Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Halloween and the nanny state

Aha, how to get Eliot Ramsey to contribute a thread-starter without his lifting a finger… The following was originally posted on the Henson versus Hanson Land thread. As it is rather off-topic, and as it has created a mild flurry of interest, it is worth a space and life of its own.

See Eliot, it’s not so difficult…

Halloween and the nanny state
by Eliot Ramsey

It's … purely anecdotal, but my sister's kids have been planning a 'reverse Halloween' with their primary school class mates.

This involved a little stint with the local Oxfam activist (nice hippy gal), the kids giving out Fair Trade chocolates in the main shopping centre, each chocolate tied to a strip of paper explaining how child labour is being exploited in cocoa producing countries and asking shoppers to check that their chocolate brand is 'Fair Trade Certified'.

Cute.

Anyway, things went off the tracks a bit when their teacher, Mrs Ratchett,* objected to the kids wearing Halloween masks and costumes.

"It's American and commercial," she pontificated grandly.

Ok-ay. So, out went the costumes.

A bit downcast, the kids agreed to do the gig in their school uniforms, which somewhat deflated the 'fun' part of the promotion.

At least the old bat didn't confiscate the chocolates, I suppose.

I hope Mrs Ratchett's own kids got word of it.

They can cancel Mothers' Day on the grounds it's too "commercial", or at any rate tell mum to get her own bloody breakfast.

Even the Oxfam girl thought it a bit over the top. Freaking fanatics busying themselves with such stuff...

(* not real name)

left
right
[ category: ]
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re Santa Claus in Cuba - and in Greece

Quit with the straw men, Eliot.

You can't substantiate your claim.

That's it.  Finis.

Hey dude...

Eliot that greek anti-santa poster is really cool.  My kids are gonna' love it...but can you get us an English translation?

Santa de Cross

There is a good Santa poster here. Only in Japan, you gotta love em.

Hari Kari Santa

That's hilarious! I want one of those.

French, Greek and Commercialism

oh, right, Eliot.

"Ever heard a teacher say to kids, "I don't approve of you celebrating French culture because it's too commercial".  

You know, I haven't heard a teacher here say, "Ok, it's Christmas, let's go outside and build a snowman, and listen to the sleigh bells, watched by cheery little robins," either.   I haven't heard that, Eliot, because those things generally are not here.

Just as there are no child-focussed commercial expressions of Greek or French culture here. 

Your arguments are all red flags and no bull.

Santa Claus in Cuba - and Greece

F Kendall: "You know, I haven't heard a teacher here say, "Ok, it's Christmas, let's go outside and build a snowman, and listen to the sleigh bells, watched by cheery little robins," either."

So, if the kids at your local Primary School started a round of Jingle Bells and Frosty the Snowman, you'd invoke the spirit of Mrs Ratchett and, what? Ban that, too?

Just on the Greek thing, I know at least one lunatic who stopped his kids from having Christmas cards with "Santa Clause" because "Santa Clause" was "invented" by Coca Cola.

Coca Cola even boast of how they shaped the "modern-day image of Santa".

So, I guess we should ban Santa, too. Cuba has.

An official Cuban newspaper warned readers on Monday to beware the white-bearded Santa figure, beloved by children, as a potentially threatening symbol of U.S. ``consumerism,'' ``cultural hegemony'' and ``mental colonisation.''

Here's another Marxist website having a whinge about Santa for just that reason. The Coca Cola connection

Here's a modern day Marxist poster from Greece trying to ban Santa.

Such fun people, the Left.

But, Santa started off Greek:

Saint Nicholas (Greek: Άγιος Νικόλαος , Agios Nikolaos, "victory of the people") is the common name for Nicholas of Myra, a Christian saint and Bishop of Myra in Lycia of Anatolia (modern-day Antalya province, Turkey, though at the time it was a Greek-speaking Roman Province).

So, once that's pointed out, I'm sure that will be fine, though.

Santa Clause?

Hey Eliot, have you been wagging work and watching too many DVDs?

Hoist on his own petard more like

You have it wrong, F Kendall; not only will Eliot Ramsey never admit to getting anything wrong (something which I am now convinced he does invariably) but his arguments, rather than being all red rag, are actually all bull.

Once again Eliot Ramsay, you said it: the USA abolished slavery 143 years ago ... not France ... which only abolished it in 1848.

The reality is: France abolished it before the rebel colonies or any of them.

Yet again you will not admit you got it wrong (whether you meant to get the syntax wrong or not, the syntax dictates that what you said was that abolition in France post-dated that in the rebel colonies), you will not deal with the substantive arguments raised against you by a number of people (in passing, you seem not to deal with the criticism of the appalling expression "do the math") and, essentially, you are not worth listening to.

Re-writing history to shift focus from European slave traders

Malcolm B Duncan: "Once again Eliot Ramsay, you said it: the USA abolished slavery 143 years ago ... not France ... which only abolished it in 1848."

That's right, Malcolm. It's now 2008. Minus 143 years = 1865.

Oh, I see your point!

The Fourteenth Amendment, securing the freedom of slaves, was passed in 1866. You got me there! It was a year later! Touché. Well spotted.

In any case, France, Spain and England introduced the trade in African slaves to America.  Long, long before the USA ever existed.

And England especially continued to reap the benefits of American slavery right up until the USA itself formally abolished slavery in its territories in 1866.

That's why the British Government of the day tended to support the Confederacy. Racist greed and other such refined, upper class British traditions.

We in Australia still had slaves in Queensland in 1904.

Don't even get me started about Belgium and The Congo.

One doesn't feel quite so smug and superior once the facts are revealed, does one?

I guess that's why we don't hear that much about England's and Australia's and France's slave trades in official Party propaganda, and stuff.

Say, where did I ever say "France ... which only abolished it in 1848"?

Was that on this blog, because there's no sign of me having said that ever, anywhere, is there? You've just made that up.

Is that you just being, cough, cough, "rhetorical"? Again?

Are you thick or something Eliot Ramsey?

Your precise words were: "France itself did not abolish slavery finally until 1848, almost 60 years after the revolution"

To glose that as France only abolishing in 1848 when you were talking about the "USA" abolishing in 1865 is perfectly legitimate paraphrase.

My point was not that the amendment was passed in 1866 (in fact I didn't mention it), my point was that the Union did not even attempt to abolish slavery until 1863 (and then because it needed the troops), well after France and other civilised countries.

The British support for the Confederacy was due to ties of (and the balance of) trade generally, not just cotton. But you as the consumate economist you pretend to be would appreciate that wouldn't you?

No matter how you twist it, there was no system of slavery in any of the Australian Colonies or the Commonwealth other than the convict system.

Everything you have said is twaddle.

Not as thick as some...

Malcolm B Duncan: "Your precise words were: "France itself did not abolish slavery finally until 1848, almost 60 years after the revolution"."

That's right. That's when France abolished slavery. Almost sixty years after the revolution of 1789. In 1848. Fifty-nine years to be exact. But nearly 60. Yup. You've got it now.

I also pointed out that "It was the USA which abolished slavery in North America over 143 years ago...". That's 1865. But actually 1866.

In North America. Not France. Different continent. Different year.

(Is this really happening?)

Do you need a new desk calculator?

Or a new Atlas?

Math - and the sematics of enforced removal of domestic servants

Malcolm B Duncan: "That implies that the “USA” did it first."Does it?

  • 143 years ago = 1865 - the USA abolishes slavery
  • 160 years ago = 1848 - France abolishes slavery
  • 104 years ago = 1904 - Australia abolishes slavery (not counting stealing kids)

Not according to my math, pal.

Malcolm B Duncan: "Now what was the rest of the crap you spouted? Oh yes, you confuse slavery (the ownership of one human being by another) with a series of outrages like kidnapping, blackbirding (and the quote you provide eminently proves the case that it was not slavery), or the enforced removal and training as domestic servants."

Yeah. Slavery has nothing to do with kidnapping, blackbirding, enforced removal and training as domestic servants. That's exactly the argument the slavers used in Queensland right up until it was abolished.

Silly old me all 'round, it seems.

"Weird" system

Mark Sergeant:  "Puerto Rico stuck in my mind because there was a story going around for a while that the Democrat nomination might depend on it, as the last Primary decided (I think that there were actually one or two after it), with 65 (I think) delegates, all or nothing (actually split proportional to the vote). What really struck me was that the number of delegates put it way up the list of influence."

Puerto Rico could have decided the Primary for the Dems or at least played a very big part (won by Hillary btw), not the GOP (doesn't count). It doesn't have electoral college votes.

I seriously thought two years ago that California would split their electoral college votes (Congressional District method) (way out prediction). I was wrong. Though it may happen one day.

PS Washington D.C: the Twenty Third Amendment.

Eliot, Eliot, Eliot

I sometimes think, from your posts that we live in different countries, if not universes.

You haven't heard people complaining about the commercialisation of Christmas? Easter? How astonishing.

As for mother/father/ grandparent/inlaw/familycat day or whatever day, many people deride and/or ignore such ... hadn't you noticed? Of course, with the presently often-fragmented families, the celebration of such in schools causes quite an increasing amount of distress. I expect that the attempt to celebrate such - so welcomed by teachers anxious for any focus - will only shrivel, as they belatedly accept contemporary culture. I recommend that you sell shares in any enterprise hoping to make money from this. It will disappear. The kids hate it.

I note your recommendation of A Haunt of Fear, and will add it to my (endless) list of "what's really worth reading".

But, you still haven't given examples to back up your assertion that if "it was French and commercial" or "Greek and commercial" "it would be fine".

Quit stalling. If you can't back up what you say, perhaps it would be honourable to retract.

Planet earth to Major Tom

F Kendall: "You haven't heard people complaining about the commercialisation of Christmas? Easter? How astonishing."

I've never heard of a teacher telling kids they cannot celebrate Christmas because it's "too commercial" or Fathers Day because it's "American".

But let's not tell Mrs Ratchett about this:

Dr. Robert Webb of West Virginia is believed to have conducted the first Father's Day service on July 5, 1908 at the Central Church of Fairmont.

F Kendall : "But, you still haven't given examples to back up your assertion that if "it was French and commercial" or "Greek and commercial" "it would be fine".

You're kidding, right? Ever heard a teacher say to kids "I don't approve of your celebrating French culture because it's too commercial?"

What's the matter with kids today?

Kids see this sort of dress up stuff as a bit of fun - that's all. Now, we adults end up reading all sorts of shit into it and make it no fun at all.

I think the kids are on the right track.

Their country right or wrong

One suspects an almost reverent attitude from Eliot Ramsay about the rebel colonists, their free trade spirit (especially with tea but perhaps not other agricultural products) and their altogether more sophisticated and laudable attitude to ecomomics, the free market, freedom and liberty.

The idea that they abolished slavery before the French in 1848 was particularly piquant (if entirely wrong historically). Never mind that the barbaric proto-socialists, the British, managed to do it in the 18th Century - never let the facts get in the way of a good economic argument.

However, particularly on this thread, given the magnanimous way in which it was started, I think this AAP report says it all.

Liberty, freedom and the right to bear arms: particularly when pesky little 12 year olds invade one's sanctified right to the enjoyment of property. Probably just the sort of thing Mrs Ratchett would object to in her wowserish way.

Take it away Eliot Ramsay (but you might need a small body bag).

Natal alienation, Cottonopolis and slavery at arms length

Malcolm B Duncan: "The idea that they abolished slavery before the French in 1848 was particularly piquant (if entirely wrong historically). Never mind that the barbaric proto-socialists, the British, managed to do it in the 18th Century - never let the facts get in the way of a good economic argument."

Just a couple of points there...

Firstly, 1848 was before 1865 not after, as I have pointed out. Do the math.

Secondly, the British didn't ban slavery in the 18th Century, because as the Encylopedia Britannica points out, we were still "blackbirding" (ie: kidnapping as slaves) Pacific Islanders here in Australia, not only as a British colony in the 19th century, but as late as 1904.

The Queensland government’s first attempt to control it came only in 1868 with the Polynesian Labourers Act, which provided for the regulation of the treatment of Kanaka labourers—who theoretically worked of their own free will for a specified period—and the licensing of “recruiters.” Because the Queensland government lacked constitutional power outside its own borders, the regulations could not be enforced; moreover, the fact that notorious and brutal blackbirders were able to retain their licenses seemed to indicate that the government was not seriously trying to end the practice. British government acts of the 1870s—especially the 1872 Pacific Islanders Protection Act (the Kidnapping Act)—provided for agents on British recruiting vessels, stricter licensing procedures, and patrol of British-controlled islands; these measures reduced the incidence of blackbirding by British subjects. Because of the continuing heavy demand for labour in Queensland, however, the practice continued to flourish. Blackbirding died out only in 1904 as a result of a law, enacted in 1901 by the Australian commonwealth, calling for the deportation of all Kanakas after 1906."

The there was the curious practice of stealing Aboriginal children for use as domestic servants.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, "natal alienation" (ie stealing children) is considered by the eminent historian of slavery, Orlando Patterson, as the defining feature of slavery.

Orlando Patterson describes "natal alienation" as a primary factor in the maintenance of a slave-based economy . The main features of this are "the loss of ties of birth in both ascending and descending generations…a loss of native status, of deracination." (Patterson- pg. 7) The brutal slavery of the American South undoubtedly employed this technique (as well as other techniques of dehumanization and division) in order to maintain this system.

Now when did we stop doing that? the 1950s or something, wasn't it?

Is this yet another example of something being "wrong' if done by Americans, but perfectly alright if done by the Brits and their subjects?

Then there was the fact that the British became a world power on the backs of Afro-American slaves:

By the 1840s, India was no longer capable of supplying the vast quantities of cotton fibers needed by mechanised British factories, while shipping bulky, low-price cotton from India to Britain was time-consuming and expensive. This, coupled with the emergence of American cotton as a superior type (due to the longer, stronger fibers of the two domesticated native American species, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense), encouraged British traders to purchase cotton from plantations in the United States and the Caribbean. This was also much cheaper as it was produced by unpaid slaves.

This was the backbone of English wealth in the 19th Century:

As textile manufacture switched from the home to purpose built large factories, beside fast-flowing streams (for water power), Manchester and the surrounding East and South Lancashire towns became the largest and most productive cotton spinning centre of the world.

By 1850 cotton cloth was Britain’s biggest export, the basis of its industrial and political power.

What put an stop to that was the outcome of the Civil War in the USA, not some Act of Parliament in the UK.

Do you wish to dispute any of those facts?

Facts? Would that you had presented some

Eliot Ramsey: "Do you wish to dispute any of those facts?"

No, I don’t want to dispute any of those facts because they aren’t facts at all. They are a load of obfuscatory twaddle interleaved with pure inaccuracy.

Your original assertion was:

"It was the USA which abolished slavery in North America over 143 years ago, not France, over the protests of leading members of the British political and commercial establishment, who thought it would harm the cotton industry.

France itself did not abolish slavery finally until 1848, almost 60 years after the revolution. They still have colonies."

That implies that the “USA” did it first. The Union abolished slavery in 1863 which, if you do the arithmetic, I think even an economist would concede was after 1848. The British, as I said, abolished slavery in the 18th Century and the British Navy raided slavers throughout the Napoleonic wars. In Somerset’s Case (1772) 20 St. Tr 1 [State Trials p1 for enlightened Economists], Lord Mansfield held that slaves enjoyed the benefits of freedom while they stood on English soil. i.e. the Common law did not recognize their status as slaves (Watson J.S. The Reign of George III Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1960) and that slavery was not recognized by the laws of England (Walker D.M. The Oxford Companion to Law Clarendon Press Oxford 1980).

Now what was the rest of the crap you spouted? Oh yes, you confuse slavery (the ownership of one human being by another) with a series of outrages like kidnapping, blackbirding (and the quote you provide eminently proves the case that it was not slavery), enforced removal and training as domestic servants. Not slavery – not ownership. Outrageous yes, slavery no. You quote some twit who obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about in relation to “natal alienation” – some sociological gobbledygook. It is not slavery which, I say again, is the ownership of one human being by another (which also permits the trade in those chattels). I suppose in your economic terms you would have regarded the mediaeval practice of swapping indentured apprentices between masters as slavery. Tell that one to the guilds. Your analysis of the cotton industry is likewise wide of the mark. Are you suggesting the abolition of slavery in the colonies made cotton cheaper as an export? Wrong again. What happened was the change to manufacturing in situ making finished cloth easier to export than raw materials.

In the rebel colonies, that depended on the vastly superior manufacturing capacity of the northern colonies which suddenly switched from war-time production to peace-time production.

If your economic knowledge is on a par with the manifest ignorance you show in this thread, and I have long suspected it is, you deserve to be taken with a grain of salt son. Go and read (perhaps learn) some history or something but spare the rest of us your misleading musings.

Very un-Australian, Eliot

Eliot; "Do the math." I think you meant to say "arithmetic" Eliot.

"the British marxisant "intelligentsia"

I have no idea what this group is, Eliot Ramsey.  

Or what they revere or revile, or of what interest, importance, or indeed relevance their opinions might be. Or, indeed, whether they actually exist.

However, your post, again, does not provide any examples of your assertion that "if it was 'French and commercial' or 'Greek and commercial' it would be fine."

Please provide us with demonstrations of your assertions, particularly, and relevantly, in terms of Australian schools.

Deliberate hate campaign is carefully documented

F Kendall: "I have no idea what this group is, Eliot Ramsey.  Or what they revere or revile, or of what interest, importance, or indeed relevance their opinions might be. Or, indeed, whether they actually exist."

I referred youi to a specific historical text, the book A Haunt of Fear: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign by Martin Barker.

Perhaps read it?

In it Barker carefully documents the campaign conducted by the then Marxist-dominated UK teachers' union and the British Communist Party in the 1950s to have comics like DC Comics, Marvel Comics and other American comics banned.

They were successful in doing that by deliberately whipping up public hysteria about so called "horror comics" making spurious claims linking comics to violent, often sexually oriented crimes amongst young people.

Absurdly, their campaign also extended to publications like Mad Magazine because it and others were supposed to be a threat to English cultural heritage.

Their documented, but at the time unstated actual purpose was to foster anti-American feeling.

Certainly one of the finer moments in British marxist academic history, and gosh why don't they brag publicly about that more I wonder?

In a bizarre twist, they at one point formed an alliance with untra-conservative US religious groups who also wanted to ban such comics in the USA but on morals grounds and because they were "un-American"!

Barker's book is considered a classic in modern social history, and it has direct relevance to current moral panics, if you ask me, such as those those engineered by the likes of Hetty Johnston (albeit she's not as clever about it as the UK Communist Party).

You should read Martin Barker's book. Absolutely fascinating.

If I'm not mistaken, somebody somewhere has thoughtfully put it online as a PDF file, but hard copiescan still be found.

F Kendall: " I think that your French examples re jazz really affirm that no matter how absurd a claim or statement might seem, one can always find a reference to someone, somewhere, sometime who has said it."

Please see Mark Sergeant's comment below:

"There is a decent argument, Eliot Ramsey, that Paris had a key part of the development of jazz between the wars."

There you go.

Because jazz is now a global cultural form, it could be argued that countries as far apart as Japan and Sweden have played, and continue to play a part of the development of jazz. But jazz was invented in the USA.

Likewise, one could argue that the UK music industry played a key part of the development of rock and roll in the 1960s.

It did, but rock and roll was until then typically reviled by the intellectual establishment as American commercial rubbish, wasn't it?

Now, it's part of the cultural establishment itself.

Mark Sergeans: "Up till about 40 years ago, the law didn't treat Afro-Americans as if they were authentically American. For most of that 500 years it didn't treat them as authentically human."

Up till about 40 years ago, the law didn't treat Australian Aborigines as if they were authentically Australian, denying them citizenship.

France (along with Spain and England) for its part, played a major and early role in shipping Africans to America as slaves.

It was the USA which abolished slavery in North America over 143 years ago, not France, over the protests of leading members of the British political and commercial establishment, who thought it would harm the cotton industry.

France itself did not abolish slavery finally until 1848, almost 60 years after the revolution. They still have colonies.

Scandal: Wheat trade leads UK to support Yanks over valiant CSA

Eliot Ramsey, you said, and I agree, that:

Because jazz is now a global cultural form, it could be argued that countries as far apart as Japan and Sweden have played, and continue to play a part of the development of jazz. But jazz was invented in the USA.

Except that it wasn't really "invented" - more sort of grew. I'm just arguing that that a particularly important part of that growth between the wars was in Paris, France. Sure, contributions have come from all over, including Japan and Sweden, and even Australia, but the role of Paris is sufficiently important for the Smithsonian to devote a travelling exhibition to it. (Probably curated by marxisant intelectuals.)

Likewise, one could argue that the UK music industry played a key part of the development of rock and roll in the 1960s.

It did, but rock and roll was until then typically reviled by the intellectual establishment as American commercial rubbish, wasn't it?

Mostly just as rubbish, I think. The marxisant intelligentsia (those that didn't like the music, anyway) no doubt put it down to being commercial and American, probably in that order. After the British explosion it was just rubbish, commercial. The marxisants were probably among the first among the intelligentsia to recognize it as other than rubbish.

France (along with Spain and England) for its part, played a major and early role in shipping Africans to America as slaves.

Here's a table estimating slaves landed in the Atlantic slave trade by the ship's country of origin (source: The Slave Trade, by Hugh Thomas. My copy is Papermac, 1998). The order appears to reflect the order in which they took up the trade. Only about 500,000 ended up in British North America & USA.

CountryVoyagesSlaves Transported
Portugal (incl Brazil)30,0004,650,000
Spain (incl Cuba)4,0001,600,000
France (incl French West Indies)4,2001,250,000
Holland2,000500,000
Britain12,0002,600,000
British North America & USA1,500300,000
Denmark25050,000
Other25050,000
Total54,20011,000,000

I really like this:

It was the USA which abolished slavery in North America over 143 years ago, not France, over the protests of leading members of the British political and commercial establishment, who thought it would harm the cotton industry.

This is an interesting interpretation. I understood that the protests of sections of the American population (sometimes called the Confederate States of America) rang louder than either the British or the French, and should be worth a mention. Lincoln would have happily won the war without freeing of the slaves, if he could have managed it. The proclamation didn't occur until almost 18 months into the war, and didn't free the slaves in Union slave-owning states (where Lincoln did have effective executive authority, unlike the confederacy).

Here's an interesting article: Europe and the American Civil War, quoted from The American Heritage New History of the Civil War

To be sure, the Southern nation was based on the institution of chattel slavery-a completely repugnant anachronism by the middle of the nineteenth century. Neither the British nor the French people would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve slavery.

The cotton barons were all in favour of it, along with much of the political establishment (often the same people). More generally, the political establishment weren't too keen on rebellions, though could maybe make an exception in the case of America. But the pesky people didn't like slavery. On cotton specifically:

Such reformers as John Bright and Richard Cobden spoke up vigorously in support of the Lincoln government, and even when the cotton shortage threw thousands of textile workers out of employment, the British working class remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy.

and one I wasn't aware of before:

Along with this there went a much more prosaic material factor. Europe had had several years of short grain crops, and during the Civil War the North exported thousands of tons of grain-grain which could be produced in increasing quantities, despite the wartime manpower shortage, because the new reapers and binders were boosting farm productivity so sharply. Much as Great Britain needed American cotton, just now she needed American wheat even more. In a showdown she was not likely to do anything that would cut off that source of food.

Britain "abolished" the slave trade on 25 March 1807. Part of the reason it got through the House of Lords was that it was no longer of much economic relevance, and the Lords could see a benefit in keeping the Navy busy harassing economic competitors. But there were a lot of do-gooders involved as well. Probably early marxisants. The actual abolition of slavery in Britain and its colonies is obscure.

France itself did not abolish slavery finally until 1848, almost 60 years after the revolution. They still have colonies.

I think a lot happened in France in 1848. Must check up. The USA, incidentally, did not abolish slavery until 1865, about 90 years after the revolution. There are still American colonies, too. I think, technically, France doesn't in fact have any colonies. The "colonies" are considered part of France, with parliamentary representation. An interesting fact I learned during the primary campaign is that Puerto Ricans got to vote in the primaries, but can't vote next Tuesday. I suspect the same applies for the Pacific Island colonies.

Slavery and France

The situation with the French is a little complex. They abolished slavery in 1794 and the constitution of 1795 recognised this. Unfortunately this only lasted a couple of years until Napoleon got busy and reintroduced slavery in 1799. In 1848 slavery was abolished for a second and final time.

Mark, if the Puerto Rico issue is of interest you might also reflect on the Washington DC situation. Consider:

Citizens of the District of Columbia have no voting representation in Congress. They are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate...who may sit on committees, participate in debate, and introduce legislation, but cannot vote on the House floor. D.C. has no representation in the United States Senate.

Unlike U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal laws and taxes. In the financial year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita.

The Sharks & the Jets

Thanks for that on the French, Dylan. I have a feeling it may have been in one of the documents I skimmed in research, but it didn't register properly. (And if it had, it would have made even longer a very long post if I had chased it.) I also have a feeling that The Slave Trade discusses widespread opposition to the trade, probably in revolutionary times - but it's a while since I read it, so don't take it as gospel.

I do know I knew about Washington DC, and wish it had come to mind. I hope it means that GWB, as a resident of DC, is not entitled to vote. Is there a press photograph of him voting in 2004? The photo seems to be compulsory everywhere else, and might be the basis of a prosecution for electoral fraud. (I shoot down this fanatasy later in the post, but I like it, so it stays.)

Puerto Rico stuck in my mind because there was a story going around for a while that the Democrat nomination might depend on it, as the last Primary decided (I think that there were actually one or two after it), with 65 (I think) delegates, all or nothing (actually split proportional to the vote). What really struck me was that the number of delegates put it way up the list of influence.

I have now done my quick research, and it turns out third last, with 55 delegates, and comparable to Louisiana, Colorado or Arizona. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans or the Electoral College, don't award delegates all or nothing.

 The Electoral College link reveals that "Washington, DC is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the 'least populous' state". So they get a non-voting delgate in the Reps, no Senator, and get to vote for someone who votes for the President. But nobody gets to vote for the President, except for a bunch of people nobody has ever heard of, and who may not even exist. Weird!

The usual suspects

When Eliot Ramsey first used "marxisant", I assumed it was just a spelling error, F Kendall. Then he used it again, so I went looking, and found On the Barricades. It's a review, and the book is The Sixties by one Arthur Marwick, "a British cultural historian", and he is credited with introducing the term.

Marwick rejects the view, held by most 60's rebels and their enemies alike, that the cultural revolt he describes was about destroying the bourgeois social order. The champions of this apocalyptic project he labels "Marxisant," a catch-all term for various ideologies that share "a broad metaphysical view about history and about how society works, derived from Marxism."

It's just a new word for Eliot's old enemy! I wouldn't worry about it. I would carefully check any references he provides, because he often misrepresents the arguments, and his point is contradicted in the text.

Mark his language

Mark Sergeant, don't be so mean to Eliot Ramsey. He likes using big, important words.

Like Schadenfreude. And irredentism.

But you are observant in noting Eliot's fondness for "marxisant". Indeed, his affection for it seems so great that it could almost be said to have become one of his signatures. He's popped it into, oh, I don't know, roughly twenty posts since late September last year.

Oddly, the only other Webdiarist - apart from you, obviously - to have used it recently has been Anthony Nolan. Although there is a former Webdiarist who was quite fond of it, as I remember.

Marxism's old enemy - informed scholarship

Arthur Marwick was one of Britains' most eminent historical scholars of the second half of the 20th Century:

"He held visiting professorships at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Stanford University, Rhodes College and the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. He was a left-wing social and cultural historian but critical of Marxism and other approaches to history that he believed stressed the importance of metanarrative over archival research."

With regard to anything I have ever said here that is "contradicted in the text", I as always invite you to demonstrate that.

But, lo! You invariably do not!

multiculturalism

Thanks for all your examples, Eliot Ramsey, irrelevant as they are. I think that your French examples re jazz really affirm that no matter how absurd a claim or statement might seem, one can always find a reference to someone, somewhere, sometime who has said it. For example, I read online in the Catholic Weekly a coment by Fr Bernard McGrath, that "contraception invariably leads to ... abortion...", a comment that would seem to defy logic or any rational interpretation. There's always at least one, is there not?

However, what I had queried, although evidently I had not made it quite explicit enough, was your comment that "felt sure that if it was 'French and commercial' or 'Greek and commercial' it would be fine."

Can you give examples of where schools approved of "French and commercial" or 'Greek and commercial" to back up you claim?

Btw, I have a squeezy affection for Halloween, and had a few Lindt blocks ready for the kids, and I have the churchy reverence for all souls day. But the schools need to keep right out of such, in my opinion, and the teacher did EXACTLY the right thing. What next, in our multicultural society? Shut down the tuckshop for Ramadan?

Most teachers would see the commerce as the problem, rather than the nation behind it. They try to resist the idea that our kids can be bought.

Selective focus

F Kendall: "Most teachers would see the commerce as the problem, rather than the nation behind it."

So, no more school Christmas parties, then, hey? And there'll be letters going home warning about the perils of Easter Eggs? All that awful "commerce" and the chocolate and sweets manufacturers "buying" our kids?

No more Mothers Day cards in craft classes? You know, it being so commercialised and all? A big swindle by the department stores?

That won't happen, will it? Because it is about "the nation behind" Halloween. They make a point of actually stressing the point.

Exercise

I don't know, Eliot, these kids in Manly don't look too unhappy about being out of costume.

Maybe the campaign would've had more impact in Australia if carried out in costume.  Maybe not.  Anyway, a great little exercise for all concerned.

Celtics versus the Nicks

Richard Tonkin: "Maybe the campaign would've had more impact in Australia if carried out in costume.  Maybe not.  Anyway, a great little exercise for all concerned."

It turns out it's an Oxfam idea, not the school's idea. And it's a very cute promotion, and quite thought provoking, too.

Richard Tonkin: "I don't know, Eliot, these kids in Manly don't look too unhappy about being out of costume."

No, they don't look unhappy. But that's a press photo, doubtless posed somewhat for the benefit of the journalist. And also the kids here still had fun, too. That's not my point.

The thing is, the Oxfam girl also thought it would have more impact if the kids could dress up. And it would have been more fun, too.

Otherwise, it's just like any other school charity effort, like Legacy or Daffodil Day.

I bet if instead of being "American" (which it is not specifically), Halloween was "Italian" or "French" in some way, then it would be okay in the eyes of fanatics like Mrs Ratchett..

In fact, my sister tried arguing that it is "actually Celtic" to  sway her, and that argument ensued for some minutes back and forth between her and Mrs Ratchett.

The final answer was "No, I'm sorry. It's American and commercial."

(Can't you just see Mrs Ratchett saying that, with eyelids closed and the palm of her hand adamantly held out?)

The decisive issue was not whether it was fun, or likely effective, the unambiguous "fault" with Halloween was that it is "American and commercial."  And not really Celtic "at all".

If it was "French and commercial"  or "Greek and commercial" , then I'm sure that would have been fine.

But like jazz, rock and roll, and basketball, it's "American and commercial". Therefore "bad".

Except, of course, if we like jazz or rock and roll. Then they're Afro-American, or "stolen from Africa". Or "Canadian actually". Or "Celtic originally". Or something equally mollifying.

Jazz and others

Hi Eliot. That you are sure that "if it was 'French and commercial' or 'Greek and commercial' it would be fine" is a rather thin argument. Can you give us examples to back up your assertion?

I looked up the history of the festival, and the site gave credit largely to such as the Irish, for its intro to the US. Interesting, and odd, that they (the Irish) didn't bring it here, evidently.

Jazz is French marxism's gift to the working classes

F Kendall: "Can you give us examples to back up your assertion?"

Undoubtedly the most bizarre example in my personal experience is a guy who insists that jazz is "really" French, and that it was "rejected" by America in the 1920s on racial grounds, and "saved" by Paris's marxisant intelligentsia.

Here's a guy who reckons that it's a Parisian radio station which is keeping jazz alive...

"America may be the birthplace of jazz — and of such legends as Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Louis Armstrong — but it’s the Parisian radio station TSF that’s keeping the passion for it alive."

Yeah, like, it would just disappear if it wasn't for the Parisian cafe set. And I hope nobody mentions the Frankfurt school marxists who loathed jazz as a kind of "false consciousness" imposed on the working classes.

This sort of crap about jazz comes up all the time, even from American jazz musicians themselves, for example Randy Weston who rationalises it this way:

The "entire world comes from Africa, the cradle of civilization, farming, mining, gold, diamonds. As we migrate we take various instruments and cultures with us and we integrate with the established cultures."

What's weird about that is the implicit assumption that even after 500 years in North America, with a black President about to be elected, Afro-Americans are treated as if they are not authentically American.

Bizarre but true(ish)

The Jazz Age in Paris 1914-1940

Paris Jazz: A Guide

There is a decent argument, Eliot Ramsey, that Paris had a key part of the development of jazz between the wars. Maybe it still has, going by your link about TSF. I liked these passages:

TSF began broadcasting in 1999, and within a few years was reaching over 200,000 listeners in Paris and Nice. Today it claims an audience of over TKTK, sponsors festivals throughout France, and has even launched a line of jazz CD collections. International Herald Tribune jazz critic Mike Zwerin has called TSF "the only unsubsidized radio station in the known world playing smart jazz 24 hours a day seven days a week."

[Anyone know how large TKTK is? Sounds pretty big.]

and

"When Miles Davis played in New York, he got beaten by a policeman. When he came to France, he played Salle Pleyel [Paris’ premier concert hall]."

But back to Eliot:

What's weird about that is the implicit assumption that even after 500 years in North America, with a black President about to be elected, Afro-Americans are treated as if they are not authentically American.

Up till about 40 years ago, the law didn't treat Afro-Americans as if they were authentically American. For most of that 500 years it didn't treat them as authentically human. Have you noticed how the McCain/Palin campaign is suggesting that Obama is not really (authentically) American? Perhaps they are only referring to his liberal and/or socialist tendencies.

Strip shows

F Kendall: "Can you give us examples to back up your assertion?"

Another example, of course, is the comic book. Utterly reviled by the British marxisant "intelligentsia" when the comic book was widely regarded as "American" (as is superbly documented in the book A Haunt of Fear: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign by Martin Barker), and the focus of one of the great moral panics of the 20th Century, they later became quite recherché when re-presented as Japanese Manga or appropriated for trendy "Left" propaganda purposes aimed at young people.

The Yanks and music

It's why, Eliot, I'm such a fan of Appalachian music and the musical lifestyle of places like Austin.  All the English folk music purists forget is that if it wasn't for the geogrphically preservative nature of the mountains their music would not have been around to retrieve in modern times.  And that Elvis used to be a warm-up singer (along with Johnny Cash) for Maybelle Carter.   So much music, both old and new, that would never have been heard but for the existance of one pocket of the U.S.

And then there's Austin, that set itself up as a "gig city" and attracted musicians from all over the country.  Visiting one studio there I was told how much jazz was being recorded that would never be released in the U.S., so perhaps your DJ was correct in that that aspect.  However if Simon and Garfunkel hadn't listened to Steeleye Span's Martin Carthy playing Scarborough Fair, I wonder if the BBC would have decided English folk music was popular enough to go out collecting.

Speaking of collecting, how much Texan money is spent preserving Australian jazz?  I'm only aware of one case, but assume there would be more.  We recently lost a bloke named Dave Dalwitz who, in his eighties, was writing and singing lyrics to tunes his bands had performed sixty years ago.  Nobody locally had thought to preserve his stuff (the Trad Jazz Society had him way down the list of popular bands, as his music was difficult to foxtrot to - go figure) so thank Christ for that particular aspect of local U.S. investment.

We could do well to emulate such culturally enlightened approaches, amongst others.

I used to want to move to Austin, but then decided it was better to help Adelaide do similarly.  Didn't know about the "twinning" plan back then.  Always wondered if any of the 20-odd University of Texas students brought in to take a "cultural snapshot" of our town (for the defence conversion)went to the live music rally we held that week.  At any rate, it was a lovely touch of synchronicity.

Yosemite Sam and the Bard

Richard Tonkin: "All the English folk music purists forget is that if it wasn't for the geographically preservative nature of the mountains their music would not have been around to retrieve in modern times."

That's very interesting, Richard. Bill Bryson has made a not unrelated point about Elizabethan survivals in the parlance, patois and vernacular of the Appalachian and other hinterland areas of the United States. Words like "varmint" and "critter" and pronunciations like 'erb for herb, which were commonplace in Shakespeare's London, but which we now tend only to associate with Yosemite Sam!

There's more than a hint of Cornwall in the spoken accents of that region, too.

Well Eliot

I may tangle with you politically but I like your sister!

Is there any chance you take after her in any way?

You know, I've found when kids actually do something like this it is so rewarding for them.

I spend several weeks of the year up at a friend's house in Mullumbimby - have for the past 20 years. She's the widow of the chap who started the local paper up there - the Byron Echo.

Over the years we have watched the place change dramatically. My pal was one of the first to discover the place - Mullum (as the locals call it) was a bit of a ex-hippy hangout , the sort of more serious ones who weren't into the whole druggie Nimbin culture. but the general populace where just the kind of Aussies you find in any country town.

There was a lot of animosity between the groups in the first few years - a lot of suspicion on both sides. Gradually the community began to realise they were really just all the same people in the end, with the same hopes and worries. The same dramas in their lives, the same tragedies.

But the nicest thing was watching the kids of the "newbies" go to the local schools and mix with the country kids - the children of long haul truck drivers, the local plumber, the local cop etc.

In the end, kids are really wonderful as, although they may look different to each other, they quickly mix and forget those differences. The nicest thing was to see the kids of the people you knew - the ex-Melbourne and Sydney crew who thought they had found Paradise and retained a slightly "superior" air -  bring home their friends whose dad was probably a Nats voter, and vice versa. Both lots learned from each other.

Now you are just as likely to find the bunch of kids from the local public schoool who organise a Green Awareness Day are those who come from the working families and watching their parents turn up and proudly support their children, these plumbers , electricians, tradesmen, the bank manager, farmers etc. is a nice look.

I'll stop now before I get a bit weepy.

My apologies Dr Reynolds

I missed the intro.

Ah, perfidy, thy name is woman. Got him going but.

A Ratchett view, Eliot

“Your self-righteous middle brow opinions are beneath the intelligence and dignity of our children, and what's more they are technically uninformed and bereft of intuition. They are your personal, blinkered prejudices and you are operating entirely outside your brief in imposing them on others.”

Yep, that's what I'd say to a drama queen I reckon.

Care for a chocolate?

F Kendall: "The contempt for teachers with standards is demonstrated by the thinly disguised "ratshit" name that he chose for the teacher."

Too true, F Kendall. More's the pity, though.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for the teachers and aides that are helping my autistic son to integrate with his peers.

Even when the going gets tough for them (my son has had a few meltdowns due to sensory overload, and lashed out physically), they are full of compassion and empathy. They are so caring and dedicated and have his best interests at heart.

They are the unsung heroes!

Kids and chocolate

The important issue is why the kids weren't in school.

Oh right, contributing to the community is an important lesson for them to learn. Yeah. As if life didn't do that, Eliot Ramsey.

As far as I'm concerned, they should have been back with Mrs Ratchett learning something (anyone interested in the present abysmal standards of primary education can check them out on the NAP site).  Of course, the activity may have been outside school hours, in which case one would assume that the teacher had no input.

Today I was speaking to a young teaching grad, who presented to me the problem of changing 33 1/3% to a decimal, as something extremely difficult, which she couldn't resolve ... but she thought that kids dressing up for Halloween was both cute and kool. These are the teachers that Eliot wants.

The move to dumbing down education is relentless, and well supported by families, as Eliot demonstrates.

The contempt for teachers with standards is demonstrated by the thinly disguised "ratshit" name that he chose for the teacher.

OFOTCN

F Kendall: "The contempt for teachers with standards is demonstrated by the thinly disguised "ratshit" name that he chose for the teacher."

My first thought was that he was referencing OFOTCN.

Eliot, what are you smokin' dude?

Lay off that hydro grown stuff man. 

It is doin' ya head in.

How, in the name of Kali, could this possibly have any relevance to a debate over art and Henson? 

Please don't reply.

You th'only one here doin' permanent stinkin' thinkin'.

Do you want a chocolate, sour-puss?

Anthony Nolan: "Please don't reply."

Well, in the same way as Hetty Johnston and other self-appointed moral custodians and vigilante philosophical gate-keepers feel they have a prior right to arbitrate on what is "proper" art, and to stick their busy beaks into the lives of other people's children, telling them what to think, do and feel, Mrs Ratchett* there feels she should take control of children's games which she thinks might lead eventually to them having "bad" thoughts.

You'll note that in the case of Mrs Ratchett, the focus of her concern was thankfully not whether a paedophile might leap out behind the lolly counters at the local Stocklands Mall.

Strangely, though, it was also not whether her duty of care extended to accompanying the children on their excursion to the shopping centre to be sure they didn't buy cigarettes, run recklessly up and down the escalators, or form up as a scruffy gang of loveable street urchins and pick the pockets of the local gentry.

Nope. She left all that practical stuff to the little chippy from Oxfam, who doubtless spent the better part of her afternoon keeping the kids from getting too excited, getting lost going to the toilet, falling off the mezzanine or being run over by one of those zippy little tractors that pull around long trains of shopping trollies..

Mrs Ratchett instead frets and worries about whether putting on a tiny Superman outfit or running around the Raindrop Fountain dressed as Caspar the Ghost (so cute) might lead to a sudden upsurge in Friedmanite Monetarism or Oliver North style freebooting for Blackwater Inc in the fourth grade at the local Public Demonstration School.

That the littlies, in their enthusiasm for playing 'Trick or Treat' with grocer Collins or the lady at the Curl Up & Dye Hairdressing Salon might become "too American", or might become "materialistic."

To which I say to Mrs Ratchett, as I would to Hetty Johnston:

"Your sanctimonious, middle brow opinions are beneath the intelligence and dignity of our children, and what's more they are technically uninformed and bereft of intuition. They are your personal, blinkered prejudices and you are operating entirely outside your brief in imposing them on others. Do you want a chocolate, sour-puss?"

That's what I'd say.

More power to Mrs Ratchett

Perhaps we could also do away with: monetarism, globalism, securitisation, the rebel colonies' arms industries, their foreign policy, Pine Gap, Valentine's Day, Thanksgiving, the greeting card industry (Coca-cola, Pepsi, Maccas, Sub Way, KFC - health measures) and all those who believe in unbridled market forces.

I note in passing that it took Halloween to smoke Eliot Ramsey out into actually posting a column. And what in-depth economic analysis it was.

Fiona: Wrong on one count, Dr Duncan - I took the liberty of promoting Mr Ramsey's comment (from another place) to the giddy heights of thread-starter.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 1 day ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 3 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 3 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 3 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 4 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 5 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 15 weeks 2 days ago