Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

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

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.

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.

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?"

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.