A muslim attack on christmas!! No, wait...

[HoreTore]

When you come from a small place, it's always fun when your hometown gets coverage in the media. It's even more fun when the media gets things wrong. And it's simply hilarious when the racist blogosphere includes it in their doomsday predictions.

Our story begins at a Øren school in Drammen. Last year, before christmas, a fifth grade class planned the usual show, an evening event where the kids show what they've learned to their parents(singing, dancing, etc). No problems so far. However, it was decided that the santa hats was not to be worn. Instant big trouble. The national media reported it, the racist blogosphere seized it. (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/12/norwegian-christmas-not.html) An obvious example of liberals bending over to the demands of muslim immigrants! We need to protect our culture and the right to wear santa hats!!

The usual outcry from the racists is that journalists do shoddy work, they don't dig deep enough to discover the facts and they don't check their sources. Well, the racists failed bigtime.

Was it really a liberal imposing multiculture on innocent children? Were muslims involved? The answer is, of course, no. I don't work at the school myself, but I have colleagues and friends who work or have their children there. So, here's what actually happened:

The teacher of the class sent out an invitation to a "santa party". One of the kids in the class is a jehovas witness, and they regard such icons as satanical. So, the kids parents informed the school that they would not take part if such hats were present. The teacher then had a choice. Have the event without hats or without the kid. The latter was chosen. Why? Because building a proper learning enviroment is extremely important. Having one kid absent from such an event could disrupt that(social isolation, etc etc). As the hats were not deemed integral to the event, they were dropped. A new invitation was sent out. As is usual, one kids parents didn't get the message, so they were asked to take off the hat when they arrived. They told the media about that, and then muslims were blamed as usual.

Was the handling perfect? No. After some days, the principal told the media that it wasn't muslims behind it, it was a christian group. That's the only thing I take issue with. If the people want to be idiots, let them, there's no reason to give them information about pupils. But it can be forgiven considering the ammount of pressure she was under(reporters were outside her house etc).

The racist blogosphere, however, cared little about the facts, as long as it allowed them to attack muslims. Pathetic. Needless to say, they did not post a follow up clearing up the mistake. I have my doubts they are even aware that they were wrong, or that they care that they were wrong. As long as they can play the "muslims are destroying our culture"-card, facts don't seem to be important.

[gaelic cowboy]

What the hell is anyone taking notice of a Jehovahs Witness for anyway? let them away off with themselves.

Kids cannot wear Santa Hats because of one child why didnt they just not wear a hat themselves an leave everyone else alone.

[Fragony]

Is this one of these things that changes everything? It almost never happens that muslims actually complain, it's usually what we just LOVE to call pre-emptive dhimmitude. As muslims just might complain.

[Idaho]

We get this crap all the time in the UK. Most of the time the "story" has been cooked up by mental UKIP/fringe Christian types who, whilst being in the top 5% in the world in terms of wealth and comfort, decide that they are in fact a desperately and brutally persecuted sect, struggling for survival.

In order to defend themselves they make the entirely defensive and christian step of whipping up racial and religious intolerance based on unsubstantiated BS.

[Idaho]

Is this one of these things that changes everything? It almost never happens that muslims actually complain, it's usually what we just LOVE to call pre-emptive dhimmitude. As muslims just might complain.

Please feel free to submit evidence of these frequent complaints. Although I am afraid I won't accept examples from nutty jihadi groups who have more journalists and secret service chasing them than they do actual members.

[rvg]

pre-emptive dhimmitude.

This.

[Sigurd]

There are about 15 000 members of JW in Norway. I doubt they are making the same considerations in every class that has a JW child.
Do you want to spark a discussion of minority imposing their views on the majority and wins? Another angle on the ABB case?

[Fragony]

Please feel free to submit evidence of these frequent complaints. Although I am afraid I won't accept examples from nutty jihadi groups who have more journalists and secret service chasing them than they do actual members.

I said muslims hardly ever actually complain, your mind is playing tricks on you. I have an absolute wealth of examples of pre-emptive dhimmitude or leftist islamphilae though, especially in England

[Ibn-Khaldun]

It's good to leave in a country where most of the people really don't care about religion and stuff like that. We can make fun and mock or just ignore all the religions and the people here really don't care what some may or may not think about them.
If something like that would have happened in here that one kid would've been without a hat and not entire class.
And those racists .. they are just ignorant little people.
To me this just shows how ridiculous the world have become. In the 21st century there shouldn't be a place for religions.

[rvg]

There are about 15 000 members of JW in Norway. I doubt they are making the same considerations in every class that has a JW child.
Do you want to spark a discussion of minority imposing their views on the majority and wins? Another angle on the ABB case?
It seems to be more of an issue of the majority beating itself into submission to appease the demon of political correctness.

[Fragony]

It seems to be more of an issue of the majority beating itself into submission to appease the demon of political correctness.

Uh-huh. Lefties and their absolute faith in multiculture are the problem. I don't know why they crave it so badly but I also understand lemmings so it could just be me

[Fragony]

* don't unerstand lemmings (edit is broken)

[gaelic cowboy]

* don't unerstand lemmings (edit is broken)

Lemmings dont jump off cliffs that was made up for telly I believe.

[Fragony]

Lemmings dont jump off cliffs that was made up for telly I believe.

You are wrong, it was made for the pc and it's quite hard once you get through the first levels

[rajpoot]

Someone should ban religion.


Lemmings dont jump off cliffs that was made up for telly I believe.

I blame Walt Disney and that cartoon of his.

[InsaneApache]

My wifes old friend is a JW. A complete barmpot.

[gaelic cowboy]

You are wrong, it was made for the pc and it's quite hard once you get through the first levels

:laugh4:


My wifes old friend is a JW. A complete barmpot.

Excellant term I shall use it in everyday conversation at the first opportunity.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's good to leave in a country where most of the people really don't care about religion and stuff like that. We can make fun and mock or just ignore all the religions and the people here really don't care what some may or may not think about them.
If something like that would have happened in here that one kid would've been without a hat and not entire class.
And those racists .. they are just ignorant little people.
To me this just shows how ridiculous the world have become. In the 21st century there shouldn't be a place for religions.

You like to make fun of and mock religious people, you think they have no place in the world, and your happy your country is relatively "pure" in that regard...but you don't like racists? What you said isn't that different.

[lars573]

My wifes old friend is a JW. A complete barmpot.
My brother married one. And now my grand mother hardly speaks to him.

[rory_20_uk]

It seems to be more of an issue of the majority beating itself into submission to appease the demon of political correctness.

The child should have been excluded from the class if that was the wishes of the parents. They should not be allowed dictate things to everyone else. This obsession of trying to please everyone is how the Millennium Dome was reached.

Generally Muslims get in the spotlight as they are the most intolerant group. But the same principle applies to any other group that acts in the same way.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

The child should have been excluded from the class if that was the wishes of the parents. They should not be allowed dictate things to everyone else. This obsession of trying to please everyone is how the Millennium Dome was reached.

Generally Muslims get in the spotlight as they are the most intolerant group. But the same principle applies to any other group that acts in the same way.

~:smoking:

If only you had a grasp of history Rory, you could put that reasonable brain to good use.

Go and look at attitudes to Catholic emancipation in the 18th C, Jews in the late 19th C.

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, I am aware of these. Yes, Pitt the Younger quit over George's refusal to allow Catholic emancipation. But we are currently in the 21st. I am not blaming Muslims for burning down the Library of Alexandria, the Catholics for wiping out the Cathars or what most religious groups have done to any that are weaker than they currently are.

Christmas is as we all know a Frankenstein's monster of different religion facets pasted over each other for the last few millennia, but is a tradition.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

The child should have been excluded from the class if that was the wishes of the parents. They should not be allowed dictate things to everyone else. This obsession of trying to please everyone is how the Millennium Dome was reached.

Surely you've just got to treat it on a case by case basis. If one pupil or a minority of pupils felt strongly about something that the rest were pretty indifferent towards, it hardly seems unreasonable to try to accomodate them to some degree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If only you had a grasp of history Rory, you could put that reasonable brain to good use.

Go and look at attitudes to Catholic emancipation in the 18th C, Jews in the late 19th C.

Not the same, Jehovah's Witnesses are self-excluders socially and theologically, they live in the secular world but they do not consider themselves part of it.

Furthermore, the parents should have been told that the "Santa Hat" is, at worst, a mark of a pious old Turkish Christian who gave generously with no expectation or desire for recognition.

The child should have been excluded because society should not bend to the tyrnnical superstitions of the minority.

And, yes, before you ask that means we should have gay "marriage" in this country provided that is the more-or-less informed decision of the greater part of the people.

[HoreTore]

There are about 15 000 members of JW in Norway. I doubt they are making the same considerations in every class that has a JW child.
Do you want to spark a discussion of minority imposing their views on the majority and wins? Another angle on the ABB case?

I have no problems whatsoever with how this was handled, with the exception of the principal succumbing to pressure and telling the public what the issue really was.

Classroom learning enviroment trumps santa hats. Sure, one could've wanted these people not to view santa hats as satanical, but they do. The school has to deal with that, and they have to deal with it in the way that is most beneficial to learning. No other considerations should be made. If they cared about other things, like other peoples feelings, THAT would be a problem. A school is a place for learning, not santa hat-promotion.

[HoreTore]

The child should have been excluded from the class if that was the wishes of the parents. They should not be allowed dictate things to everyone else. This obsession of trying to please everyone is how the Millennium Dome was reached.

Generally Muslims get in the spotlight as they are the most intolerant group. But the same principle applies to any other group that acts in the same way.

~:smoking:

The kid should absolutely not be excluded. The parents are the problem, and the kid should not be made to suffer because of them. A teacher has a responsibility towards the kids, not the parents. A school cannot choose parents for the kids, but we sure as hell can do our utmost to counter their negative influence.

Bloody parents. The main problem with todays schools. The only thing coming close to that title is political involment. Of any colour.

[HoreTore]

Surely you've just got to treat it on a case by case basis. If one pupil or a minority of pupils felt strongly about something that the rest were pretty indifferent towards, it hardly seems unreasonable to try to accomodate them to some degree.

Good thinking, Rhy.

It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. If the minoritys losses outweigh the losses of the majority, then the minority calls the shots. And vice-versa.

[rvg]

Good thinking, Rhy.

It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. If the minoritys losses outweigh the losses of the majority, then the minority calls the shots. And vice-versa.

There's a problem with that approach: it involves thinking, something that people generally try to avoid.

[HoreTore]

There's a problem with that approach: it involves thinking, something that people generally try to avoid.

This is the way the world currently works, and is what the racist right calls "muslims and multiculture destroying our culture!!!!1111"

[Papewaio]

Disney made a movie which showed lemmings commiting mass suicide in the Artic.

What they failed to disclose was that it was not true, and to make the myth real the Disney team pushed the animals into a river.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wilderness_(film)#section_2

=][=

Tolerance of a minority is a good thing, however it would be good for minorities to tolerate majorities too.

I do not seen this as a multicultural problem. It is a religious minority imposing its views on a diverse majority. It is a monoculture problem of a blinkered world view and demanding all else walk in lockstep with them.

Exposé the children to all of the festivals or none at all. Do not base choices on the desires of a single group, essentially the school has propagated JW teaching above all the others... Not doing something as it may offend a religios group is kowtowing to the unreasonable mindset that that groups way of life out ranks all others. That is neither democratic nor tolerant nor multicultural.

Personally I would be happiest keeping religion in a 'comparative religion class' and minimizing exposure to such until a child is old enough not to take everything a teacher says as 100% true. I think it should be left as a teen/adult choice. Nor do I think the public person should be spent on pastors in schools as it is done in Aus.

[HoreTore]

All of whatnpape said may be true, but it has nothing to do with learning, and as such should not be taken into consideration by a school.

[rvg]

All of whatnpape said may be true, but it has nothing to do with learning, and as such should not be taken into consideration by a school.
Sure it should. It's common sense.

[ajaxfetish]

Surely you've just got to treat it on a case by case basis. If one pupil or a minority of pupils felt strongly about something that the rest were pretty indifferent towards, it hardly seems unreasonable to try to accomodate them to some degree.

This seems a very reasonable response. The scrapping of Santa hats does rub me the wrong way, but may have been the best choice for the situation. Ultimately, it seems like it should have been the teacher's call, since they know the class best and planned the event in the first place. In this case, the teacher decided it would be better to forgo the hats. Is it the larger society's job to second guess them, not being privy to the details anyway?

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is a religious minority imposing its views on a diverse majority. It is a monoculture problem of a blinkered world view and demanding all else walk in lockstep with them.

No. There is a tendency to presume that people that are seen as having hardline religious views wish to impose them on everyone else, when in fact they really just want to be left alone.

From the OP, it seems like this kid's parents did nothing more than inform the school that their kid would not take part in the event.

They are isolating themselves from society, not demanding that it conforms to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exposé the children to all of the festivals or none at all. Do not base choices on the desires of a single group, essentially the school has propagated JW teaching above all the others... Not doing something as it may offend a religios group is kowtowing to the unreasonable mindset that that groups way of life out ranks all others. That is neither democratic nor tolerant nor multicultural.

Personally I would be happiest keeping religion in a 'comparative religion class' and minimizing exposure to such until a child is old enough not to take everything a teacher says as 100% true. I think it should be left as a teen/adult choice. Nor do I think the public person should be spent on pastors in schools as it is done in Aus.

I agree with the first part, not with the second. Trying to shield children from religious belief is not only impractical, it is potentially damaging.

If when a child asks, you a question like, "why does Mr Ahmed wear that funny hat", and you say, "because he likes funny hats" you'll probably just get another "why" which will lead you eventually to, "because he believes his God wants him to", and before you know it your child will ask, "do you believe that" or somesuch.

Children are naturally curous and we can't just prevaricate until we think they are emotionally and intellectually mature. Nor can we refuse to answer their questions or try to give them adult or equivical answers.

Human beings make sense of the world by telling stories, we are a talking species, and all our learning is done in stories. Children are not really capable of grasping complex adult stories, so we tell them simple ones, and we tell them concrete ones because children are vulnerable and like definitive answers.

Finally, all education is indoctrination and brainwashing because the very purpose of education is to change the way our minds work and get them to absorb new ideas and thought processes. It doesn't matter what you tell the child be it, "first there was nothing and then the universe expanded," or "In the beginning it was dark and void was upon the deep" - in the child's understanding they are not very different, and whatever idea you give them will shape their worldview, but they will also eventually challenge, reprocess and aceept or reject those ideas.

And, frankly, I think it is better for a small child to believe their is a big kindly giant in the sky watching over them than to believe there's noting above them than blackness because most children are afraid of the dark, and with good reason.

[Fragony]

Looks like the parents just told the school he couldn't participate. Doesn't explain why it was scrapped altogether. Maybe the 'racist hatebloggers' were right, the school didn't like the commotion, and found an easy way out. In any case, the JW story would be a first, the blogger's take would be not. Me suspicious

[Papewaio]

Well I think parents should participate in their kids education. This includes teaching about different cultures. I'm against schools indoctrinating kids in any particular religion and it should be the parents/out of school training ie Sunday school.

Also some though systems try and get adults to question the world around them. Keeping the childlike curiosity and why why why is part of the joy of science. Some thought systems teach absolutes and that the system cannot be questioned... Religious fundamentalism is not though provoking. On the other hand some of the greatest scholars have been part of religious or philosophical frameworks. So religion can be enlightenment and building up ones critical abilities or it can be used as an excuse to shut them down. It is a problem of human power plays not religion per se.

After all it was a Belgium Jesuit that came up with he theory which was later named the Big Bang. So one cannot easily discount all religion due to the works of some.

However religion should be a personal choice and it should not be a state decided one. As for learning about other religions and traditions this is a good thing and should not be blocked by splinter groups or even the majority.

[Sigurd]

This whole issue was simply badly handled by the school. It sparked a debate which dragged the Muslim community within that school's boundaries unfairly into it. They more than the JW should avoid this celebration, but are quite tolerant towards it.
The school should have been more clear of why they acted as they did. And they did... eventually when the :daisy: hit the fan.

It is not the school's job to cater to fringe religious ideas as they did here, more so they forbade the wearing of the red cap, which not only is a Christmas hat, but a core Norwegian symbol. One that during the occupation in WWII was outlawed.
That right there would have turned my blood to steam.
And I have not touched the subject of extremism within minority religions. What these parents did is extremism, doing something extra to appease their deity, which if you look closely are not necessary. The lack of faith, that their kids would quite survive the Christmas celebration without emotional or physical damage is staggering.
Even ajax would send his children to school with red nisseluer if there were such an event, as he would if the school decided to bring classes to the Lutheran church for a Christmas mass. Even if his faith don't believe Christ was born on the 25th of December. It is the spirit of it that counts... The season of good will to all men - one of the core messages of the very person that instituted their faith.

This was a case of withholding important information, catering to fringe religious extremism and parents not understanding the religion they subscribe to.

[Fragony]

Who says the school speaks the truth?

Fragony's alternative timeline: Bloggers were right, school gets a mail that someone should Breivik on them, gets taken seriously for obvious reasons, school finds usefull idiot to shove it on, Horetore opens topic 'see! See? SEEEEE?'

Much more likely in any case

[HoreTore]

Who says the school speaks the truth?

Fragony's alternative timeline: Bloggers were right, school gets a mail that someone should Breivik on them, gets taken seriously for obvious reasons, school finds usefull idiot to shove it on, Horetore opens topic 'see! See? SEEEEE?'

Much more likely in any case

Paranoia strikes again!

All wrong of course. Conspiracy theories are always good stories, often much better than the truth. They are wrong though, like this one is.

This story is the latest development of a feud going back several years, between religious parents and atheist teachers, and atheist parents and religious teachers. Quite fun stories, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the principal.

As for Sigurd's comment, no, the school should absolutely not give out information about its students. They should simply not give a crap about a public debates need for facts. A school has a responsibility towards the children going there, not the general public, who can sod off.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Paranoia strikes again!

All wrong of course. Conspiracy theories are always good stories, often much better than the truth. They are wrong though, like this one is.

This story is the latest development of a feud going back several years, between religious parents and atheist teachers, and atheist parents and religious teachers. Quite fun stories, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the principal.

As for Sigurd's comment, no, the school should absolutely not give out information about its students. They should simply not give a crap about a public debates need for facts. A school has a responsibility towards the children going there, not the general public, who can sod off.

A school, as a public institution is answerable to the general population in its capacity as a Civic Body. More specifically, it is responsible to ther elected politicians who are responsible to the Electors. If a school makes an unpopular change for a specific reason they should explain why when called upon to do so. Had they not the Civil Government would have been within it's rights to force the issue in this case on the grounds of public order.

In another vein, Frag may be wrong but is also in a way right. It really matters not whether the school buckles under pressure from a single family adherring to a foriegn and minority religion from the East or from the West. In both cases the parents would be extremists who are practicing self ostricisation. In pandering to them the school has reinforced the message that the way people live outside their little group is wrong and that they should be resisted. The school demonstrated profound philosophical weekness, the Norwegian conviction of freedom of expression and freedom from interference in one's beliefs lost to the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that the traditional red cap is Satanic.

[HoreTore]

So you feel that the child should be sacrificed?

Fortunately for school children, most teachers feel that children should not be sacrificed. The parents may be crazy, but there is no reason why the child shiuld be made to suffer because of it. I. This case, the negative consequences wouldn't affect the parents, who are the ones to blame, but the child who has no say.

As for giving information, we are bound by law not to divulge information about the kids in our care to anyone but the childs parents, and in the case of criminal offences, to the relevant authority. So, hah.

[Sigurd]

As for Sigurd's comment, no, the school should absolutely not give out information about its students. They should simply not give a crap about a public debates need for facts. A school has a responsibility towards the children going there, not the general public, who can sod off.
It is the school's responsibility to give enough accurate information that would stop debates like the ones that followed the wake of this one. Especially if they take it to the public news!!!
No need to hand out names or which particular class. Those who know the school would know anyway.
Being vague about religious and especially cultural differences as a reason to not wearing a cultural symbol as the red cap - seems near intentional. As a, lets be clever and snipe at our opponent. Let's stir the pot a little, that'll show them. Some teachers needs to be told how stupid they are...

[HoreTore]

A parent in the class took it to the media, not the school.

[gaelic cowboy]

I believe the implication was that JW's were the ones looking to sacrifice there childs educational development.
They then proceded to demand everyone else sacrifice to accomadate there own nutjob belief in order to partake.


Basically the school should have stood firm or next thing the JW's will be banning effectively for everyone what they determine to be satanic.

[HoreTore]

If a parent wants to sacrifice their childs well-being, there is no reason why the school should let them.

Not wearing a santa hat isn't a sacrifice, not taking part in the social arena is.

[gaelic cowboy]

If a parent wants to sacrifice their childs well-being, there is no reason why the school should let them.

Not wearing a santa hat isn't a sacrifice, not taking part in the social arena is.

You seem to be under the illusion I was thinking the santa debacle hat was a big deal, the big deal was nutjobs thinking a santa hat is satanic and getting teachers to back this idea.

Everyone else was taking part yet the JW's were the ones saying they would pull out so there the defacto ones to blame are they not.

If these nutjobs want to pull there kids out of social events for fear of satanic influence they they might as well :daisy: off

What use is the school system if it buckles to this rubbish.

[Sigurd]

A parent in the class took it to the media, not the school.
Doesn't matter... When confronted by the media - they should simply not muddy the waters by vague inaccurate statements. They should have told it right the first time as they finally did: A fringe Norwegian ethnic religious society wanted so and so...and we catered to their demands. There, no names or class mentioned.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you feel that the child should be sacrificed?

Fortunately for school children, most teachers feel that children should not be sacrificed. The parents may be crazy, but there is no reason why the child shiuld be made to suffer because of it. I. This case, the negative consequences wouldn't affect the parents, who are the ones to blame, but the child who has no say.

If the parents are that crazy the child should be in care.

Otherwise, parents have ultimate responsibility for their child's wellbeing and if they genuinely feel the child will not benefit from partaking in what is, let us be clear, a non-Educational activity then they should be allowed to withdraw them.

This was a little show at the end of the year - not basic arithmatic - and the school chose to sacrifice the majority's participation for not even the "minority" but for the one, or the two depending on your perspective.

What if the child didn't want to participate because they thought it was Satanic?

This was a victory over Satan for them, don't you get that?


As for giving information, we are bound by law not to divulge information about the kids in our care to anyone but the childs parents, and in the case of criminal offences, to the relevant authority. So, hah.

It's not about the child - it's about the parents, what the school actually did was potentially expose several Musim children to reprisals for something their parents hadn't even done. As Sigurd said, speficiying vague "cultural" diferences implies "non-Norwegian" which seems likely to direct animosity in a certain direction.

So, hah, to you.

[HoreTore]

A school show is defenitely not in any way a non-educational event. It is integral to education.

And the law applies to information abiout the parents of a child as well as the child. So, hah, again.

The school cannot be held responsible for what parents say the media, nor what the media makes of it or what the right-wing racists do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A school show is defenitely not in any way a non-educational event. It is integral to education.

And the law applies to information abiout the parents of a child as well as the child. So, hah, again.

The school cannot be held responsible for what parents say the media, nor what the media makes of it or what the right-wing racists do.

How is the show educational, what are the Intended Learning Outcomes, or whatever you call them in Norway?

I sat out several Christmas plays throwing up with stage fright, I don't think I suffered.

If the school can't release any information then it shouldn't have released ANY information.

[HoreTore]

How is the show educational, what are the Intended Learning Outcomes, or whatever you call them in Norway?

I sat out several Christmas plays throwing up with stage fright, I don't think I suffered.

If the school can't release any information then it shouldn't have released ANY information.

1. Motivation and creation of a learning enviroment. There may be other goals as well, but I don't know what they did there, so I can't say. Expression in front of an audience is a central part of the curriculum in Norwegian, though.
2. They didn't give out any information, until the pirincipal caved under pressure and said that muslims had nothing to do with it.

[Fragony]

Paranoia strikes again!

All wrong of course. Conspiracy theories are always good stories, often much better than the truth. They are wrong though, like this one is.

This story is the latest development of a feud going back several years, between religious parents and atheist teachers, and atheist parents and religious teachers. Quite fun stories, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the principal.

As for Sigurd's comment, no, the school should absolutely not give out information about its students. They should simply not give a crap about a public debates need for facts. A school has a responsibility towards the children going there, not the general public, who can sod off.

Nah, just little feeling I get when things don't add up. How many times did this happen before. There is no backlash anyway, a sadistic LOLchristians is all good fun usually. And suddenly this? Nah must have gazed at rainbows, thought about awesome unicorns and needed damage control

[Beskar]

The child should have been excluded because society should not bend to the tyrnnical superstitions of the minority.
And, yes, before you ask that means we should have gay "marriage" in this country provided that is the more-or-less informed decision of the greater part of the people.

That is a very respectable position, PVC. To summarise: "I may not believe it in or be in favour of it, but it is wrong that my view should be forced upon others against the greater wishes".

(Then again, such a view is a grey area for me, there are a couple of black/white ones where such a position is bad. But for grey area/compromises, it is good.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is a very respectable position, PVC. To summarise: "I may not believe it in or be in favour of it, but it is wrong that my view should be forced upon others against the greater wishes".

(Then again, such a view is a grey area for me, there are a couple of black/white ones where such a position is bad. But for grey area/compromises, it is good.)

Essentially, yes.

You'll not I said, "more-or-less infrormed", my objection to a lot of the modern debates, abortion, the legal status of homosexual couples, etc. has less to do with my own opinion and much more to do with the way the debate is formed.

There are exceptions - slavery and child prostitution being good examples.

In this case though, the issue is not so much what those red caps symbolised, but that these parents chose to interpret them in a certain way. The key thing for me is that there are other valid interpretations, most have either a vaguely Christian or Pagan historical context but Norway has a fairly laid back relationship with religion, by and large, and any resonable person should be able to get past the historical baggage.

Where the school may have made a booboo is in calling it a "Santa show", if that is an accurate translation, because calling it that is potentially more contentious than just calling it a "Christmas show".

[HoreTore]

That is a very respectable position, PVC.

in society as a whole; most certainly.

As for wording, the exact wording was "nissefest" and "juleavslutning". Doesn't translate well at all. A "nisse" isn't a santa, more of a mix between a santa and a leprechaun. "Fest" means "party". Unlike you english, we don't have a word for the event between 24. and 31. December involving christ. We use the old word "jul", or anglizised "yule". In fact, the names we have for the holiday doesn't have as much to do with christianity as it has with Åsatru.

/end boring norwegianlecture

Edit: oh, might as well add that those two words are the standard naming convention for these kind of events, like christmas party is in english.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

in society as a whole; most certainly.

As for wording, the exact wording was "nissefest" and "juleavslutning". Doesn't translate well at all. A "nisse" isn't a santa, more of a mix between a santa and a leprechaun. "Fest" means "party". Unlike you english, we don't have a word for the event between 24. and 31. December involving christ. We use the old word "jul", or anglizised "yule". In fact, the names we have for the holiday doesn't have as much to do with christianity as it has with Åsatru.

/end boring norwegianlecture

Edit: oh, might as well add that those two words are the standard naming convention for these kind of events, like christmas party is in english.

OK, well that does shed some light on why the JH might call "Satanic" but, well, it's still unreasonable if they are the conventional terms.

Also, technically, we don't have a word for the season other than Yule, we just nicked "Christ-mass" from the Latin Church.

See, you Norwegians are too Protestant, so Protestant most of you are atheists!

[HoreTore]

Protestant? Atheist?

Nah... Nowadays, we sit in fields and get covered by angelfeathers (http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/02/17/princess-promotes-new-angel-book/)....

[Idaho]

Christmas is as we all know a Frankenstein's monster of different religion facets pasted over each other for the last few millennia, but is a tradition.

~:smoking:
No country is a finished picture. All it can ever be is an expression of a time and place. England isn't the same as in 1410 or in 1782. And it didn't exist at all 1500 years ago. There is nothing to defend. It will all change and change again. And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

[Fragony]

Society always change naturally over time, sure. But multiculturalists don't have the patience for it. It's a dangerous form of social enginering, or rather social alchemy. Try putting 100 people on an island, give 50 a red shirt and 50 a blue shirt, it's guarenteed trouble even if they grew up together they will become enemies

[Idaho]

"Multiculturalists" and "multiculturalism" are both straw men. There isn't really any such thing. People have migrated and moved to different places throughout history. And throughout history there has been debate as to whether it is a good or band thing, and how it should be dealt with. There is nothing new here. Only the labels on the participants changes.

There are some people who have said (and currently do) that such migrations are the end of the world and will cause problems. There are some people who have said (and currently do) that migrations are necessary. There are some people who have said (and currently do) that these things are inevitable. There are some people who claim to like migrations, but would really rather they only happened in the scruffy parts of town where they can visit from time to time to buy interesting ethnic artifacts.

My problem with your position, Fragony, is that it neither understands it's own historical context, nor does it really have any cohesive vision about what it really *does* want. You seem to want to impose some vision on what being Dutch/British/European is, but at the same time rail against the external imposition of cultural notions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No country is a finished picture. All it can ever be is an expression of a time and place. England isn't the same as in 1410 or in 1782. And it didn't exist at all 1500 years ago. There is nothing to defend. It will all change and change again. And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

This kind of talk is the dream result for progressive historians. Convince people that it's all just fashion and that you're the avant garde.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No country is a finished picture. All it can ever be is an expression of a time and place. England isn't the same as in 1410 or in 1782. And it didn't exist at all 1500 years ago. There is nothing to defend. It will all change and change again. And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

Rapid change has generally precipitated social collapse. You might think England has changed a lot in the last 1000 years, but you live in the same shire you would have 1000 years ago, the same city, walking the same basic street plan (excepting Princesshay and the Iron bridge). The majority of the people you see every day have pale faces, dark-ish hair, or blond and the most common eye colour are a fairly neutral blue, brown and hazel. These people speak a Germanic language, most identify as heterosexual, they live in family units, usually, with two parents, sometimes the father is absent. Those couples that do go together, the men tend to take one night a week to go out and get drunk on some form of grain-based intoxicant, and possibly indulge in some opiates or something more exotic.

This is not unlike 1,000 years ago, and just like 1,000 years ago the South is prosperous, especially the London merchants, and the Danes in the North are poor.

It's comforting to talk about tour culture being "unifinished" but since we kicked the Vikings out under Alfred, Edward and Aethelstan we have mostly been adding to the edges, even the Norman invasion made more of a dent in the nation's social and political trajectory rather than fundamentally altering it.

However, when you have a large new demographic come in, as we have not had since the Viking invasions, they really stir things up and not in a way that is pleasent for the indiginous people who live through the turmoil.

Just curious, why 1410? That's not really an important English date like say, 1399, 1401 or 1415.

[Strike For The South]

Nice try, Benidict Anderson

[Greyblades]

Just curious, why 1410? That's not really an important English date like say, 1399, 1401 or 1415.

I'm abit curious too, what happened on 1401?

[Strike For The South]

I'm abit curious too, what happened on 1401?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo

LEARN YOUR HISTORY LIMEY

[Fragony]

Idaho, there is really an ideoligy behind it it's not just freedom of movement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

[Greyblades]

LEARN YOUR HISTORY LIMEY
BITE ME YANKY

Seriously though, it never came up in my school's history class, the closest thing I got was a 4th year with the tudors.

[Strike For The South]

BITE ME YANKY

Seriously though, it never came up in my school's history class, the closest thing I got was a 4th year with the tudors.

Perhaps you should do some suplemental reading

[Greyblades]

Yeah, I should, good thing half the stuff I read in the backroom from members like PVC are pretty educational.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo

LEARN YOUR HISTORY LIMEY

Strike has the right of it.

Kudos Strike for being particularly well informed.

Yes, until 1401 we did not burn heretics at the stake, in fact generally we didn't execute them either, and torture was illegal.

Then we went all "European" after Wyclif died and the Lollard peasants got uppardy.

[Strike For The South]

Wyclife, Hus, Luther, Calvin. The most imporant men in true Christendom

/troll face

[Idaho]

Rapid change has generally precipitated social collapse.

....

Just curious, why 1410? That's not really an important English date like say, 1399, 1401 or 1415.

No it hasn't. It simply hasn't. Give me three examples. I could give you 20 examples of the contrary off the top of my head where civilisations where predicated and *built* upon rapid change.

1410 - just an arbitrary date. A bit like 2012.

[Idaho]

This kind of talk is the dream result for progressive historians. Convince people that it's all just fashion and that you're the avant garde.

Sorry I don't understand this comment.

Are you saying that things don't go in cycles, that cultures, politics and economic modes come and go?

I know the idea is galling to Americans brought up on the neo-con "end of history" fantasy.

[Strike For The South]

Sorry I don't understand this comment.

Are you saying that things don't go in cycles, that cultures, politics and economic modes come and go?

I know the idea is galling to Americans brought up on the neo-con "end of history" fantasy.

Don't blame Francis. Blame Hunington.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sorry I don't understand this comment.


And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

This is the kind of narrative that has resulted in modern art. "Change good, traditionalists stupid".

Culture is not fashion, people who think so have no depth. It's sad that people are really into fads and fashions, but it's sick that they treat politics like fashion.

[Idaho]

Don't blame Francis. Blame Hunington.

No idea of who you are talking about. American cultural reference?

[Idaho]

This is the kind of narrative that has resulted in modern art. "Change good, traditionalists stupid".

Culture is not fashion, people who think so have no depth. It's sad that people are really into fads and fashions, but it's sick that they treat politics like fashion.

Imagine human culture is a line. Think of fashion at one end - the fickle end of the line and politics a lot further along towards the other end, the significant, macro end of human culture. Both are subject to change. Both have a cyclical element. Both are intrinsically bound up with economic cycles.

I am not saying that change for it's own sake is good (although, of course, the Buddhists would suggest that it is the one constant in the universe). I am saying that cultural change is inevitable. Cultural entropy if you will. It has always happened according to any study of the historical, genetic and archaeological evidence. In the face of all I have seen, read and studied, I can only be a pragmatist. Being a traditionalists or cultural conservative makes no sense. No one has ever successfully fought off change or entropy.

And yet conservatism and traditionalism is never truly about rejecting change. It's confused and irrational. It's all about that natural human urge to fear the tribe over the hill. The tribe that came over the hill and enslaved our ancestors is doubtless deep in our genetic memory. It's a natural instinct. It's instinctive element is what makes it stand up so poorly to scrutiny. Conservatives in this country are probably like those in yours, in that they are anti-immigration, yet employ immigrant servants (because they are cheap), hold their money offshore (to pay less tax) and move unfettered around world making money. And why not eh? It's their planet after all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm, my impression is quite different.

Progressives are people trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because they can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered. Conservatives are people who were going about their regular lives until they saw what the progressive was trying to do, which came as a nasty shock, and reacted by going to save the baby. (Meanwhile the libertarian is there saying "the baby can fend for itself! Leave it free to fend for itself!", lol)

I place the blame squarely on progressives. If you are arguing for change, you have to do a really good job. You can't just pat yourself on the back about how the conservatives don't realize the bathwater is dirty.

"Change is inevitable" is not an answer to the question "Why change?"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No it hasn't. It simply hasn't. Give me three examples. I could give you 20 examples of the contrary off the top of my head where civilisations where predicated and *built* upon rapid change.

1410 - just an arbitrary date. A bit like 2012.

Mass influx of Saxons to Britannia: social collapse, province fragments into petty kingdoms, Celtic culture largely dies out.

Mass influx of Danes to Northumbria: Social collapse, Kindom fragments, Saxon administration wiped out, including Eccesiastical, many Saxons reportedly revery to Paganism - the language survives only because it is close to Norse and the kingdom comes under West Saxon sway within two generations.

Mass influx of German refugees into Roman Empire: Social collapse, civil strife, break down of law and order as well as central control leads to fighting between German exiles Roman army, Empire ceases to exist in less than four generations.

Mass influx of the Caliph's Arabian armies into North Africa: Abject and total collapse, language, culture, religion and civil administration completely replaced.

Large influx of Normans and English mercenaries into Ireland: Partial collapse, Kingdom never recovers economically or administratively, precipitates population collapse, Kingdom eventually absorbed by Engalnd. Relatively strong cultural survival due to (relatively) small number of immigrants.

Mass influx of Romans into Gaul (post-Gallic War): Indiginous culture wiped out, worst estimate states 1 million dead, 1 million enslaved, constituting 2/3rds of population.

To give you an idea, the number of Saxons who came to Britain is estimated at around 200,000 over a few generations, against about 2 million Romano-Britons. As you know, the Romano-Britons were driven to Wales, Cornwall and Ireland.

Lets see...

Mass influx of Spanish and Portugese settlers into Meso America: Effective genocide, several cultures completely wiped out, scant remaining traces.

Mass influx of Europeans into Northern Americas: Native genocide, estimates of potentially 90% drop in native population numbers, culture survives in only small pockets.

I gave you nine examples, so you owe me sixty where a rapid demographic change didn't precipitate widespread strife and suffering. You'll note that in most cases I have not chosen actual deliberate expeditions of conquest.

[HoreTore]

How did this thread turn into an english history lesson?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How did this thread turn into an english history lesson?


because when Swein and then Cnut invaded England it didn't stick.

Norwegian conquest failed to make a lasting impression, except for the Huscarls.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No idea of who you are talking about. American cultural reference?

Clash of Civilizations. He meant (Samuel) Huntington, and Francis Fukuyama of course.

[Idaho]

Mass influx of Saxons to Britannia: social collapse, province fragments into petty kingdoms, Celtic culture largely dies out.

To give you an idea, the number of Saxons who came to Britain is estimated at around 200,000 over a few generations, against about 2 million Romano-Britons. As you know, the Romano-Britons were driven to Wales, Cornwall and Ireland.

Mass influx of Danes to Northumbria: Social collapse, Kindom fragments, Saxon administration wiped out, including Eccesiastical, many Saxons reportedly revery to Paganism - the language survives only because it is close to Norse and the kingdom comes under West Saxon sway within two generations.

Interesting examples. Especially as the notion of a Saxon invasion en masse is now widely discredited by the archaeological and genetic record. The prevailing theory now being that a gradual influx of a smaller number of wealthy and technologically advanced Saxon tribes supplanted the existing post Roman heirarchy, without really affecting the general populous. The very notion of celts being a distinct group displaced and driven into Wales, Scotland and Cornwall by a distinct group of ravaging Saxons has been largely abandoned by scholars.

As with your second example, most of this history is based on the written work of monks many hundreds of years later from a limited number of existing documents plus the oral history at the time. It invariably conflates the activities of the ruling class with the general conditions of the wider populous.


Mass influx of German refugees into Roman Empire: Social collapse, civil strife, break down of law and order as well as central control leads to fighting between German exiles Roman army, Empire ceases to exist in less than four generations.

Mass influx of the Caliph's Arabian armies into North Africa: Abject and total collapse, language, culture, religion and civil administration completely replaced.

Large influx of Normans and English mercenaries into Ireland: Partial collapse, Kingdom never recovers economically or administratively, precipitates population collapse, Kingdom eventually absorbed by Engalnd. Relatively strong cultural survival due to (relatively) small number of immigrants.

Mass influx of Romans into Gaul (post-Gallic War): Indiginous culture wiped out, worst estimate states 1 million dead, 1 million enslaved, constituting 2/3rds of population.

My knowledge of these isn't good. But they appear to be describing military invasions and occupations, as opposed to migrations of peoples.


Lets see...

Mass influx of Spanish and Portugese settlers into Meso America: Effective genocide, several cultures completely wiped out, scant remaining traces.

Mass influx of Europeans into Northern Americas: Native genocide, estimates of potentially 90% drop in native population numbers, culture survives in only small pockets.

I gave you nine examples, so you owe me sixty where a rapid demographic change didn't precipitate widespread strife and suffering. You'll note that in most cases I have not chosen actual deliberate expeditions of conquest.

Now those are worth a look. Mainly because they are such a polar opposite to the migrations we are currently seeing in both scale, technological disparity and pre-existing conditions. Modern estimates suggest that the vast majority of the genocide of the native Americans was triggered by first contact. The spreading of smallpox, measles and other germs is thought to have wiped out well over 50% of the population before people started showing up with guns and armour.

Surely we should be looking at examples where a relatively small immigrant group - say less than 5% of the pre-existing population - are brought into society in a short space of time. Irish immigration into England in the mid C19th. Huguenot immigration to London in the late C17th. Jewish immigration into London and Manchester in the late C19th. Chinese migrations into key cities in South East Asia. Indian migration into East Africa in the C20th.

All these above example show that conflict, rioting and civil unrest are inevitable, but relatively short-lived. There is resentment, political pressure and violent reaction from the pre-existing populous, but after 50 years, it's business as usual.

[Idaho]

"Change is inevitable" is not an answer to the question "Why change?"

It isn't an answer at all. The question "Why change?" is like my children asking me "Why can't it be sunny today? We want to go to the park". There is no answer. Just that "bad weather is inevitable".

[HoreTore]

Might as well add "urbanization in general" to your list, Idaho.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting examples. Especially as the notion of a Saxon invasion en masse is now widely discredited by the archaeological and genetic record. The prevailing theory now being that a gradual influx of a smaller number of wealthy and technologically advanced Saxon tribes supplanted the existing post Roman heirarchy, without really affecting the general populous. The very notion of celts being a distinct group displaced and driven into Wales, Scotland and Cornwall by a distinct group of ravaging Saxons has been largely abandoned by scholars.

I take it you didn't do the maths - 200,000 Saxons over several generations, that is modern estimate - once they were all here they would have constituted around 10% of the population, perhaps less, and yet they drove the Romano-British (the previous ruling class) into Wales, Cornwall and Ireland and sufficiently subjugated the people that they ceased to speak any Celtic language, or worship Celtic or Roman Gods.

That is a catastrophic social collapse, where the population isn't wiped out but the culture is completely subsumed or just replaced.

The very notion of "Celts" has been abandoned by scholars, but the "Celtic" cultural grouping is still accpeted, you are confusing ethnic migration with cultural displacement. Ethnically, the people in East and West Wales today are the same, but culturally they are distinct.


As with your second example, most of this history is based on the written work of monks many hundreds of years later from a limited number of existing documents plus the oral history at the time. It invariably conflates the activities of the ruling class with the general conditions of the wider populous.

No it isn't, not "hundreds of years later" at any rate. This was going on whilst the West Saxons and Alfred himself was writing. You forget, Saxon culture was highly advanced and more literate than any other probably outside Italy at this time. More so, you make the point yourself - the fact that there were no monks in contemporary Northumbria speaks volumes given the number of Monestaries the Northumbrian nobility endowed.


My knowledge of these isn't good. But they appear to be describing military invasions and occupations, as opposed to migrations of peoples.

The Germans entered Roman territory as supplicant reffugees, only later did they go to war with Rome, the Germanic unwillingness to fight or destroy Roman property is amply demonstrated by Alaric's sack of Rome. Bear in mind, the Germans were also Christians (by and large).

The Roman Gallic invasions, well consider this: Rome also invaded Britain, yet the lower classes never spoke vulgar Latin to the exclusion of their Celtic tongues in Britain as they did in Gaul, so far as we know.


Now those are worth a look. Mainly because they are such a polar opposite to the migrations we are currently seeing in both scale, technological disparity and pre-existing conditions. Modern estimates suggest that the vast majority of the genocide of the native Americans was triggered by first contact. The spreading of smallpox, measles and other germs is thought to have wiped out well over 50% of the population before people started showing up with guns and armour.

Surely we should be looking at examples where a relatively small immigrant group - say less than 5% of the pre-existing population - are brought into society in a short space of time. Irish immigration into England in the mid C19th. Huguenot immigration to London in the late C17th. Jewish immigration into London and Manchester in the late C19th. Chinese migrations into key cities in South East Asia. Indian migration into East Africa in the C20th.

All these above example show that conflict, rioting and civil unrest are inevitable, but relatively short-lived. There is resentment, political pressure and violent reaction from the pre-existing populous, but after 50 years, it's business as usual.

What about the other 40% though? They were displaced by what were, initially, relatively small numbers of Europeans.

The point is, Euorep is not experiencing "relatively" small immigrations, but mass immigrations at a faster rate than any time probably since the fall of Rome. The last census in the UK saw the "other ethnic groups" rise by about 1%, in the space of ten years, if that trend keeps up at the current rate the population of "ethnic minorities" in the UK will double from around 10% today to 20% certainly by the before the end of my life if not the end of my children's lives. I would say it will take 50 years at the outside.

To put it another way, if 200,000 Saxons came to Britain over the course of 3-4 generations then we are at least equalling that rate today, and history tells us we should be concerned.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It isn't an answer at all. The question "Why change?" is like my children asking me "Why can't it be sunny today? We want to go to the park". There is no answer. Just that "bad weather is inevitable".

England has no more control over immigration than over the weather?????

[Idaho]

England has no more control over immigration than over the weather?????

Now that would be an interesting discussion. Does limiting and guiding a random current make it any less random? I think we would be going considerably off piste though.

[Idaho]

To put it another way, if 200,000 Saxons came to Britain over the course of 3-4 generations then we are at least equalling that rate today, and history tells us we should be concerned.

An interesting discussion. There are numerous directions it could take. How about we take your premise at face value, for argument's sake. What would you then propose? Would you also limit British people's freedom to travel and emigrate? Would you accept other countries restricting our liberty in this regard?

[Papewaio]

If it is culture (memes) not ethnic groups (genes) that one wishes to stop than you have next to no chance. Might as well stop the tide with a bucket.

Culture spreads beyond ethnic groups. It's how come after two generations immigrant kids mostly speak with a local accent and have local expectations and desires.

To stop culture spreading you have to stop communication spreading. You would have to stop tv, cable, satellite and the Internet and we know how well off North Koreans are off in their culturally isolated paradise.

Immigrant parents complain about children becomming westernized. Then they visit their families back where they first came from and find their nephews and necies just as if not more imbedded in western ideas.

If UK wants to kick out all memes from other cultures not born within its shores than it will have to gut some 2/3rds plus of its language. Other ideas such as lager and curry I'd have to pry from dead cold hands.

[HoreTore]

England has no more control over immigration than over the weather?????

Unless you propose building a wall all around england with a guard tower every 50 metres, then no, immigration isn't something you can affect much.

Or bring an end to world poverty and exploitation, of course, that would shut immigration down instantly. Good luck.

If none of the above is Viable, the best you can hope for is to shift the current over to another european country.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Unless you propose building a wall all around england with a guard tower every 50 metres, then no, immigration isn't something you can affect much.


I suggest a moat. A really wide one.

[HoreTore]

I suggest a moat. A really wide one.

You'd need to massacre them at the border.

Fortunately, should any leader willing to do that gain control of England, the US will show up and crush the tiny european military once again.

[Kralizec]

Unless you propose building a wall all around england with a guard tower every 50 metres, then no, immigration isn't something you can affect much.

Or bring an end to world poverty and exploitation, of course, that would shut immigration down instantly. Good luck.

If none of the above is Viable, the best you can hope for is to shift the current over to another european country.

It's true that restrictive immigration policies don't stop a certain amount of people from going to [insert country] anyway.

Common sense would say, however, that without those restrictive policies the amount would be a lot larger. Admittedly allowing anyone in would at least get rid of the problem of illegal aliens, but there would simply be too many to handle.

And do remember that not every country is like Norway - you have almost 10 times the amount of land that we do, and less then a third of our population.

[Greyblades]

You'd need to massacre them at the border.

Fortunately, should any leader willing to do that gain control of England, the US will show up and crush the tiny european military once again.

Once again?

[Beskar]

Once again?

He was doing a slight godwin reference, hinted through the use of "European Military".

[Greyblades]

Oh, OK then.
Though what's this crud about European millitary?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh, OK then.
Though what's this crud about European millitary?

Not a Godwin, just missing "their" and it's a little tease. ~;)