Where Is The Sense In

[J'Pol]

Not quite yet, but j2 may be getting us there very soon.

[sampson]

Thanks hobbes for the welcome, and I think its a shame that this moderator takes his personal problems out on individuals, like one of you said, go whinge in the lounge.

Only one post but already some strong views

[Rat Faced]

When Egbert, King of the West-Saxons, in 829, had subjugated the other six Saxon kingdoms, he summoned a general council at Winchester, at which it was declared that henceforth Britain should be called England, its people Englishmen, and himself King of England. Originally the name was Englaland, the land of the Engles, or Angles, who came over from Sleswick, a province of Jutland. Engel (variously spelled), is an old Teutonic word, meaning "angel."

Thats an interesting observation, from an "English" perspective...(OK, Northumbrian )

However, although he is the first king to claim to be king of all England, he was never in fact, ever that which he claimed...(although he did think up the name of the nation )

History of England

He held no more power than Northumbria and Mercia had in previous centuries, and this for less than 30 years, as the vikings were invading and already controlled Northumbria at the time he claimed it. (which is why Northumbria never bothered with him )

The first that could be called a "True" king of England was Alfred (The Great) also of Wessex, and even he, at his most powerful, only ruled upto the old borders of Northumbria (River Humber)...(Dont we Northumbrians enjoy upsetting the rest of England


The 1st King to Truly rule the whole of England was Cnut (King of Mercia until the death of the King of Wessex, at which time he married the widow and Ruled all England). However, as Cnut was the King of Norway, Denmark and most of Sweden at the time, England was only part of the Viking "Empire" at this time.

Its not until 1042, that an "Englishman" (Edward, son of Ethelread) ruled "England" in the true sense of the word (following the Death of Harthacnut (another Viking))...and he had problems (Note the date).


In essence, the "Angles" (more correctly Anglo-Saxon) ruled "Angleland" as a single "nation" for 24 years, before the Norman Invasion.



After the Norman Invasion, btw, the Northumbrians were still a pain in the arse of the English....coz we enjoyed our fights with the Scots too much to even give lipservice to Norman Rule.

Despite a "Newcastle" being built on the Tyne, "English Law" in fact ended at Durham, where the Bishop was given responsibility to enforce the Laws (Hence the title "Land of the Prince Bishops" that the people of County Durham are so fond of).

Us Northumbrians (well, northern half of the old kingdom) were much too busy enjoying ourselves as Border Reveivers with the Scots




Im at a loss to put an exact date that the old "Northumbria" finally stopped being a pain in the arse of the English (probably with the Establishment of the 1st Duke of Northumberland in 1502), however its interesting to note that Queen Victoria was known to draw the curtains of the Royal Train as it went past "That Den of Republicans" at Newcastle upon Tyne....In the late 19th Century.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JPaul+3 August 2003 - 09:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul &#064; 3 August 2003 - 09:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 August 2003 - 01:17

Regardless of the inequities of slavery, democracy and individual freedom were founding principles of the United States, from the very beginning.

That is just preposterous. The six words before the comma make that which follows it nothing short of insulting.

I can accept specious, if pushed. However to write-off slavery is beyond the pale.

Have you no shame man. Sorry I forgot who I was speaking to.[/b][/quote]

"Believe it or not, at one time Blacks were not considered to be actual "people". The N word describes a black person who is the property of another. Not an actual person, but an object or possession.

In recently viewing a special on Mark Twain, I was shocked to learn how powerful and progressive "Huckleberry Finn" was. To me, as a kid, it was about a trip on the river, but it is so much more than that.
The whole point is about the DE-education of Huck. Huck has been raised to believe that blacks are not people. But his observations of Jim, how Jim talks about his family (Blacks were felt to have no sense of family, and wifes, husbands and children could be separated as trivially as one would separate a litter of puppies)and such makes Huck wonder about this.

The crux of the story comes when Huck writes a letter to Jims&#39; owner explaining to him where he can find his lost property and how sorry he is for this situation. He says "after all, he (the slave owner) never done nothin&#39; to me before, and here I am helping his property get away." He has been raised to believe that he will go to Hell for this.

At this point, Huck with letter in hand, Jim wakes from a nap and tells Huck that he is the best friend old Jim ever had (Jim obviously can&#39;t read and knows nothing of Hucks plan).
Huck thinks about things for awhile, then throws the letter away saying , "Well, I guess I&#39;ll just go to hell, then".

Can you imagine that? To Huck, Hell is a real physical place, a certainty and a consequence of his crime. Huck has been de-educated."


The above is something I posted a year ago in my first on-line forum. I am not attempting to justify anything, just wanted to show a perspective many may not be aware of. People justified slavery by believing that Blacks were just sophisticated farm animals. Believe it, or not.

[J'Pol]

Which is what makes the whole j2 thread so ridiculous (in the true sense of the word).

Thanks for that btw, I enjoyed reading it. What&#39;s the smiley for that - it appears there is no need for one.

[ClubDiggler]

Originally posted by Becka@2 August 2003 - 01:27
Why are the American people so bothered by the fact that most of their history relies on someone else?

I don&#39;t think the American people are all that bothered really&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; B)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by JPaul
What&#39;s the smiley for that - it appears there is no need for one.

Just being friendly

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul+3 August 2003 - 02:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 3 August 2003 - 02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 August 2003 - 01:17

Regardless of the inequities of slavery, democracy and individual freedom were founding principles of the United States, from the very beginning.

That is just preposterous. The six words before the comma make that which follows it nothing short of insulting.

I can accept specious, if pushed. However to write-off slavery is beyond the pale.

Have you no shame man. Sorry I forgot who I was speaking to. [/b][/quote]
Interesting.

I suppose, JPaul, that we must also discount all of British history prior to say, 1910 or so as being equally corrupt and hateful.
After all, indentured servitude and extreme class prejudice were the norm in your neck of the woods until the late Edwardian era.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+3 August 2003 - 19:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 August 2003 - 19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by JPaul@3 August 2003 - 02:30
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@3 August 2003 - 01:17

Regardless of the inequities of slavery, democracy and individual freedom were founding principles of the United States, from the very beginning.

That is just preposterous. The six words before the comma make that which follows it nothing short of insulting.

I can accept specious, if pushed. However to write-off slavery is beyond the pale.

Have you no shame man. Sorry I forgot who I was speaking to.

Interesting.

I suppose, JPaul, that we must also discount all of British history prior to say, 1910 or so as being equally corrupt and hateful.
After all, indentured servitude and extreme class prejudice were the norm in your neck of the woods until the late Edwardian era. [/b][/quote]
I do not disagree with you one little bit. The history of the United Kingdom is full of examples of the rich treating the poor appallingly. Coming from a very much working background (I have gone into it previously) it is not news to me.

Oh wait, I didn&#39;t say it wasn&#39;t, it was your countryman making the preposterous claims about the birth of your democracy.

I will not retract claims I didn&#39;t make. Nice try at transference tho&#39;.

Just to totally clarify the position, my neck of the woods at that time would have been the working class "slaves" in Ireland. Who were the victims of the English oppression of which you speak. So, if anything I have more in common with the descendants of the Black slaves in America.

My Maternal Grandmother for example went into service in Parnell&#39;s estate when she was a very young girl. So I am familiar with the concepts, having spoken to her about them.

[j2k4]

This is beginning to sound like something I saw on television the other day:

A black lawyer for the NAACP was adamantly stating that only blacks were qualified to teach Black History courses at any level, as only they were capable of communicating the pain felt by blacks due to their past treatment as slaves.

First, why would it be necessary to communicate that which should be self-evident to anyone? The "pain" is inherent in the teachings.

Secondly, I haven&#39;t ever been addicted to heroin, but neither do I regard that fortunate lack as meaning I am incapable of understanding how bad it would be to be addicted to heroin.

Is it your contention, JPaul, that you, having been related to an indentured person, have a deeper loathing of what it means to be a "slave" than I?

Edit:spelling