny really. Scotland is likely to opt for full independance at some point, and that`s when the nationalists are likely to lobby for complete separation.

Some go further of course. They want to go back to the ancient way of dividing up the counties into autonomous `states`. Basically splitting North and South. Don`t underestimate the resentment in the North re `Southerners`, who are perceived to get an unfair slice of the economic pie. We live in interesting times. Britain will not exist within 50 years, I`m betting. Can`t say I`m sorry.

"These are religous festivals not national days, why shouldn't they be celebrated. Christmas and Easter are public holidays, people who are not christian have to take holiday time to celebrate their festivals. I myself have to take leave to celebrate the Solstices and Equinoxes etc, which considering that they were the festivals celebrated by the original "native Britons" might be considered strange. Christianity was indeed imposed on the "native British" population by immigrants from the middle- east and the invading Roman Army."

Yes dear, I do know my history. And yes I do know these are religious festivals. I`ve been an Occultist for over 20 years - way before it became fashionable. Ever had Jehovahs Witnesses camping on your doorstep calling you a `devil worshipper`? Oy, you guys make sooo many assumptions here. You really should watch that tendency. :p

Re: expectations that immigrant traditions are often felt to take precedence over `native` traditions.

Well I could could go on about the demands for a Muslim Parliament, more in keeping with the `traditions` of Islamic culture. Bear in mind that Muslims make up 4% of the population, but they do not wish to be part of our culture, and traditions. Or the demand for segragated `Faith` schools. Normally I wouldn`t have a problem with this, but it`s not about Faith, it`s again about `traditions` and culture. I don not think it in keeping with our democracy and - ooh that word again `traditions` - to effectively exclude a number of girls from our society, and to insist they must stick to the `traditions` of the culture they have left behind. I want to see every child, of every faith, get the same opportunities. Not be denied them because it`s not their `tradition`. Tough, it`s *ours*, you know, freedom for all, even girls. I don`t want to see girls forced into arranged marriages against their will, because it`s their `tradition`. Nor have to seek police protection when they run from their families. Their parents willfully, voluntarily came here, to a country with different `traditions` and culture. If they despise it so much why did they not emigrate instead to a country which shared their values?

I do not want to see young British girls mutilated, because it`s their `tradition`. It is not ours, and it`s against the law. I want it stopped. If you don`t, in order to allow them to cling to their `tradition`, well......

I could go on about Nativity plays which get cancelled, and instead a celebration of Eid takes place - in a school with few Muslims. I`m not a Christian, but I think if you don`t show respect for the traditions of the host country, there are gonna be problems.

A rather telling incident re this lack of respect was when Princess Diana died. A Muslim cleric was decrying the Christian service she had. "There are Muslims in this country too, so elements of Islam and other religions should have been included in the service." Completely ignoring the fact that Diana was a Christian, and was entitled to a Christian burial. Hmm maybe a good idea, yes? Except.....when it was suggested that Mosques included elements of Christianity for Dodi Fayeds funeral, he balked at that. No, only Christianity was to be bastardised in this way, but Islam would continue to be preached unsullied in the Mosques. Ditto Hinduism and Buddhism. Only Christian services were to be butchered so as not to `offend`. Well the hell with that! I despise organised religions, and have a special venom for the Christian Church, but I`ll defend it`s right to exist in it`s own culture. It`s about Justice, Fairness, and Respect! What`s good for one is sure as hell good for the other.

You know it might be an idea to actually *read* my posts rather than hitting on certain aspects, tuning out the rest, and making assumptions based on that.

BTW here`s a little thing to wrap your PCness around. I`m a white Caucasian. If I was born and raised in Japan, would you think me Japanese? If I was born and raised in China, would you consider me Chinese? Or would I be a Citizen of such a country and call myself Anglo-Chinese, Anglo-Japanese? Or would that imply that I was `half` Japenese/Chinese? Genuinely curious here.

BTW Ian: You know Rahael jumped in at the begining and took *personal* offence at a generalized rant against Pcness. She decided to make it a personal issue in tone. Fine. But there was no calling Rahael any personal names. I did say she may have a chip on her shoulder if she perceives racism everywhere. I mean Geez I know she`s the regular, but I`m slightly disturbed that I`m being perceived as personally attacking her. If she wishes to identify herself with the people I generalised about, she is perfectly at liberty to do so. But that still doesn`t make it `personal` from my end. Obviously you are perceiving it as such.

I`m also not unaware that there is a subtle effort to perhaps show me to be, how shall we say, a bigot? Racist? Take your pick. It amused me at first, but I find it a little wearying now. Does one always have to watch what one says, to make sure those of a sensitive disposition don`t take offence where none was intended?

Strangely enough I was actually enjoying talking to Rahael. She might find my style a little abrasive, but I`d be really surprised if she re-read my posts with a detached eye and found them personally aimed at her.

But hey what do I know. Your community, you make the rules. Whatever. Rahael, apologies if you are having a hissy about my mean posts. Ya can all dismiss me as a nasty racist troll and all will be right with the world again.

I`ll get me coat.

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, now that's the lack of effort I was referring to. -- Ian, 18:22:38 04/23/02 Tue

Phoenix--

"Strangely enough I was actually enjoying talking to Rahael. She might find my style a little abrasive, but I`d be really surprised if she re-read my posts with a detached eye and found them personally aimed at her.

But hey what do I know. Your community, you make the rules. Whatever. Rahael, apologies if you are having a hissy about my mean posts. Ya can all dismiss me as a nasty racist troll..."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, now that's the lack of effort I was referring to. -- Phoenix, 09:18:03 04/24/02 Wed

Well now, I haven't heard the phrase "lack of effort" in many a year. Wouldn`t be a schoolteacher would you? I do apologise if my writing style does not match the sparkling verbosity of your own. As there is obviously some hidden test one must pass before a post becomes acceptable to your dazzling intellects - and I have obviously received a D minus from y`all - maybe you`d care to check how you did from my humble perspective, hmmm? Put aside your prejudices for a moment and actually pay attention. I know I`m but a poor oik not sophisticated enough for you learned people, but I still might get my point across in my own clumsy way. Wanna play?

I actually came out of lurkdom for an entirely different purpose, a request OnM made a short while ago......

You see, I've lurked here for quite a while. My main pleasure is shadowkat`s essays, but there is a lot of other good stuff here as well sometimes. I pay particular attention to the conversations regarding Joseph Campbell and metaphysics. Some of it is insightful, but I confess I get a bit exasperated at times. You people talk and talk and talk. Don't you ever DO? I sometimes have to bite my tongue to refrain from asking you this, or jumping in and saying "look instead of just discussing Campbell's (or whomever) opinions try this technique - and then you can discuss Campbell's opinions and theories from the novel perspective of first hand direct experience. But I never do.

And then OnM asked about Castenada, and I got excited. Maybe I should stop lurking after all, and share what I know - not merely from book learning, but first hand experience. Ooh I`m getting carried away now imagining people discussing and comparing the philosophy of Castenada and his Greek counterpart, Daskalos, the various techniques, and how they mesh with the quantum perspective. Oh I was fairly bouncing around with anticipation, but......

Even tho I was convinced that I could safely share certain info, long experience has taught me to be wary. You cannot push info where it isn't wanted, or more importantly where it could do harm. And if the mindset can't accept it, it is intensely frustrating. I learnt that when I had my first OBE many moons ago. Naturally I was blown away and wanted to share. I was faced with ridicule and "don't believe it". I very earnestly tried to explain that the technique itself adhered to the scientific method and if one did A,B,C, then D would follow logically. One would be in a much better position to judge after personally experiencing it. But no....the mindset was very much "I don't believe it, therefore it doesn't exist, therefore there is no point in me doing it". Kinda reminds me a little of "trance logic". This is a trite example but I have come to see that this mindset is part of the human condition, and it's endemic in science and medicine. It's also pertinent to the points I`d been trying to make in my posts. But I`m getting ahead of myself now........

After OnMs request, I decided to step out of lurkdom. I post a few website links, one of which contained the Paul Pietch book "Shufflebrain". This will actually prove helpful in understanding Castenada`s - or rather Don Juans - philosophy. Ditto the Aboriginal concept from the "Dreamtime", or the Sufi "imaginal" world etc. Then I get distracted by a thread mentioning "slavery" and decide to weigh in. For a few posts everything was civil until Rahael stepped up to bat. Definitely confrontational, and taking a general rant against the PC "mindset" as a personal affront. No biggie at this point. Until Yuri made his invite to chat and Rahael responded to that. The general gist was that Scott was a troll from previously (and therefore anything he said now was perceived on that basis).

I noted nothing of the troll in Scott's posts on the thread. He expressed his opinion, and if anyone had bothered to read the link he gave showing a comparison of the methods of Nazism and Communism (from someone who lived under both) he actually made valid points. Certainly not a troll post. But obviously if she finds it disagreeable it is. She finishes with a comment about my post. "I don't know why I dignified that `PM halfwit` post with a reply". So now I know. My post isn't worthy of a response because it doesn't agree with hers. I too am a troll. Implicit in the tone, is that others will not find her opinion harsh. This is the point that I start to get alarmed. For Rahael has already made her mind up about me and her responses will be from that perspective only. As it proved. In spite of the fact that I plainly stated that my brother was a teacher, and I was attacking the mindset of the policy makers and not the teachers themselves, this made no difference. Ditto for the "wimmin". As a woman I`m hardly going to attack the whole gender, again it was made clear that it was a an attack on the "mindset" of a certain group of "PC halfwits" who label themselves "wimmin".

I do tell Rahael that the world may seem a little friendlier if she takes the chip off her shoulder. Hardly a grave insult. For again, I give examples of why I deem the PC brigade to be halfwitted. I give her instances she can relate to from England. Instances that would push the buttons of most people - a racist killing, cliterectomy, child abuse, but still to no avail.

I specifically mentioned that I was not concerned with politics or anything, and that I didn't really care about any of it, and that it was the hypocrisy, the wilful blindness and a particular "mindset" that was angering me. I even left clues "BTW are you familiar with Castenadas concept of the Petty Tyrant?" I mentioned Koestlers statement that we were all "Sleepwalkers". I was desperate to move on to comparing this mindset which is rampant within the PC paradigm with humanity in general. And the various ways it expresses itself in reality. I`m used to this mindset from the way "paranormal" research gets treated. And much of Biochemistry. Bit like Herman Hesse`s "Glass Bead Game". What are we doing with the "beads" that don't fit? I am in a sense acting as a "Petty Tyrant". But nothing of value is coming out. Anyhooo....

I was still enjoying Rahaels posts until her final one showed me I was completely wasting my time. She is responding to what she "thinks" I`m saying based on my first post and her defensive reaction to it - and her preconceptions. And manages to get some sly insults in - but I`ll address those when I get to Ian in a minute.

Yabyumpan decides to take a pop. I wish I could say I used the term "native Britons" instead of "indigenous", to push predictable buttons, but it's not so. I was typing fast and them`s the words I used. However, it was patently obvious what I was talking about and shouldn`t have caused a problem unless one was interpreting in a specific way. Now comes the patronising tone, and the implication that I am ignorant. Pound to a penny, I`m also a suspect racist in her mind too.

Sophist mentions she read a book which pertained to some data I gave and judged it racist. I`m not assuming that she is suspecting me of racism and judging accordingly, but she suspects the author (journalist) of being so. She may very well be right. The point I was making there, was that because of the PC mindset this info could not be published in a scientific journal where it could be validated or ditched by his peers. Instead it appears in newspaper articles, tv documentaries and popular books. Anyone could use the info to push their own agendas and theories, and any merit the data may have had now becomes worthless. Science does not - and should not - work like that. Anyway....

Ian now decided to chastise me. Concedes I've made a few valid points, but takes me to task for being snide (obviously the emoticons I used to indicate when I was joking ;) or being facetious :p made no difference). Believes I was demeaning and belittling Rahael by accusing her of whining (not true, I accused those who used their gender/colour/sexual orientation etc as an excuse for failure as whining). I did say she should remove the chip off her shoulder when she persisted in accusing me of dissing teachers after I`d told her it was policy makers not teachers themselves, and told her my brother was one. However, Ian had no problem with Rahael telling me my points were argued in "tabloideze" and my posts were less sophisticated than The Sun newspaper. As any Brit knows, that is a major insult. :p

But Ian is also taking me to task for my writing style, which doesn't come up to the high standards expected here. *sigh* Surprised you didn't tell me to sit up straight and check my grammar. And yeah, I know my grammar sucks, but I am not concerned with trivia. You obviously are tho.

So now I know. I've been bagged and tagged as ignorant, probably racist, intolerant (LOL) and with a writing style too unsophisticated and blunt to meet the high standards here. Oh dear.

Intellectual snobbery is a little distasteful.As is elitism. A good long look in the mirror and some of you may find you are not the shining lights of tolerance you so fondly believe.

I`m the one suffering the crushing disappointment here. You already judged me and naturally I lived down to your expectations. I on the other hand, was expecting so much more......

Castenadas "Journey To Ixtlan" is a metaphor - and how you people love those - and it is a lonely journey. It would have been nice to share some of the stuff I've learned, but now I can't. Not merely because some of you have been showing the same "mindset" I've been ranting against, but because my style is obviously too abrasive and unsophisticated to be understood clearly. Not much good giving you a technique to further your understanding of a concept, if instead of a life changing experience you misunderstand and do yourself a mischief.

Ah well, my own fault for having such foolish expectations. No biggie. Ill probably lurk from time to time to catch any Buffy essays, but I`ll not post again.

Those of you still gagging for Castenada, well you could do worse than get hold of Professor Michael Harman`s book "The Way of the Shaman". He uses the `Healer` archetype and not the `Warrior` one like Don Juan/Castenada. Plenty of methodology for you to sink your teeth into. No point in just talking about the philosophy tho, ya gotta experience it to really grasp it.

Enjoy the journey, it`s a truly wild ride! :)

Peace and Goodwill.
Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mea Culpa -- Rahael, 09:57:40 04/24/02 Wed

My apologies to the board. I never thought this would ever get to this point...............I know that we all feel that we must treat newbies well and listen with tolerance.

Perhaps I do take things personally. Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm sorry.

Because thinking back about my record here, I've been involved in one too many emotional postings. One or two may be accidental, but this time.....perhaps passionate politics and the anonymity of the net doesn't mix. And I am confrontative in style. I think LeeAnn or Spikelover can attest to that.

Obviously I must be going wrong somewhere if a board moderator like Phoenix can't handle the posts I was making.

Anyway, just a few final words. The Sun thing: I said 'without prejudice'. I was far more impressed with the Sun's editorial on racism than I was the Guardian. I wanted to show that I didn't automatically rule out wisdom from an unexpected source.

And I did make a sincere effort to drag the debate about what was wrong about British society from PCness to Poverty because that's what I honestly believe.

This debate wasn't about my 'philosophy'. It's about my life. The things I have to face, the things people I know have to live through. It is about putting ethics into practice. It isn't about having rants to let off steam.

This isn't me having a hissy fit. This is me reconsidering things.

One last word in my defence. I think, despite seeing some of the darkest, most evil things in the whole world I still see it as a friendly, optimistic, place which can be changed by discussion, most particularly by getting groups within communities to work together and not see each other as the enemy; to get rid of prejudices and lazy thinking.
Not one of my friends, even those who think I'm a soppy liberal, or who argue with me about race think I have a chip on my shoulder. Not even secretly. They tell me stuff they wouldn't express to other people because they know I don't judge people by their words; I judge them by generosity of heart and kindness.) I may have many faults, but I am a very proud person; the idea that society can stop me from getting what I want is inconceivable to me.

Phoenix, I'll leave you with a quote from my mother's book

"Objectivity, the pursuit of truth and propagation of critical and honest positions, was not only crucial for the community but was a view that could cost many of us our lives. It was only undertaken as a survival task"

One day my mother never came home again because she wrote these words. Because she lived them. I live every day of my life, sincerely, passionately, trying to be true to them.

Getting into slanging matches which leaves all sides depressed isn't a part of this.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mea Culpa -- Phoenix, 10:29:56 04/24/02 Wed

No Rahael, it really wasn`t your fault.

I`m glad you still find the world a friendly place. My anger really comes from the fact that people are unaware that there is so much more for them to experience and I tend to take it personally that "science" or "society" isn`t moving fast enough for me, and instead focuses it`s energies on stuff that isn`t important in the vast scheme of things.

In many ways, we were reacting similarly. Like you said, I too never learn and it was my own damn fault for expecting a different outcome.

Regarding perceptions, and stuff like that: if you are into such stuff you might be interested to check out Mind Machines ( try www.lifetools.com )as those machines are not only great for de-stressing, but make such things as meditation and mind experiments much easier. I recommend them.

As for the rest.....for what it`s worth I do agree with some of your points re poverty etc. And I really am sorry if I upset you. Was never my intention. You don`t wanna take any notice of me anyway, I alway was full of crap. ;)

In spite of the outcome I really did enjoy speaking to you, so there are certainly no hard feelings on my part. :)

Take Care
Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mea Culpa -- celticross, 13:27:01 04/24/02 Wed

Rahael, don't you dare apologize for expressing yourself. We know you've faced hard times in your past, and if you could respond to the direction of this thread without becoming emotional, I for one would astounded. So emote away, my dear...I wouldn't dream of stopping you.

And Phoenix, it's one thing to go into very heated debates with someone you know, but offense comes much easier when the debate is anonymous, and EVERYTHING can seem personal. It's not that I disagree with your points (well, not all of them...some of them, very much) so much as I disagree with the manner in which you expressed them. You were right, this is our community, one you're welcome to stay at. However, in my own opinion, it's better to get to know the people you're around before you leap into heated debate with them. I think if you get to know Rahael, for instance, you will find she is one of the sweetest people you will ever meet and completely lacks a chip on her shoulder.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow... -- pissed of Etrangere, 10:10:51 04/24/02 Wed

I've never met someone as quick to complain about people making assumptions about her while making so much assumptions about the people she's talking to.

Phoenix, I've read your first posts on this thread without a particular mindset, probably because I lacked the knowledge of England's context to understand what their subtexts was. As Ian, I would say you were not without points. The later posts you made in your discussion with Rahael, their agressivity, the continuancy of injurious terms ("halfwit" being the most common, wether that refers directly to Rahael or to a general kind of people is as offensive) and the annoying conspiracy-like way you kept refering to "those people", and the "look they are more racist than us" (so what's your point, it's ok then to be racist to them ?) disgusted me quickly from any agreement I had in the discussion.

The way you now try to look like the perfect victim (a very "PC mindset" strategy, by the way, one of the kind you're likely to criticize, oh, irony !) is merely ridiculous, because of all the reasons why I think people here feel offended by you, it's neither lack of sophistication in writing, neither prejudices against Castenada (not that I even understand why you're bringing him in the conversation, I might find him relevant if I knew more about him, whatever) or whatever your paranoid post here blames us of prejudicing.

I wouldn't say it's /easy/ to get into this community, either, granted, but if there's now some prejudices against your posts, I think you bear the greatest responsibility for it, sorry.

So, if you haven't got anything more to say than this whining and martyr-like pause, let me tell you, to quote your own posts : life is hard, get over it. And take some responsabilities for your actions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Candle in the wind -- Sophist, 10:46:55 04/24/02 Wed

This thread is taking up a lot of space and you seem inclined to let it die, so maybe I should also. I decided to respond for 2 reasons. One is that you mentioned me in your post. The other is an effort to explain why some of your posts may not have received the reaction you hoped for, which I am making because I value this Board's tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

I'm going to limit my comments to the professor you mentioned whose research was supposedly stifled. Your original post read as follows:

Hell, even Science itself is being compromised by these idiots. There was a significant discovery a couple of years ago, by some Professor at Oxford, which would further evolution theory, and enhance our knowledge of biological processes. But it`s being sat on because of political correctness. That`s bloody outrageous!

As I originally read this post, I understood you to make 3 points: 1. That this research was valid and important. 2. That it could not be published at all, anywhere. 3. That the reason it could not be published anywhere was oversensitivity to racial issues.

Rahael responded by questioning whether such studies could actually be suppressed, and you responded (I'm paraphrasing) that it was. The publication of the book on the same subject (sorry, but I simply can't remember if the same professor's research was used) tends to show that these subjects can be and are published, contrary to how I understood your original post.

Your current post says your concern was that scientific issues might be censored by those with a "PC mindset". I completely agree that scientific research should be freely published; censorship from any political viewpoint is wrong.

Your original post also referred to the research as "significant". It's important in decrying censorship not to be seduced into defending the merits of the speech itself. Frequently, the most vile of speech is that which needs protection; speech which pleases the majority rarely does. By appearing to validate the professor's research in the original post, you raised the emotional stakes of the issue for everyone.

Lastly, your original post was too vague. You said the research "was being sat on", but you didn't say by whom. There's no way to respond to a statement like that, except to get into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" exchange. The devil is in the details.

Not sure how you'll take this, and there's no need to respond if you don't want to. I am trying to explain, not criticize (though I realize the difference may seem small to the receiver of such unsolicited advice).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, now that's the lack of effort I was referring to. -- Arethusa, 11:14:21 04/24/02 Wed

I was thrilled to find web sites about "Buffy," and astonished by the intelligence and good manners of this boards' members. I was inspired to post by Rahael's writings, especially, amoung many others. I was worried that, with my skimpy education and brain atrophy from being a stay-at-home mom for eight years, I'd have nothing to contribute. But everyone has been very kind and responsive, so I am happy to learn from the better educated and share my opinions with those who might be interested.

I live in Houston, Texas, where the main thing that divides the classes is money. No matter who you are, what you look like, or where you're from, you have at least the chance to succeed. The city's leaders recognize that it's to everyone's benefit to help the blacks who've been mired in povery since Jim Crow, the new immigrants escaping poverty and violence in the Americas and around the world, and the poor white mothers stuck in welfare. (See a pattern? Poverty.) We still have tons of bigotry and mistrust, but we have a little hope, too.

Another thing we have is a few "leaders" (of all kinds) who try to use peoples' fears and prejudices to control them, or advance the leader's agenda. They are easy to identify. They say they are being persecuted by everyone, nobody listens to them, and everyone else is unfair or bigoted. They warn about race war, social upheaval, and, (interestingly enough) Apocalypse. Most of us ingore them. It's way too hot here most of the time to get worked up about much, unless it's our electric bills.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you guys for being here and giving me the opportunity to have intelligent discussions about my favorite shows. Most people look at me like I'm insane for watching "a 6-year old's show", as one local sports talk show host said recently. Thanks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, now that's the lack of effort I was referring to. -- Ian, 13:17:45 04/24/02 Wed

Okay, perhaps this was my turn to be too vague. Also, the only reason I'm responding this time is to rectify what appears to be a misunderstanding of what it is I meant.

I at no point criticized the "erudition" of your writing style, I merely took exception to your use of what I considered to be unnecessarily derogatory verbiage. However, considering that my previous post took NO issue with your opinions, but rather what appeared to be insulting comments aimed at one who disagreed with you, I thought my "lack of effort" post was clear.

This is your apology to Rahael in the post I was responding to.

"Rahael, apologies if you are having a hissy about my mean posts."

As far as apologies go, this one clearly shows a lack of sincerity. Hence, my "lack of effort" post.

Okay, once again, I am NOT attacking you. I take no issue with your right to express yourself. Again, I welcome it. I sincerely hope you continue to post on this board, as I find much of what you have to say quite interesting. I have NO problems with you personally or with what you have to say.

The ONLY thing I take issue with is what I, and apparently a few others, considered to be superfluous and unnecessary insults. That's all.

Have a nice day, Phoenix.

Ian

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, now that's the lack of effort I was referring to. -- Phoenix, 17:08:51 04/24/02 Wed

Hi,

I`ll just tidy up the mess I`ve made before making a final post to Wynn. Synchronicity has come out to play and I`m tickled pink. ;)

Sophist: No prob, I get your point, and I can see where people may have had a problem. We were essentially arguing at cross purposes for much of that thread. I should have taken more care to make sure I wasn`t misunderstood in that first post. Because something seemed crystal clear to me, I assumed it was so to others. LOL obviously not! But ya know I kinda paid you a compliment - though I doubt you`d appreciate this. I assumed that I didn`t need to struggle to dot every `I` and cross every `T` to prevent misunderstanding. Let alone to ensure that I wasn`t put in a box and labelled on that basis. But of course because of my initial post, everything I said was after that viewed thru the impact that had made IYSWIM. Kinda hard to get back from that. So I accept responsibility for not taking care with that post and assuming you all would get what I meant. :)

Ian: That`s cool, no problem with that. That was a sincere apology to Rahael tho. I guess it`s just a difference we have in using language. I`m an old hand at the newsgroups and know what snideness is. Trust me that wasn`t. I also moderate my own board and don`t let people personally insult each other so I sure as hell wouldn`t come on here and let fly with the personal insults.

I will maintain my term `PC halfwits`. Again if you`d understood what I was saying you`d realise that it was a particular kind of PC mindset that I deemed halfwitted. And I used the examples, of Zimbabwe, cliterectomy, a child`s death etc as an example of how this mindset is indeed `halfwitted`. This had nothing to do with any person on this board. Ever.

Etangere This is the toughest one to respond to, because it`s patently clear that you didn`t get my last post either. Where the hell did prejudice re Castenada come from?? The only prejudice I was complaining about in my last post was pre-judging of me, and what I was assumed to be. And again, nobody was saying "they are more racist than us". I was arguing that the ones who were claiming to be tolerant and non-racist, were in fact the perpertrators of the racism. And just to make sure there is no misunderstanding here: I am not referring to anyone on this board.

There is no point in me reinterating again, but it`s hardly surprising you didn`t understand my last post let alone any of the others if they were read thru a veil of `disgust`. *sigh*

Yuri: I`m sorry but I think all slavery is monstrous. Period. When you start qualifying it, and saying some types are more evil than others you are playing politics with people lives. You also make that which is "less evil" more acceptable. It also enables people to keep focusing on the past rather than address slavery as it exists today.

BTW I would still define myself as a "liberal". But much of what passes for it these days is not true liberalism. It is more akin to fascism. Again, if you`d understood what I was saying you`ll see I used the term "faux liberal". And it is those fake liberals that I was denoucing as the "PC halfwits". Not liberalism per se. But you wanna defend the fake ones, be my guest.

No I am not "pro-capitalist". Nor am I an "anti-capitalist". While my concerns re GMO embrace your reasons, they go far in excess. Put it this way, if I had a few months to live there`d be a few less biotech companies around by the time I popped off. But I`ll not go into that - if I`m not able to get my point across on the other topic, I sure don`t fancy my chances on this one. :p

I have a vague hope that I`ve managed to make myself at least semi-understood here, and not made a cack of it again.

I`ve got one final post to make, and then I`ll be off. I`ll still lurk but it`s too hard going for me to have to watch everything I say for fear of being misunderstood. My problem not yours. And I`m cool with it. :)

Phoenix

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have Harman's book -- Vickie, 17:16:42 04/24/02 Wed

and would love to discuss it with you. Might have to reread it first (it's been a while).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See.... now ya seducing me outta my mega sulk ;-) -- Phoenix, 17:47:44 04/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, *cough*, as a Welsh person... -- Marie, 01:54:59 04/24/02 Wed

...I would like to say that if anyone were to tell me I had no culture, I might take him/her to an Eisteddfod, or give him, say, the Mabinogion, to read, but I wouldn't "deck" him. I'd pity him, though.

M

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Though you must admit, there are those who would burn down his holiday bungalow. -- leslie, 08:44:04 04/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Leslie, could you explicate this allusion? -- d'Herblay, 19:00:16 04/24/02 Wed

Whooosh!!

That's the sound of it going right over my head.

At the risk of starting a whole new thread on the moral ambiguity of arson (I will take the courageous stand and declare myself firmly anti-firebug), could you fill me in on what I have missed?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll answer this one! -- Marie, 02:03:14 04/25/02 Thu

Certain groups of Welsh Nationalists decided they were fed up of the damned English coming to their country to retire - buying up local cottages at prices the locals couldn't afford, while they said damned English lived and worked in England, renting at exorbitant rates to other English tourists, then retiring and spending a lot of their retirement whingeing about the nasty ignorant Welsh people actually daring to speak Welsh to each other in the shops when they "knew we were English"...

I'm sure you get the drift. Anyway, the so-called patriots decided to "burn the buggers out", and we heard a lot of fire engines back in the days!

Many years ago, I was driving an old banger with a broken petrol gauge. So I carried with me a can of petrol in the boot. My brother worked as a carpenter, and was in the habit of giving me sacks of kindling for my fire. I used to babysit for a close friend in the heart of where the cottage burnings were taking place. The police often did spot checks of cars, especially late at night, and they stopped me once at 1.00 a.m. As the policeman walked around the car, all I remember thinking is "Don't look in the boot!"

Actually, all he did was look at me, rather pityingly after looking at the car, but I never carried those items with me again, not in that area, anyway!

Nowadays we all get along pretty well, I think.

Marie

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- d'Herblay, 02:08:42 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Benny Hill -- Cleanthes, 16:04:16 04/23/02 Tue

I just have to comment because I taste delectable irony.

Here in Florida, and maybe elsewhere in the US, Benny Hill broadcasts on Public TV, the perceived bastion of PC because British shows are considered "ethnic" and therefore totally cool as far as PC goes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So, what do you all consider Canadians......;) -- Rufus, 17:39:25 04/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In Florida? - Drivers of big, slow RV's -- Cleanthes, 19:11:52 04/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, can't be me, I hate the heat and drive a sub-compact, and know how to get out of the way..;) -- Rufus, 01:46:27 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually -- Darby, 09:58:25 04/23/02 Tue

And even I, somewhat out of the loop and on Pondside West, have heard of the study, which has stirred up a valuable discussion of what sorts of data and conclusions get suppressed and the rationale for supporting or decrying such suppression.

If you can't shut something up when you want to, your power is certainly suspect!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually -- Sophist, 11:05:40 04/23/02 Tue

A book along these lines was actually published in the US a year or so ago. Can't recall the title right now, but it was something to do with race and sports. I believe a journalist wrote it, but he cited studies exactly like the one mentioned by Phoenix, above.

I actually bought the book. It was so poorly written and so badly argued that I gave up about half way through. Though the author protested muchly that he was not being racist, I found the conclusions, based as they were on suspect data and poor logic, hard to characterize as anything else.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My respect for JM has increased -- Scott, 22:55:45 04/20/02 Sat

"The scary thing is that these halfwits run everything. Dunno about the US these days, but in the UK virtually everything is run by these people. And, my god the damage they do......."

It is really ugly what they do here in America. They are in control of every social institution here, including the government (and both political parties) and people really do live in fear of what they can do to them.

They have adopted many of Hitler's tactics. Not the strong brutal ones of course, but the more subtle ones. Those who aren't in the Politically Correct paradigm are demonized and persecuted.

One really fears where this will lead.

I am glad you found the link informative. Here's a link to the text version.

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

Here's another link by someone who lived under both Nazism and Communism. The similarities are frightening.

http://www.founding.org/tbfastoc.html

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yep, that`s what`s happening over here too. :( Ta for the links! -- Phoenix, 14:53:06 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yep, that`s what`s happening over here too. :( Ta for the links! -- Scott, 19:35:34 04/21/02 Sun

Here's another one you might be interested in.

http://usconservatives.about.com/blc0325n uts.htm

and this one

http://www.law.harvard.ed u/news/Charlton_Heston_speech.html

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ack! Charlton Heston: Likes guns. Crap actor. J/K :P -- Phoenix, 20:33:29 04/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ? -- Scott, 20:44:44 04/21/02 Sun

In America we have the right to own guns. With guns we can protect our families.

What you only trust "the government" having guns?

"This week will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolf Hitler, 1935

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don`t trust anyone having guns! -- Phoenix, 21:11:58 04/21/02 Sun

Ah you see, this is an alien concept to the English. :)

The whole idea of a gun culture squicks me out a bit. Guess the argument for the gun lobby only makes sense to Americans, or other cultures where citizens are armed.

They are kinda making an mini argument for guns this side of the pond - but only for the arming of the police. On the one hand, I can see the need: criminals are often armed these days and quite a few officers have been killed. It is unfair to expect them to put their lives on the line without adequate protection. But it would be a slippery slope.

There are a few `armed` units but they don`t have a sparkling record. They frequently shoot innocent people. And frankly, aside from the desirability of keeping an unarmed police force, would I actually trust the police to use their weapons responsibly? Not bloody likely!

I hope I never see the day when guns are as common in the UK as in America, but I fear it may one day be so, especially with "Law and Order" breaking down. The public don`t trust the police to protect them anymore, so it`s not unthinkable that in the near future they too may start arming themselves - if the criminals can access guns, I daresay it can`t be that difficult if someone is determined. The police will definitely start arming in this scenario.......and I`m so starting to depress myself now. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don`t trust anyone having guns! -- Claire, 19:37:29 04/24/02 Wed

Kind of O/T but just wanted to say I understand what you were trying to say. A lot of people took offense seeming to believe you were attacking all liberals randomly and therefore spoke up saying I'm a liberal and there's nothing wrong with being pc etc. There is indeed nothing wrong with having tolerance for others but you were referring to a select group which like it or not does exist. For anyone to suggest that we aren't being overwhelmed with political correctness in the UK frankly amazes me. My daughters school are no longer even allowed to refer to blackboards as blackboards. They have been renamed white boards yet they are in my eyes black? Strange I suppose the term black is offensive in some way perhaps? A lot of pc people do take it to extremes. I mean what difference does it make how we refer to a blackboard, renaming it isn't going to solve the coutries problems.
Banning certain authers from public libraries for not being pc enough is also ridiculous. Many adults enjoyed Enid Blyton when young for instance but my daughter has no access to her work at our local library because the books have class steryotypes? Isn't the point that the books are written in a different time and kids need to appreciate other periods of history. Censering certain words or books doesn't always make the thought behind them go away, why not discuss issues that concern people rather than brushing certain subjects under the carpet as racist to talk about. And yes I do mean immigration, sigh.
And no offence intended to Rahael but I fail to see the point in bringing up an example of racism and suggesting such cases were continuing in Britain today. Like it or not that is the impression you gave but it was from the 60s and our society has improved a great deal since then so I fail to see the relevence. Our society is obviously not perfect but I'll give an example. In the 60s racist talk was tolerated but today the gowernment cannot even suggest addressing the problems of immagration witout being accused of racism. Personally whilst I do understand the concern that our resources (hospitals, schools etc are being strained) I have no problem with political assaulm being requested. But I would prefer a mature debate about it rather than government ministers being accused of racism when they point out that we are only a small island. There is a genuine problem when the NHS is forced to send people abroad for operatios because there are no hospital beds. Pointing fingers and shouting about racism is not in my mind a constructive way to debate.
Just want to conclude by saying sorry about dragging up post again as it has got prety emotive. Just wanted to offer Phoenix some support as she has been prety much outnumbered and attacked. You found her wording snide but I understood she was apologising in a light hearted manner whilst still being sincere. Face it sometimes sarcasm just doesn't come across well on the internet. And I too am now retiring back to lurkdom (it's a lot safer.lol).

[> Re: OT: JM answers questions at JM.com - no spoilers, really! -- ravenhair, 19:16:46 04/21/02 Sun

Thanks for the link, Deeva. And thanks to JM for the interview! I am glad he got a chance to clarify the statements he made on Politically Incorrect. I'm also a big fan of documentaries and would like to see the one he spoke of about Klaus Barbie.

Current board | More April 2002