Translation
Opinion: Biden’s rescue plan is looking like a home run
Opinion by
Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
April 16, 2021 at 7:45 a.m. EDT
A lot of good economic news emerged this week. The Post reports: “First-time unemployment claims fell sharply last week to a pandemic low of 576,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That’s down 193,000 from the preceding week’s surprise spike, an unexpectedly strong showing even as unemployment remains elevated.” On top of that, “retail sales soared 9.8 percent in March as stimulus checks hit bank accounts, business restrictions loosened and spring weather arrived. The better-than-expected jump comes on the heels of a 2.7 percent decline in February.” In other words, after President Biden and the Democrats pump more money into consumers hands, unemployment declines and consumer spending rebounds. Gosh, could economic results translate into political popularity?
It sure looks that way. A raft of polls, including the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, suggests Biden’s rescue plan was pretty much a home run. Meanwhile, unanimous Republican opposition to the plan looks like political malpractice.
The Pew poll finds that a stunning 72 percent of Americans, including 55 percent of Republicans, say “the Biden administration has done an excellent or good job managing the manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to Americans.” (The poll was completed before distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was paused.) Asked specifically about the rescue plan, a supermajority (67 percent) approve while only 32 percent disapprove. Republicans, it seems, are wildly out of touch with voters. Overall Biden’s approval rating has ticked up five points since March to 59 percent; only 39 percent disapprove.
And despite Republicans’ ludicrous attempts to paint Biden as too partisan or feeble-minded, Pew reports that views of Biden’s conduct in office are more positive than they were for Trump last year: 46 percent of Americans say they like how Biden conducts himself in office; in February of 2020, just 15 percent said this of President Donald Trump. Similarly, 44 percent say Biden has changed political discourse for the better, while just 29 percent say it worse and 27 percent say he has made no difference.
This poll is largely in line with other polls on the popularity of the rescue plan, the vaccine rollout and the president’s approval. Several aspects of the poll are worth emphasizing.
First, the notion that Biden is not really running things because he does not tweet regularly — as per the appropriately ridiculed suggestion from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) — does not seem to have caught on, to put it mildly. Maybe an empathetic, detail-oriented president who is churning out executive orders and legislation at a furious rate while largely staying off social media (and staying out of sight on weekends) is precisely what Americans wanted.
Second, despite Republicans shouting about the need for more “unity,” rarely has there ever been a government undertaking as complicated and extensive as Biden’s that has garnered more than 70 percent approval. It is equally rare to see two-thirds of the public support a gigantic spending bill. Moreover, contrary to Republicans’ specious claim to be the party of working-class Americans, lower-income Republicans (55 percent) favor the rescue bill while rich Republicans do not (18 percent). What Biden has not done — and what no mortal politician ever could do — is drag millions of Republicans out of the MAGA cult. They do not like anything he has done, it seems, no matter how successful or beneficial. The good news is that they are a small — albeit persistent — minority of voters.
Finally, it is a wonder why Republicans in Congress are doubling down on their oppositional behavior. A poll from Navigator Research is just one of many showing the overwhelming popularity of Biden’s infrastructure bill. Fixing roads and bridges received 88 percent approval, removing lead from drinking water drew 83 percent, preventing future pandemics got 81 percent and modernizing schools drew 76 percent. Extending broadband (76 percent) and investing in clean energy (70 percent) were also winners.
Still, it seems Republican are bent on opposing a variety of tremendously popular items because they do not want to acknowledge that they are “infrastructure.” And despite the popularity of increasing the corporate tax rates, Republicans still want to protect their business friends and donors. (Biden has proposed raising the corporate from 21 percent to 28 percent. Republicans are ardently opposed to raising it at all, even though not too long ago, many of them — as well as business interests — were eager to set it at 25 percent.)
At some point, one might think Republicans would notice their current positioning is a political bust. Then again, if their goal is just to get on right-wing media, I suppose they will keep on this self-destructive track.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... do-matter/
Politics Random, Random
-
ti-amie
- Posts: 23263
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
- Location: The Boogie Down, NY
- Has thanked: 5355 times
- Been thanked: 3314 times
-
Honorary_medal
Re: Politics Random, Random
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
-
JazzNU
- Posts: 6655
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:57 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Has thanked: 2758 times
- Been thanked: 2354 times
-
ti-amie
- Posts: 23263
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
- Location: The Boogie Down, NY
- Has thanked: 5355 times
- Been thanked: 3314 times
-
Honorary_medal
Re: Politics Random, Random
Someone posted this yesterday on the Bird App.
Misnaming the Medieval: Rejecting “Anglo-Saxon” Studies
by Mary Rambaran-Olm on November 4, 2019 in Histories of the Present
When we think of the study of Old English literature or its language, we often think of the epic poem Beowulf. We seldom consider the scholarly field in which Beowulf is most closely scrutinized, nor the pervading assumptions within our lexicon about the people within the period that Beowulf was composed.
‘Anglo-Saxons’ has long been associated with the early English people, but this label suffers from a long history of misuse. The scholarship and field supposedly draw their name from the people that scholars study, although the labels ‘Anglo-Saxonist’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon studies’ are also fraught with inaccuracies. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (rather than the medieval ‘Anglo-Saxorum’ or ‘Anglo-Saxoria’) gained popularity in the eighteenth and nineteenth century as a means of connecting white people to their supposed origins. Historically, the people in early England or ‘Englelond’ did not call themselves ‘Anglo-Saxons’. The term was used sporadically during the early English period, but by and large, the people in early medieval England referred to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn.’
In the centuries following the Norman Conquest of 1066, only scant references of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ exist, most notably in reference to royal titles. It was not until the sixteenth century that English antiquarians and scholars began to collect early English manuscripts and compile dictionaries of Old English. This sudden interest in the early English period was not as benign as one might think. In contrast to the Catholic church, Protestant Reformers in England aimed to establish precedent for their sectarian beliefs by reinterpreting early medieval English Christianity to create links between the “primitive English church” and Reformers’ present day. Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, an English nationalizing agenda emerged, centered on an English ‘race’ dependent upon an appropriation and a refashioning of the past. English discourse depicted the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as reflecting ideals of national liberty.
Rather than accurately portray the early English people as separate tribes (most notably, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) that migrated to the British Isle, the Anglo-Saxon myth links white people with an imagined heritage based on indigeneity to Britain.This false account of the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as a nation and ‘race’ has played heavily in political discourse over the past 500 years, often reconstructed to include fictitious narratives to promote political messages of patriotism, imperialism, or racial superiority. As the English language—along with English imperialism—erased indigenous languages and swept across the globe, the Anglo-Saxon myth served as empirical ‘proof’ mandating racial superiority. The study of race fascinated scientists and ethnographers throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and equally, early twentieth-century Anglo-Saxonists directly worked with scientific racism in their scholarship, including phrenology. Their anachronistic medievalism ignored a more factual image of ‘others’ in England who had ancestral ties to the land. Despite the long history of invasion and integration in England, English scholars sought to imagine a direct connection to the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ past free from alien associations in order to cleanse English history of the ‘foreign’ elements that, in fact, constituted the English population. Today, far-right identitarian groups seeking to prove their superior ancestry by portraying the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ in ways that both promote English identity and national sociopolitical progress.
During British (and afterwards American) imperialism and colonization, the racial meaning of ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ became the most dominant usage of the term, rather than a historical reference to pre-Conquest England. This white supremacist movement in Euro-America has used the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ to justify racial violence and colonial genocide for at least 200 years. The racial meaning throughout the English-speaking world deepened and came to be associated crudely with whiteness. ‘Anglo-Saxon’ has become a supremacist dog-whistle reinforcing the idea of the ‘Anglo-Saxon race’ as an indigenous group in England. It suspiciously erases the fact that the Angle and Saxon peoples were ‘migrants’. The term’s association with whiteness has saturated our lexicon to the point that it is absurdly misused in political discourse.
The scholarly field that investigates early England supposedly draws its name from the people studied, although the labels ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon studies’ are fraught with inaccuracies. Today’s field represents more than just literature and linguistics, as archaeologists and historians (material, art, and otherwise) are all under one large umbrella. Historically, Anglo-Saxon studies itself has reinforced superiority of northern European or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ whiteness. Today we see the word misused extensively as a label for white identity despite it being inaccurate. Within the field of Anglo-Saxon studies, we have more recently been examining what the term means, how it is used, and what it represents. The field has traditionally been represented by white people and unsurprisingly still attracts mostly white students due to the field’s inherent whiteness. The discipline’s largest organization (International Society of Anglo-Saxonists) had a membership vote recently where more than 60% voted to remove ‘Anglo-Saxon’ from the organization’s name. Since the vote, disgruntled voters mostly from the United Kingdom have argued that the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or variations of it should continue in the organization name, in a nauseating attempt to sidestep its inaccurate use even within a historical context. Equally, this willful ignorance reveals an appalling lack of concern over the dehumanization of colleagues of color and supporters who acknowledge the term’s racist connotations. While some scholars outside the US argue that the term’s misuse is an American problem, it is also noteworthy that some British scholars—some of whom identified themselves as ‘English’ or more gallingly ‘Anglo-Saxon’ on academic listservs and across social media—and their institutions remain so intimately wedded to this inaccurate term. The contested term is not neutral. In fact, one cannot be neutral in the face of racism. Scholarly work, even historical studies, are never separate from current social and political realities.
The term’s nationalist connections and whiteness in predominantly English-speaking countries extends beyond laypeople’s vernacular. Such refusal to understand the racist roots of the discipline and how the term inaccurately represents the early English demonstrates an insidious and obstinate ignorance within academic institutions. By and large though scholars are coming to understand the need to interrogate the use of this term and many are keen to find terms that represents scholars, the field and the early English more accurately. Medievalists, in particular, were able to remove ‘the Dark Ages’ from scholarly lexicon (although it is sometimes used in common parlance among laypeople) because it mischaracterized the early medieval period. In this way, we have a benchmark for removing an incorrect term.
Returning to Beowulf, part of its intrinsic value and richness as a text lies in the fact that it was not produced in isolation or hermetically sealed off insularity; thus, white nationalist claims to it are amiss. By the same token, replacing the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ with one that is more historically accurate does not mean we are ceding to white supremacists. Their ideology is based on myth, where selected terms, symbols, and narratives used to promote hate and white identity are wholly inaccurate and/or misappropriated. Just as the field of early English studies is evolving with new evidence and findings that help shed light on the early medieval period, scholars specializing in this period also have an obligation to interrogate the language they use, and to guide the public’s understanding of these historical terms. We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people. As the old adage goes: ‘words matter.’
I would like to thank Dr. Adam Miyashiro, Dr. Erik Wade and Dr. Dorothy Kim for their comments on earlier drafts of this piece.
https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/misn ... n-studies/
Misnaming the Medieval: Rejecting “Anglo-Saxon” Studies
by Mary Rambaran-Olm on November 4, 2019 in Histories of the Present
When we think of the study of Old English literature or its language, we often think of the epic poem Beowulf. We seldom consider the scholarly field in which Beowulf is most closely scrutinized, nor the pervading assumptions within our lexicon about the people within the period that Beowulf was composed.
‘Anglo-Saxons’ has long been associated with the early English people, but this label suffers from a long history of misuse. The scholarship and field supposedly draw their name from the people that scholars study, although the labels ‘Anglo-Saxonist’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon studies’ are also fraught with inaccuracies. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (rather than the medieval ‘Anglo-Saxorum’ or ‘Anglo-Saxoria’) gained popularity in the eighteenth and nineteenth century as a means of connecting white people to their supposed origins. Historically, the people in early England or ‘Englelond’ did not call themselves ‘Anglo-Saxons’. The term was used sporadically during the early English period, but by and large, the people in early medieval England referred to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn.’
In the centuries following the Norman Conquest of 1066, only scant references of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ exist, most notably in reference to royal titles. It was not until the sixteenth century that English antiquarians and scholars began to collect early English manuscripts and compile dictionaries of Old English. This sudden interest in the early English period was not as benign as one might think. In contrast to the Catholic church, Protestant Reformers in England aimed to establish precedent for their sectarian beliefs by reinterpreting early medieval English Christianity to create links between the “primitive English church” and Reformers’ present day. Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, an English nationalizing agenda emerged, centered on an English ‘race’ dependent upon an appropriation and a refashioning of the past. English discourse depicted the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as reflecting ideals of national liberty.
Rather than accurately portray the early English people as separate tribes (most notably, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) that migrated to the British Isle, the Anglo-Saxon myth links white people with an imagined heritage based on indigeneity to Britain.This false account of the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as a nation and ‘race’ has played heavily in political discourse over the past 500 years, often reconstructed to include fictitious narratives to promote political messages of patriotism, imperialism, or racial superiority. As the English language—along with English imperialism—erased indigenous languages and swept across the globe, the Anglo-Saxon myth served as empirical ‘proof’ mandating racial superiority. The study of race fascinated scientists and ethnographers throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and equally, early twentieth-century Anglo-Saxonists directly worked with scientific racism in their scholarship, including phrenology. Their anachronistic medievalism ignored a more factual image of ‘others’ in England who had ancestral ties to the land. Despite the long history of invasion and integration in England, English scholars sought to imagine a direct connection to the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ past free from alien associations in order to cleanse English history of the ‘foreign’ elements that, in fact, constituted the English population. Today, far-right identitarian groups seeking to prove their superior ancestry by portraying the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ in ways that both promote English identity and national sociopolitical progress.
During British (and afterwards American) imperialism and colonization, the racial meaning of ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ became the most dominant usage of the term, rather than a historical reference to pre-Conquest England. This white supremacist movement in Euro-America has used the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ to justify racial violence and colonial genocide for at least 200 years. The racial meaning throughout the English-speaking world deepened and came to be associated crudely with whiteness. ‘Anglo-Saxon’ has become a supremacist dog-whistle reinforcing the idea of the ‘Anglo-Saxon race’ as an indigenous group in England. It suspiciously erases the fact that the Angle and Saxon peoples were ‘migrants’. The term’s association with whiteness has saturated our lexicon to the point that it is absurdly misused in political discourse.
The scholarly field that investigates early England supposedly draws its name from the people studied, although the labels ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon studies’ are fraught with inaccuracies. Today’s field represents more than just literature and linguistics, as archaeologists and historians (material, art, and otherwise) are all under one large umbrella. Historically, Anglo-Saxon studies itself has reinforced superiority of northern European or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ whiteness. Today we see the word misused extensively as a label for white identity despite it being inaccurate. Within the field of Anglo-Saxon studies, we have more recently been examining what the term means, how it is used, and what it represents. The field has traditionally been represented by white people and unsurprisingly still attracts mostly white students due to the field’s inherent whiteness. The discipline’s largest organization (International Society of Anglo-Saxonists) had a membership vote recently where more than 60% voted to remove ‘Anglo-Saxon’ from the organization’s name. Since the vote, disgruntled voters mostly from the United Kingdom have argued that the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or variations of it should continue in the organization name, in a nauseating attempt to sidestep its inaccurate use even within a historical context. Equally, this willful ignorance reveals an appalling lack of concern over the dehumanization of colleagues of color and supporters who acknowledge the term’s racist connotations. While some scholars outside the US argue that the term’s misuse is an American problem, it is also noteworthy that some British scholars—some of whom identified themselves as ‘English’ or more gallingly ‘Anglo-Saxon’ on academic listservs and across social media—and their institutions remain so intimately wedded to this inaccurate term. The contested term is not neutral. In fact, one cannot be neutral in the face of racism. Scholarly work, even historical studies, are never separate from current social and political realities.
The term’s nationalist connections and whiteness in predominantly English-speaking countries extends beyond laypeople’s vernacular. Such refusal to understand the racist roots of the discipline and how the term inaccurately represents the early English demonstrates an insidious and obstinate ignorance within academic institutions. By and large though scholars are coming to understand the need to interrogate the use of this term and many are keen to find terms that represents scholars, the field and the early English more accurately. Medievalists, in particular, were able to remove ‘the Dark Ages’ from scholarly lexicon (although it is sometimes used in common parlance among laypeople) because it mischaracterized the early medieval period. In this way, we have a benchmark for removing an incorrect term.
Returning to Beowulf, part of its intrinsic value and richness as a text lies in the fact that it was not produced in isolation or hermetically sealed off insularity; thus, white nationalist claims to it are amiss. By the same token, replacing the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ with one that is more historically accurate does not mean we are ceding to white supremacists. Their ideology is based on myth, where selected terms, symbols, and narratives used to promote hate and white identity are wholly inaccurate and/or misappropriated. Just as the field of early English studies is evolving with new evidence and findings that help shed light on the early medieval period, scholars specializing in this period also have an obligation to interrogate the language they use, and to guide the public’s understanding of these historical terms. We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people. As the old adage goes: ‘words matter.’
I would like to thank Dr. Adam Miyashiro, Dr. Erik Wade and Dr. Dorothy Kim for their comments on earlier drafts of this piece.
https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/misn ... n-studies/
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
-
ponchi101
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14819
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
- Location: New Macondo
- Has thanked: 3872 times
- Been thanked: 5635 times
- Contact:
Re: Politics Random, Random
I am confused about this last part:
"We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people."
Is it racist to call somebody an Anglo-Saxon? Or
Is it racist to denote a population an Anglo-Saxon population?
Why denote the use of the term a "racist dog-whistle"?
"We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people."
Is it racist to call somebody an Anglo-Saxon? Or
Is it racist to denote a population an Anglo-Saxon population?
Why denote the use of the term a "racist dog-whistle"?
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
-
Suliso
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:30 pm
- Location: Basel, Switzerland
- Has thanked: 278 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
-
ti-amie
- Posts: 23263
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
- Location: The Boogie Down, NY
- Has thanked: 5355 times
- Been thanked: 3314 times
-
Honorary_medal
Re: Politics Random, Random
She's saying that in some US/UK circles it is a racist dog whistle. I don't think it's feasible to go back and correct all of the articles and studies that use the term but I think - and this is just my opinion - that she's saying going forward the term shouldn't be used because of what it's come to mean.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:28 pm I am confused about this last part:
"We do not need to change previous scholarship or titles that include the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo-Saxonist,’ but we can take corrective measures because language is always evolving. It matters when we use a racist dog-whistle term like ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ which is neither neutral nor correctly represents the early English people."
Is it racist to call somebody an Anglo-Saxon? Or
Is it racist to denote a population an Anglo-Saxon population?
Why denote the use of the term a "racist dog-whistle"?
I agree that the wording is muddled and there could/should have been better editing but given the major thrust of the article
she feels that the term should stop being used.
It's hard to say if this was posted before or after the announcement of the new caucus. It should be mentioned that Marjorie Green is from Georgia, a state that the English used as a place to dump prisoners from its overcrowded jails.
All of this is happening because of the 1619 Project btw.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
-
JazzNU
- Posts: 6655
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:57 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Has thanked: 2758 times
- Been thanked: 2354 times
Re: Politics Random, Random
In the context of the new GOP caucus, it obviously is a racist dog whistle.
-
Suliso
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:30 pm
- Location: Basel, Switzerland
- Has thanked: 278 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
Re: Politics Random, Random
I don't care what it is or isn't for GOP caucus. This is European history and it's not for them to define how things should or shouldn't be called.
-
ti-amie
- Posts: 23263
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
- Location: The Boogie Down, NY
- Has thanked: 5355 times
- Been thanked: 3314 times
-
Honorary_medal
Re: Politics Random, Random
Even if the basis for the creation of the term and the so called "history" around it is false?
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
-
ti-amie
- Posts: 23263
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
- Location: The Boogie Down, NY
- Has thanked: 5355 times
- Been thanked: 3314 times
-
Honorary_medal
Re: Politics Random, Random
The term "Anglo Saxon" does not include Eastern or Southern European populations by the way.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
-
Suliso
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:30 pm
- Location: Basel, Switzerland
- Has thanked: 278 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
Re: Politics Random, Random
It isn't false, only in the minds of these far left academics. Sure they didn't call them exactly that, but that's sophistry Germans don't call themselves Germans either...
One should note that the term is appropriate for historical populations not the current ones.
-
JazzNU
- Posts: 6655
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:57 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Has thanked: 2758 times
- Been thanked: 2354 times
Re: Politics Random, Random
But it's not European history. This is all just a cover if that wasn't obvious, hence the references to dog whistle. They are just looking for coded language to better sell this racism, that's all.
-
Suliso
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:30 pm
- Location: Basel, Switzerland
- Has thanked: 278 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
-
ti-amie
- Posts: 23263
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
- Location: The Boogie Down, NY
- Has thanked: 5355 times
- Been thanked: 3314 times
-
Honorary_medal
Re: Politics Random, Random
The entire point of the article is that it's not English history at all. It's a made up category of people that was used to advance imperialism and colonialism (her words). The fantasy became a code word and is today a dog whistle.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
-
ponchi101
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14819
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
- Location: New Macondo
- Has thanked: 3872 times
- Been thanked: 5635 times
- Contact:
Re: Politics Random, Random
If the Klan wants to use the term as part of their "heritage", then of course it is ludicrous. But now to denote the term as something that did not exist is too extreme. There is an identity to it.
For example. I am currently reading a book called "The Light Ages". It is about the science of the Middle Ages. One of the initial complaints of the author is that the name "Dark Ages" should not be used because there was some progress in those 1,000 years, and therefore it is not appropriate. The use of the term "Medieval" as a pejorative term of backwardness is also frowned by the author. So far, into the reading, his sample of medieval science is the invention and improvement of the astrolabe and standardization of time measurements.
If those where the sole accomplishments in 1,000 years, heck, they were Dark Ages.
So, back to Anglo Saxon. You can review and find new history. But to expect an eradication of the term because some bozos in Georgia claim to be part of that heritage is too extreme. It holds no innate racist terms.
About imperialism: no successful civilization in the past has not been imperialistic. Starting with Egypt, it was the sole purpose of all cultures. No need to list them here so, to point out Europe as the sole imperialist form of government/conquest is shortsighted.
For example. I am currently reading a book called "The Light Ages". It is about the science of the Middle Ages. One of the initial complaints of the author is that the name "Dark Ages" should not be used because there was some progress in those 1,000 years, and therefore it is not appropriate. The use of the term "Medieval" as a pejorative term of backwardness is also frowned by the author. So far, into the reading, his sample of medieval science is the invention and improvement of the astrolabe and standardization of time measurements.
If those where the sole accomplishments in 1,000 years, heck, they were Dark Ages.
So, back to Anglo Saxon. You can review and find new history. But to expect an eradication of the term because some bozos in Georgia claim to be part of that heritage is too extreme. It holds no innate racist terms.
About imperialism: no successful civilization in the past has not been imperialistic. Starting with Egypt, it was the sole purpose of all cultures. No need to list them here so, to point out Europe as the sole imperialist form of government/conquest is shortsighted.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests