Backroom Errata

[Montmorency]

So I was skimming into coalition transgressions during the occupation of Iraq, and ended up looking at Fallujah, 2004. One incident that caught my eye was a war crimes accusation by a correspondent that a Marine had executed a wounded, unarmed Iraqi on the ground.

On one hand, this op-ed (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/11/what_the_marine_did.html) suggests that this was a regrettable event but not a crime because the soldier made a rapid, though poor, decision under the pressure of the moment.

On the other, the embedded correspondent (http://thevisionmachine.com/2014/01/shooting-death-kevin-sites-fallujah/) described the scene thus:


Platoon takes fire from mosque. Platoon assaults and takes mosque, killing 10 and wounding 5. Dead are bagged and wounded processed for extraction to the rear. Platoon moves on for the day.
Night passes. In the morning, the platoon is informed that fire is coming from the same mosque. Platoon backtracks and investigates the mosque.
Dead are all still there, and the same wounded as well - but one of the five is now dead, and some of the rest have fresh, bleeding, wounds.
One of the Marines voices suspicion that one of the wounded is feigning death. Marine walks up to the insurgent, shoots him once, and walks away.

For the relevant footage of the incident, watch the last minute of the Part 1 in this link. Tell me how you see it (@spmetla), because to the untrained eye what that looks like is exactly how one would imagine a war crime against POWs transpiring. Measured, deliberate, and not an "instinctual" act in the heat of combat.

Ultimately a military investigation found no wrongdoing (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7738733/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/marine-clearedin-mosqueshootings-probe/#.WbQGArKGOHs) to pursue in the incident (apparently the same soldier shot 2 other of the wounded there as well).


Sources tell NBC News the decision was based on the fact the Marines had been warned that the enemy would feign death and booby-trap bodies as a tactic to lure Marines to their deaths. The sources said the corporal apparently feared for his life when he fired the shots.

Does that really hold up if these guys were known to have been incapacitated and secured previously, by the same unit in the same building? At the very least, where were the MPs or medics to take them away the day before?


But the investigation is not over. At least one other Marine remains under investigation for shooting the fourth unarmed insurgent in that same mosque.

I can't find anything for that investigation, but damn. 5 men captured, all dead on site within a day.

I recall from one WW2 documentary the rationalization of a German infantryman for killing a Soviet soldier during Barbarossa. German forces were advancing, and the subject came upon a Russian, whom he ordered to raise his hands. The Russian, paralyzed with fear, made no response, so after a period the German shot him and moved forward. As described that seems understandable; it could be risky to personally disarm an enemy combatant and to guard them while waiting for backup, or lead them to the rear alone. The Fallujah incident is more difficult to understand.

[Fragony]

That case even got attention here. Nobody was eager to take a position. I am not very eager to do that either, glad I don't have to

[Sarmatian]

It's a war crime, plain and simple. There's absolutely no ambiguity.

Of course his life was in danger, he was a soldier in a war. That isn't a blank check to shoot unarmed people, combatants or civilians.

[Fragony]

Ya technically it is really as simple as that, I still find it hard though, I have never been in situations like that I don't find it all that straightforward

[Montmorency]

Without further information, I suspect the investigation found no wrong-doing because the soldiers who shot the captured insurgents were technically following ROE for the battle to "check" dead bodies or apparently dead bodies.

In other words, if you assume that there were numerous incidents like this one during the battle, and the letter of doctrine allowed it, then this group of soldiers could absolutely not be court-martialed without implicating dozens or hundreds of others, potentially up to the staff. Price of justice too high to pay this time. :shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Without further information, I suspect the investigation found no wrong-doing because the soldiers who shot the captured insurgents were technically following ROE for the battle to "check" dead bodies or apparently dead bodies.

In other words, if you assume that there were numerous incidents like this one during the battle, and the letter of doctrine allowed it, then this group of soldiers could absolutely not be court-martialed without implicating dozens or hundreds of others, potentially up to the staff. Price of justice too high to pay this time. :shrug:

Probably a fair assessment of the mind of the decision makers in this instance. People feigning casualty status in order to conduct an attack from surprise tend to make ALL of the opposing soldiers leery of any questionable circumstance and leave them prone to committing war crimes. That has happened to US forces in the past, where fear/frustration become pervasive and encourage behavior that is out of line.

[spmetla]

Without further information, I suspect the investigation found no wrong-doing because the soldiers who shot the captured insurgents were technically following ROE for the battle to "check" dead bodies or apparently dead bodies.

In other words, if you assume that there were numerous incidents like this one during the battle, and the letter of doctrine allowed it, then this group of soldiers could absolutely not be court-martialed without implicating dozens or hundreds of others, potentially up to the staff. Price of justice too high to pay this time. :shrug:

When I went through basic training (Ft. Benning 2002-3) I was taught that up to the point of search and capture it was fine to to engage uniformed or identified enemies with force. Once take into care and custody after search then Soldiers are obligated to safeguard said prisoner.

This incident in particular now that I re-read it a bit older and wiser I see this as being a warcrime. When I first read this I was gearing up for my first deployment to Iraq and was not too sympathetic in attitude. That being said given the heat of the moment after combat not all people come down from that high quickly. It is difficult to switch into caring for someone that moments before in a different situation was trying to kill you.
One of the odd things about war and one of the attractions to it for many young men is that it simplifies things to us versus them. The value of live of those that aren't with 'us' degrades substantially, especially if we assume that the innocents are such and actually suppor our enemies.

It's one of the reasons that prisoners need to be safeguarded and sped to the rear; because the capturing Soldiers generally don't want to care for their enemy, especially from one that will more likely than not offer no kindness as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions.

This incident in particular though, If I were forced to decide in my current position and rank as an officer I would prosecute the Marine if he were mine. The prisoners were in our care and needed to be safeguarded.
When I was enlisted though and shared the mentality of those on the line I would side with the Marine in his callous and deadly attitude toward the enemy and the civilians that support him (actively or passively). The US military had told civilians to evacuate because they would attack which is one of the reasons that civilians were treated harshly in that battle, because they were assumed to support the enemy even if it was passively.

War is hell and the man's death is tragic. It shames me now that that such incidents happen but at the same time I can understand the Marines' actions. At the end of the day though debating how just the man's death is or not is tragic due to the war and situation in general, there's no clear cut answers when it comes to killing. We try to regulate war through uniforms, conventions, weapons bans but it is still killing on a massive scale to help ones side.
One of the tragedies (and strategies) of all insurgencies is that due to the lack of a uniformed enemy the formal military or police will always be extremely doubtful of the innocence of any civilian which results in a lot of civilians being killed by association with the enemy without regard of the civilian's circumstance.

Even though I would try the marine and see this as a warcrime I still don't mind the verdict too much which is not too comforting for my own analysis of my consistency in such moral dilemmas or how callus I've become to the plight of such civilians in the crossfire.

[Gilrandir]

It's a war crime, plain and simple. There's absolutely no ambiguity.

Of course his life was in danger, he was a soldier in a war. That isn't a blank check to shoot unarmed people, combatants or civilians.

Nothing was said about the Soviet soldier being armed or unarmed. That is if you meant this very episode.

[Husar]

Nothing was said about the Soviet soldier being armed or unarmed. That is if you meant this very episode.

~:confused:

Soviet soldiers hiding in a mosque in Iraq in 2004?
Do you come from a parallel universe?

[Gilrandir]

~:confused:

Soviet soldiers hiding in a mosque in Iraq in 2004?
Do you come from a parallel universe?

#1


.....
I recall from one WW2 documentary the rationalization of a German infantryman for killing a Soviet soldier during Barbarossa. German forces were advancing, and the subject came upon a Russian, whom he ordered to raise his hands. The Russian, paralyzed with fear, made no response, so after a period the German shot him and moved forward. As described that seems understandable; it could be risky to personally disarm an enemy combatant and to guard them while waiting for backup, or lead them to the rear alone. The Fallujah incident is more difficult to understand.

# 3

It's a war crime, plain and simple. There's absolutely no ambiguity.

Of course his life was in danger, he was a soldier in a war. That isn't a blank check to shoot unarmed people, combatants or civilians.

Mine:

Nothing was said about the Soviet soldier being armed or unarmed. That is if you meant this very episode.

Conclusion: try to be more reasonable before lashing about like you did. In your defense: you don't normally. A bad day?

[rory_20_uk]

SOPs for a warzone are invariably written by lawyers who have never been in a situation where they are in danger.

We bomb entire cities to the bedrock and that's fine and one soldier is a war criminal?

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

#1



# 3


Mine:


Conclusion: try to be more reasonable before lashing about like you did. In your defense: you don't normally. A bad day?

To respond to the issue, I don't recall what the interviewee specified, or if he specified it at all, or if he did and lied, or if he misremembered...

To speak abstractly then, if two opposing, armed enemy soldiers encounter each other alone, one demands surrender, and the other does not respond physically or verbally, it is understandable for the first to 'neutralize' the second. And the Geneva standards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention) don't seem to extend protection over such a case.


SOPs for a warzone are invariably written by lawyers who have never been in a situation where they are in danger.

We bomb entire cities to the bedrock and that's fine and one soldier is a war criminal?

~:smoking:

I think that's the concern I identified. To try an individual is manageable (affordable), but if the organization bears culpability, that's ruinous to pursue to its logical conclusion.

[Sarmatian]

I think that's the concern I identified. To try an individual is manageable (affordable), but if the organization bears culpability, that's ruinous to pursue to its logical conclusion.

We need specify are we talking about moral issues or legal practicality here.

From legal point of view, it doesn't really matter. Some countries, most notably USA, but also other powerful countries like Russia and China can do what they want with impunity. The international institutions are set up in such a way that they could never be held legally responsible, and even if they were by some miracle, it would be impossible to enforce such a ruling. Go back a few decades, every single American president was a war criminal. Who's gonna come over and arrest an American president?

A multipolar world might at least bring some semblance of equality as multiple centers of power would keep each other in check. On the other hand, it could go horribly wrong, see WW1.

So, I'm not very interested in legal issues, because of those reasons. I find moral aspects more important, and with those in mind, the marine involved was guilty. There was even no draft for the Iraqi war. He volunteered for service. If he sincerely didn't expect to be put in a situation where his life might be in danger than he had no grasp of reality.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

#1



# 3


Mine:


Conclusion: try to be more reasonable before lashing about like you did. In your defense: you don't normally. A bad day?

Likely Husar was playing off the natural "mistake" in confusing the two in order to generate humor. I admit to having chuckled.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A multipolar world might at least bring some semblance of equality as multiple centers of power would keep each other in check. On the other hand, it could go horribly wrong, see WW1.

For some reason, this only seems to balance when there are 5 clear powers. The development of more or the reduction from 5 seems to cause problems. Not quite sure how that seems to work out that way.

[Fragony]

So, I'm not very interested in legal issues, because of those reasons. I find moral aspects more important, and with those in mind, the marine involved was guilty. There was even no draft for the Iraqi war. He volunteered for service. If he sincerely didn't expect to be put in a situation where his life might be in danger than he had no grasp of reality.

If you say he commited a warcrime, basta, yo seem to be not interested in morality at all. Just musing, I think it really becomes a warcrime when it's an order, a stressed grunt shold be able to be trialed for manslaughter or murder, but only an officer for warcrimes

[Montmorency]

We need specify are we talking about moral issues or legal practicality here.

From legal point of view, it doesn't really matter. Some countries, most notably USA, but also other powerful countries like Russia and China can do what they want with impunity. The international institutions are set up in such a way that they could never be held legally responsible, and even if they were by some miracle, it would be impossible to enforce such a ruling. Go back a few decades, every single American president was a war criminal. Who's gonna come over and arrest an American president?

A multipolar world might at least bring some semblance of equality as multiple centers of power would keep each other in check. On the other hand, it could go horribly wrong, see WW1.

So, I'm not very interested in legal issues, because of those reasons. I find moral aspects more important, and with those in mind, the marine involved was guilty. There was even no draft for the Iraqi war. He volunteered for service. If he sincerely didn't expect to be put in a situation where his life might be in danger than he had no grasp of reality.

The moral issue is the same as the legal one in my original question to the thread, since the matter struck me as war-crimey and I'm asking how you all judge the legality.

My subsequent thoughts are speculating on why the official investigation came to a different conclusion.

That is, if successful courts-martial of the Marine and his comrade sets a precedent over the incident, then there isn't much to justify why that precedent shouldn't be pursued in likely similar incidents throughout the battle involving many other Marines and soldiers. Indeed, if it turns out the operating procedure developed for the battle was especially prone to encourage or demand actions that would frequently be criminal, you could move up to high-ranking officers, and eventually even the civilian leadership, who developed and approved these procedures.

Justice is easy to apply to 'isolated' cases, but if you take strict legalism to its logical conclusion the whole institution implodes - for example, as in your example of trying the POTUS for war crimes.

[Husar]

Conclusion: try to be more reasonable before lashing about like you did. In your defense: you don't normally. A bad day?


Likely Husar was playing off the natural "mistake" in confusing the two in order to generate humor. I admit to having chuckled.

Not quite, it seemed like a side note from Montmorency, an inaccurate recollection with the note that it was not quite comparable to the actual topic, so I forgot about it. I retract the different dimension comment but maintain the point that you/Gilrandir always want(s) to make every topic about Russia. :sweatdrop:

It seemed quite odd to assume Sarmatian was commenting on the Russian part without explicitly saying so in the first place.

[Gilrandir]

I retract the different dimension comment but maintain the point that you/Gilrandir always want(s) to make every topic about Russia. :sweatdrop:


Like your insulting remark could be justified by the alleged shortcomings of the person it was aimed at ("perhaps this time I misfired, but he is like that anyway")? I understand your chain of reasoning and hail your retraction, but a simple apology would suit better.

As for my purported desire to always talk about Russia:
I don't DESIRE to, I prefer to talk of things I know better, that of things I know worse. In the latter case I keep silent.

As for the post in question, it was about a SOVIET soldier, not a RUSSIAN one, so you misfired again.



It seemed quite odd to assume Sarmatian was commenting on the Russian part without explicitly saying so in the first place.
So odd that it seems he comes from Dagobar system?~;)

[Husar]

Like your insulting remark could be justified by the alleged shortcomings of the person it was aimed at ("perhaps this time I misfired, but he is like that anyway")?

Quite a few people might think it would be cool to be able to travel between dimensions, but okay, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I don't even remember whether that was the intenion. :embarassed::sad2:

[Gilrandir]

Quite a few people might think it would be cool to be able to travel between dimensions, but okay, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings,

:bow:



I don't even remember whether that was the intenion. :embarassed::sad2:

See what happens with your memory when you shuttle there and back again between the Earth and Tatooin.:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you say he commited a warcrime, basta, yo seem to be not interested in morality at all. Just musing, I think it really becomes a warcrime when it's an order, a stressed grunt shold be able to be trialed for manslaughter or murder, but only an officer for warcrimes

Soldiers are responsible for their own actions. Officers are responsible for the actions they order of others AND their own actions.

[Montmorency]

This Current Affairs (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/being-held-hostage-by-rich-people) outfit is regularly producing good material:


here is a certain species of argument that is frequently raised in response to attempts to restrain the influence and power of corporations and the wealthy. It is, roughly: you will fail, therefore you should accept things as they are and not try to tamper with them. If you try to, say, issue some sort of new tax, you will be told that the wealthy will take their money offshore, with the implication that you should therefore not issue the tax.

Of course, it doesn’t necessarily imply that at all: the argument is a non sequitur, because “X alone won’t work” doesn’t necessarily mean “X shouldn’t be done,” it might just mean “X shouldn’t be done without also doing Y.” If the argument is “corporations will simply get around this new regulation,” that isn’t necessarily reason not to pass the regulation, it might just be reason to figure out ways to make sure you can enforce it effectively.


The funny thing about these “it won’t work” arguments is that they often make the case for revolutionary socialism just as well as they make the case for inaction. [...] The people who make these arguments want us to reach the conclusion “Don’t even bother…” but if we examine them carefully, we can see that they can equally well mean “Don’t even bother… doing anything short of totally changing the economic system.”


...conservative arguments almost never change. They tend to be variations on three themes: perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Perversity arguments are of the sort that say “this is immoral and goes against God’s will/tradition/the state/etc.” (Think culturally conservative arguments against homosexuality.) Jeopardy arguments suggest that some proposed change would jeopardize what we already have (“you’ll hurt the people you’re trying to help”). And futility arguments contend that it’s pointless to try to act, because you won’t succeed (futility and jeopardy are often used in conjunction: you’ll fail, and you’ll make things worse). The perversity, futility, jeopardy framework is very useful, because it allows us to recognize that conservative arguments are often formed prior to any examination of the facts: whatever the change is, we will be told that it is futile and will only make us worse off. That’s why there’s good reason to be skeptical of them. They may be correct, but it’s also frequently true that the speaker doesn’t really care whether they’re correct, because being a conservative means constantly saying that some proposed change will do no good, is an abomination, and will actually hurt the people you’re trying to help.


Note that Schoen might be right that refusing to criticize Wall Street makes “economic sense” for the party: if you criticize the rich, they are unlikely to donate to your cause. But Schoen is also telling us that we are essentially held hostage by Wall Street: if you tick them off, they’ll move their money to the other side, and then you’ll lose. It’s an admission that the United States is in no way democratic: it doesn’t matter what people want, it matters what Wall Street wants, because they have the money, and so the people have to please them. This is true regardless of whether the criticisms of Wall Street have merit; Schoen doesn’t really refute the charges that are made. Instead, his posture is pragmatic: it doesn’t matter whether you’re right, it matters that they have money and you don’t. Schoen decries the Democratic embrace of “stifling” regulations, meaning a refusal to let Wall Street do as it pleases without consequence.


The pattern of Schoen’s rhetoric is familiar: Resistance is futile. Wall Street is in charge, and you cannot tick them off. As I say, that may actually be true, and I’m not concerned to debate it here. But it’s amusing that people like Schoen think their arguments are somehow an endorsement of Wall Street, rather than an explanation of just how pernicious its stranglehold on political and economic life is.

[Husar]

Old news my friend. :bow:

[Montmorency]

Speaking of military crimes, here's a story (https://www.thedailybeast.com/green-beret-discovered-seals-illicit-cash-then-he-was-killed?via=twitter_page) about US Special Forces in Africa (Mali):

The accusation is that a Green Beret uncovered an embezzlement plot by two members of Seal Team Six to siphon funds allocated for informants and collaborators, the SEALs offered him a cut, he refused, they killed him and claimed it an accident of the victim's drunkenness. Yet he hadn't been drinking...

If true, these SEALs have disgraced their names before gods and men. AFAIK Military Justice is relatively diligent when it comes to rooting out and punishing violence in the ranks, so they will get to the bottom of things. Right?
spmetla

[Husar]

Didn't the TV series of NCIS already have a story or two like that? Guess it's more realistic than I thought. :sweatdrop:

[spmetla]

Speaking of military crimes, here's a story (https://www.thedailybeast.com/green-beret-discovered-seals-illicit-cash-then-he-was-killed?via=twitter_page) about US Special Forces in Africa (Mali):

The accusation is that a Green Beret uncovered an embezzlement plot by two members of Seal Team Six to siphon funds allocated for informants and collaborators, the SEALs offered him a cut, he refused, they killed him and claimed it an accident of the victim's drunkenness. Yet he hadn't been drinking...

If true, these SEALs have disgraced their names before gods and men. AFAIK Military Justice is relatively diligent when it comes to rooting out and punishing violence in the ranks, so they will get to the bottom of things. Right?
spmetla

They have certainly disgraced themselves. Military Justice usually has trouble when it's between the different branches. The SEAL community would normally close ranks and protect their own or it will hang them out to dry to avoid any looking into their other activities. All the SOF branches enjoy their relative freedom from bureaucracy and will do what they must to avoid any additional oversight.

The one 15-6 (investigation) I had to conduct on an SF Soldier proved inconclusive because they had already sent him out of the country as well as the female soldier he was having a relationship with and then wiped both their phones leaving me to conduct days of interviews of everybody but the Soldier and the female and ending with no actual evidence of their mutual acts of adultery.

Them lining their own pockets wouldn't surprise me, there are a lot of 'cowboys' in the SOF community. Them killing to keep it a secret though is incredibly surprising. The little I've seen of the SEAL community makes me think far less of them than Army SF because they start out as SEALs as their first job in the military while SF guys had some other job in the Army before trying out for selection. Means that SEALs tend to think of themselves as better than everyone else because they've never had to do time as a regular soldier and have gotten to foster their elite mentality from the day they pass their selection.

The SOF community does have a lot of dirty money connections though because they do have to work with tribal leaders, militias, smugglers and so on. Part of their effectiveness is their ability to essentially use their operational 'slush fund' more liberally without the receipts and inspections required for the rest of the military.

For this particular case though, with all the press coverage the two SEALs will probably have justice meted out to them very quickly so that the rest of the SOF community their can go back to work without being under the microscope as well as to quickly repair the relationship between Army SF and SEALs which undoubtedly has suffered a catastrophic loss of rapport between the two communities.

[Montmorency]

Who gets this? Without looking it up. Be honest, post your immediate impressions. Don't open the spoiler without getting your response down first please.

Capitalist workplace

I find it incisive.

20439

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who gets this? Without looking it up. Be honest, post your immediate impressions. Don't open the spoiler without getting your response down first please.

Capitalist workplace

I find it incisive.

20439

Yeah, but a libertarian once wrote 600 pages about how we all signed the contract on the dotted line. Therefore, this scenario is by definition just and fair since there are absolutely no circumstances in which an individual could be coerced into submitting himself to an unjust system for sustenance...

[Husar]

Yeah, but a libertarian once wrote 600 pages about how we all signed the contract on the dotted line. Therefore, this scenario is by definition just and fair since there are absolutely no circumstances in which an individual could be coerced into submitting himself to an unjust system for sustenance...

Indeed, time to remove the moocher net for the bottom feeders without a job, too!

[Montmorency]

To be fair, if you want to go full socialist you end up critiquing hierarchy in all forms. regardless of ownership. No seperate spheres of life, collapsing into one field. I'm not sure I'm prepared to take it that far.

Ah, Mr. Ni Dieu ni maitre?

[Montmorency]

I am reposting "Some Puzzles for Libertarians (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/02/some-puzzles-for-libertarians-2)". There isn't anything new here, but I like the formulation.

Is there a meaningful difference between coercion by the state and coercion by private entities?

No, of course there isn’t, and it is mystifying that libertarians refuse to recognize the totalitarian nature of capitalism.

Can you construct a theory of property rights that does not suffer from internal incoherence or depend on specious natural law assumptions?

No, you can’t.

Deep in the forest, thousands of miles from civilization, there is an isolated village. It has not seen contact with any other humans for a long time. It is, however, a pleasant and flourishing community, which strongly values freedom and entrepreneurship. There is, however, one tiny quirk. In this village, there is a ritual. Every year, a boy who reaches 18 is cannibalized. It brings the rains, or something. But despite its taste for cannibalism, this village wishes to live in accordance with libertarian principles. Thus, they will only cannibalize the boy if he consents. In order to encourage this to happen, they will put tremendous social pressure on the boy. All through his youth, they will tell him they believe the future of the village depends on his consenting. His parents tell him that he would bring great shame on the household if he refused, which is true. The choice nevertheless rests with the boy, and whatever he chooses will be respected. The parents and villagers attempt to persuade him, but never lie to him, and make clear that they would never force his choice. However: if the boy refuses to be cannibalized, the village has a backup plan. The boy will be blacklisted. No shopkeeper will sell him food, no hotel will give him a room, no hospital will treat him, no employer will hire him. After all, under libertarian principles, nobody can be told how to use their property. The boy’s parents, ashamed of him, will turn him out of the house with no money. He may leave the village, but it is certain death, for thousands of miles of desolate wolf-infested wilderness stand between him and other humans and he has no food. (The wilderness is also privately-owned, and he cannot pay the admission fee.) He is shunned and despised, left to wander the streets in a futile search for shelter and sustenance. However, no force is exercised against him. He is never touched or arrested. He is treated as nonexistent, as the villagers await his demise. So the boy starves to death. The villagers then cannibalize his emaciated corpse, reasoning that they cannot be compelled to give him a dignified burial (plus he died on private property, collapsing in a flowerbed).

Is eating the boy’s corpse after he dies the only potential violation of libertarian principles in the village? Is every single other aspect of this completely permissible?

Yes, because libertarian principles are psychotic, every other aspect of this is permissible under a libertarian framework.

The Infinitely Rich Man is not infinitely rich. He is just very, very rich. Nobody knows quite how rich. One day, you happened to meet the Infinitely Rich Man in a bar. At first he was friendly, but soon you found yourselves in an argument about horses. You were for them, and he was against them. Or perhaps you were against them, and he was for them. You don’t actually remember how it went. As you parted ways, you expected never to see the Infinitely Rich Man again. Little do you know: the Infinitely Rich Man now despises you. His sole desire on earth is to see you unhappy. This should hardly trouble you, though. After all, you have a good job at a castanet factory. You own your own home, which has a picturesque lake view. You have a wife, whom you love and who loves you. You also have a prized possession, your 1972 Pontiac Lemans. You don’t have much spare cash, but this never bothers you because of your stable job. The Infinitely Rich Man is also a strict Libertarian. He believes it is illegitimate for anyone to initiate force against another. And because you are fortunate enough to live in a Libertarian world, you are free to enjoy those things you treasure most in the world without being bothered by the state or the Infinitely Rich Man. The Infinitely Rich Man is not discouraged, however. He still believes he can ruin you. He will be a Count of Monte Cristo, but an extremely law-abiding one. The first thing the Infinitely Rich Man does is buy the castanet factory where you work. He immediately fires you. He also makes sure that if any other employers inquire about you, the castanet factory will refuse to serve as a reference. Not that this matters, for he intends to bribe any other castanet company who hires you into firing you. (There are four castanet companies.) You therefore find yourself unemployed. Fortunately, you have a skill. You know how to make castanets! (Castanets are very popular.) So you scrape together what money you have, and you open a little drive-thru castanet stand out on Route 9. But the Infinitely Rich Man has a plan. He opens a stand next to yours. At his stand, castanets are free. He gives them away by the truckload. He sets the whole world clacking. You cannot compete. You are ruined. At least you still have your wife, your friends, your lakeview home, your 1972 Pontiac Lemans. But the Infinitely Rich Man has a plan. First, he buys the lake. He fills it with concrete. No more lake view, and your property value diminishes by $100,000. Then, he buys every house around yours, flattens it, and turns it into a landfill. The smell doesn’t reach your home, but it turns the neighborhood unsightly and desolate. Your house becomes worthless. The Infinitely Rich Man buys the heating company and refuses to provide gas to your home at any price. (You try to talk other gas companies into competing, but they refuse; laying a new main for a single home would be absurd, they say.) But you have a wife! And friends! And you get to drive a 1972 Pontiac Lemans! The Infinitely Rich Man offers a bribe. Any of your friends who refuse to speak with you ever again will receive a salary of one million dollars per year. At first, many decline to take the bribe. But sooner or later, most of them have one or another sticky financial situation, and they give in. Goodbye, vast majority of your friends! At least your wife loves you. But one day, she becomes ill. She finds out that she will die, unless she goes on a treatment regimen for the rest of her life. The regimen costs $100,000 a month. The Infinitely Rich man pops up, and offers to pay. The one condition is that she divorce you, cut contact, and never speak with you again. As soon as she breaks the agreement, he will cease to pay for the treatment. You love your wife, but you do not want her to die. You both agree that it is better that she should accept. At least you can drive your 1972 Pontiac Lemans. Oh, but wait. The Infinitely Rich Man invests heavily in electric energy. Slowly, he makes gasoline-powered transit obsolete. He buys the oil companies, burns the gasoline, and converts every gas pump to a charging station. You can only drive your Lemans short distances, using some of the last gallons of available petrol, which you ordered from the internet. (That is, if the Infinitely Rich Man didn’t outbid you!) They don’t make the Pontiac Lemans anymore. Parts therefore exist only in small quantities. The Infinitely Rich Man buys up all existing Lemans parts. The moment it breaks, you are out of luck. As you sit alone, broke, and starving in the garage of your unheated home, caressing your disabled Lemans, thinking about your long-gone wife, your lake view, and your job, you are thankful that you live in a world of freedom, where nobody can encroach upon the liberty of another.

Questions for Libertarians: Has the non-aggression principle been violated? Should the Infinitely Rich Man suffer any civil or criminal penalties for his actions?

No, it hasn’t. And of course he should, but he can’t be under a libertarian framework, because, again, libertarianism is psychotic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am reposting "Some Puzzles for Libertarians (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/02/some-puzzles-for-libertarians-2)". There isn't anything new here, but I like the formulation.

Is there a meaningful difference between coercion by the state and coercion by private entities?

No, of course there isn’t, and it is mystifying that libertarians refuse to recognize the totalitarian nature of capitalism.

Can you construct a theory of property rights that does not suffer from internal incoherence or depend on specious natural law assumptions?

No, you can’t.

Deep in the forest, thousands of miles from civilization, there is an isolated village. It has not seen contact with any other humans for a long time. It is, however, a pleasant and flourishing community, which strongly values freedom and entrepreneurship. There is, however, one tiny quirk. In this village, there is a ritual. Every year, a boy who reaches 18 is cannibalized. It brings the rains, or something. But despite its taste for cannibalism, this village wishes to live in accordance with libertarian principles. Thus, they will only cannibalize the boy if he consents. In order to encourage this to happen, they will put tremendous social pressure on the boy. All through his youth, they will tell him they believe the future of the village depends on his consenting. His parents tell him that he would bring great shame on the household if he refused, which is true. The choice nevertheless rests with the boy, and whatever he chooses will be respected. The parents and villagers attempt to persuade him, but never lie to him, and make clear that they would never force his choice. However: if the boy refuses to be cannibalized, the village has a backup plan. The boy will be blacklisted. No shopkeeper will sell him food, no hotel will give him a room, no hospital will treat him, no employer will hire him. After all, under libertarian principles, nobody can be told how to use their property. The boy’s parents, ashamed of him, will turn him out of the house with no money. He may leave the village, but it is certain death, for thousands of miles of desolate wolf-infested wilderness stand between him and other humans and he has no food. (The wilderness is also privately-owned, and he cannot pay the admission fee.) He is shunned and despised, left to wander the streets in a futile search for shelter and sustenance. However, no force is exercised against him. He is never touched or arrested. He is treated as nonexistent, as the villagers await his demise. So the boy starves to death. The villagers then cannibalize his emaciated corpse, reasoning that they cannot be compelled to give him a dignified burial (plus he died on private property, collapsing in a flowerbed).

Is eating the boy’s corpse after he dies the only potential violation of libertarian principles in the village? Is every single other aspect of this completely permissible?

Yes, because libertarian principles are psychotic, every other aspect of this is permissible under a libertarian framework.

The Infinitely Rich Man is not infinitely rich. He is just very, very rich. Nobody knows quite how rich. One day, you happened to meet the Infinitely Rich Man in a bar. At first he was friendly, but soon you found yourselves in an argument about horses. You were for them, and he was against them. Or perhaps you were against them, and he was for them. You don’t actually remember how it went. As you parted ways, you expected never to see the Infinitely Rich Man again. Little do you know: the Infinitely Rich Man now despises you. His sole desire on earth is to see you unhappy. This should hardly trouble you, though. After all, you have a good job at a castanet factory. You own your own home, which has a picturesque lake view. You have a wife, whom you love and who loves you. You also have a prized possession, your 1972 Pontiac Lemans. You don’t have much spare cash, but this never bothers you because of your stable job. The Infinitely Rich Man is also a strict Libertarian. He believes it is illegitimate for anyone to initiate force against another. And because you are fortunate enough to live in a Libertarian world, you are free to enjoy those things you treasure most in the world without being bothered by the state or the Infinitely Rich Man. The Infinitely Rich Man is not discouraged, however. He still believes he can ruin you. He will be a Count of Monte Cristo, but an extremely law-abiding one. The first thing the Infinitely Rich Man does is buy the castanet factory where you work. He immediately fires you. He also makes sure that if any other employers inquire about you, the castanet factory will refuse to serve as a reference. Not that this matters, for he intends to bribe any other castanet company who hires you into firing you. (There are four castanet companies.) You therefore find yourself unemployed. Fortunately, you have a skill. You know how to make castanets! (Castanets are very popular.) So you scrape together what money you have, and you open a little drive-thru castanet stand out on Route 9. But the Infinitely Rich Man has a plan. He opens a stand next to yours. At his stand, castanets are free. He gives them away by the truckload. He sets the whole world clacking. You cannot compete. You are ruined. At least you still have your wife, your friends, your lakeview home, your 1972 Pontiac Lemans. But the Infinitely Rich Man has a plan. First, he buys the lake. He fills it with concrete. No more lake view, and your property value diminishes by $100,000. Then, he buys every house around yours, flattens it, and turns it into a landfill. The smell doesn’t reach your home, but it turns the neighborhood unsightly and desolate. Your house becomes worthless. The Infinitely Rich Man buys the heating company and refuses to provide gas to your home at any price. (You try to talk other gas companies into competing, but they refuse; laying a new main for a single home would be absurd, they say.) But you have a wife! And friends! And you get to drive a 1972 Pontiac Lemans! The Infinitely Rich Man offers a bribe. Any of your friends who refuse to speak with you ever again will receive a salary of one million dollars per year. At first, many decline to take the bribe. But sooner or later, most of them have one or another sticky financial situation, and they give in. Goodbye, vast majority of your friends! At least your wife loves you. But one day, she becomes ill. She finds out that she will die, unless she goes on a treatment regimen for the rest of her life. The regimen costs $100,000 a month. The Infinitely Rich man pops up, and offers to pay. The one condition is that she divorce you, cut contact, and never speak with you again. As soon as she breaks the agreement, he will cease to pay for the treatment. You love your wife, but you do not want her to die. You both agree that it is better that she should accept. At least you can drive your 1972 Pontiac Lemans. Oh, but wait. The Infinitely Rich Man invests heavily in electric energy. Slowly, he makes gasoline-powered transit obsolete. He buys the oil companies, burns the gasoline, and converts every gas pump to a charging station. You can only drive your Lemans short distances, using some of the last gallons of available petrol, which you ordered from the internet. (That is, if the Infinitely Rich Man didn’t outbid you!) They don’t make the Pontiac Lemans anymore. Parts therefore exist only in small quantities. The Infinitely Rich Man buys up all existing Lemans parts. The moment it breaks, you are out of luck. As you sit alone, broke, and starving in the garage of your unheated home, caressing your disabled Lemans, thinking about your long-gone wife, your lake view, and your job, you are thankful that you live in a world of freedom, where nobody can encroach upon the liberty of another.

Questions for Libertarians: Has the non-aggression principle been violated? Should the Infinitely Rich Man suffer any civil or criminal penalties for his actions?

No, it hasn’t. And of course he should, but he can’t be under a libertarian framework, because, again, libertarianism is psychotic.

This post gave my social democratic brain a mental erection.

[rory_20_uk]

Communism is the best form of government. Apart from the fact it doesn't work.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Socialist argument against gun control

https://socialistaction.org/2018/02/25/gun-control-workers-militias-how-socialists-view-the-issues/

TLDR: Democratic militias, like in Shays' Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion) or European peasant revolts, are the ideal, authoritarian state polices and professional militaries are teh sux

One also recalls the conservative furor some time ago over a black philosophy professor (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/03/what-is-a-black-professor-in-america-allowed-to-say-tommy-j-curry) musing on black political philosophy:


White conservatives speak reverently of gun rights, said Curry. “But when we turn the conversation back and say, ‘Does the black community ever need to own guns? Does the black community have a need to protect itself? Does the black individual have a need to protect himself from police officers?’, we don’t have that conversation at all.”

But without getting into further arguments here on the abstract or practical merits and demerits of authority and democracy and gun diffusion, the role of class struggle, and so forth, a quote from the first article attributed to Fidel Castro strikes me for several reasons...


In a Jan. 4, 1990, speech, Fidel Castro stated: “To some of the Western countries that question democracy in Cuba, we can say: There can be no democracy superior to that where the workers, the peasants, and the students have the weapons. They have the weapons. To all those from countries that question democracy in Cuba we can say: Give weapons to the workers, give weapons to the peasants, give weapons to the students, and we’ll see whether tear gas will be hurled against workers on strike, against an organization that struggles for peace, against the students….

[Husar]

That's some weird stuff.

Not only does the Castro thing appear quite wrong given the US have more guns than people and Cuba:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba


The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) per 100 people in Cuba is 2.0

It's also that if guns are such a great way to solve problems in society, why don't you go live in Afghanistan or Somalia, mister whoever thinks that?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting post.

[Montmorency]

That's some weird stuff.

Not only does the Castro thing appear quite wrong given the US have more guns than people and Cuba:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba



It's also that if guns are such a great way to solve problems in society, why don't you go live in Afghanistan or Somalia, mister whoever thinks that?

We could lay this out systematically in each permutation according to parameters, for example:

1. Success to failure of Cuban society (how successful and livable is Cuban society?)
2. Democratic to undemocratic governance (what are the mechanisms of control and governance; how responsive is governance to popular will and needs?)
3. High to low penetration and diffusion of firearms in population and demographic groups (how many guns, where, what kinds?; e.g. are most guns owned by Party elites?)
4. Contemporary or in other periods of history (was ownership very different in one year or decade compared to another?)

But that's too time-consuming, so I would like to point out that basically Castro presented a kind of misleading or deceptive description if you're uncharitable, or if charitable a description that is liable to be misunderstood from non-Marxist perspectives.

Here's the original speech (http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1989/19890104-2.html) (it was given in 1989, not 1990).


There is something else that is associated with this: I feel that our
concept of defense is unique and that our country has developed in a unique
way, with the total participation of the masses. Do any other countries
have anything like this? I do not deny it--there are other countries. We,
however, believe that we have the right concept, our way of organizing the
defense system with the participation of all the people--workers, students,
men, and women. Millions of people take an active part in our defense
system. There are some capitalist countries that question democracy in
Cuba. There can be no democracy better than a democracy where the workers,
the peasants, the students hold the arms. [applause]

To all the Western countries that question democracy in Cuba, I say: Go
ahead and give the arms to the workers, to the peasants, to the students,
and let us see if you can start hurling tear gas canisters to put down a
strike, or at any organization that struggles for peace [applause], or at
students. We would see if these countries could send out the police,
covered with shields and all that equipment that makes them look like
astronauts. We would see if these countries could attack the masses with
dogs every time there is a strike or a peaceful demonstration or a people's
struggle. I think the litmus test for democracy is to arm the people.
[applause]

When defense becomes the task of the people and arms become the prerogative
of all the people, then there is democracy. Meanwhile, there are
specialized police teams and armies to put down the people when the people
show discontent over the abuses and injustice of a bourgeois system. It is
the same in a Third World country as in a developed capitalist country. We
see this constantly on television newscasts from the United States and
Europe--Europe brags so much about their democratic systems. We see how
the people are run down by specialists in repression and brutality,
something that has never ever been seen in our country in the 30 years of
our revolution. These are not the typical characteristics of our
revolution.


And the Constitution of Cuba:


In the Republic of Cuba sovereignty lies in the people, from whom originates all the power of the state. That power is exercised directly or through the assemblies of People’s Power and other state bodies which derive their authority from these assemblies, in the form and according to the norms established in the Constitution and by law.
When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.

In other words, there is a collective class (as opposed to human or constitutional) right to organize for defense of the Revolution, which does not have to do with guns per se. And it's not clear where the guns are coming from anyway - state arsenals?

No supporting details, but from my recollection of the excellent Che Guevara biography (https://www.amazon.com/Che-Guevara-Revolutionary-Jon-Anderson/dp/080214411X) by Jon Lee Anderson - the whole middle of which is less a biography and more a detailed military and political history of the Cuban Revolution - in the years between seizing power and the Missile Crisis, Castro did indeed dole out guns to pretty much every peasant in the form of popular militias. The idea was the resist the impending American invasion, so it would make sense to turn the country into an armed camp.

Presumably there have been changes between 1963 and 2018, but I don't know the details and they probably aren't that important. The point is just that Castro was maintaining the distinction between popular self-defense and specialized volunteer forces of repression. Private gun ownership doesn't actually enter into the conversation for either party. But railing against professional militaries is misleading too, since as you might know the Cuban Army and its expeditionary forces was one of the most powerful and accomplished forces (http://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/policy-innovation/military-culture-series/frank-mora-brian-fonseca-and-brian-latell-2016-cuban-military-culture.pdf)in the Western hemisphere (and beyond) during the Cold War. Calling it a people's organization in its actual capacity to achieve military aims is then nothing more than a pretty sophistry.

So it's hard to take seriously vis-a-vis guns and armaments, since if the distribution of arms is managed by the government and bureaucracy, then even from the pro-gun Marxist perspective the people would not be in a position to defend the Revolution if the government happened to betray the Revolution (i.e. Raul Castro becomes a crony of Washington).


And also from Anderson's biography, during the revolution ~1958 in the Sierra Maestra mountains, Castro's partisans primarily armed themselves by raiding Battista's forces and depots (i.e. the arms held by the oppressive state), more like a Leninist "vanguard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foco)" than Shays' Rebellion (who were petit bourgeois landowners themselves anyway). So maybe if you expect the people to get their arms by taking them from the state by force, this line from the same 1989 speech makes more sense:


If the majority of people were counterrevolutionaries, they would only need
to nominate other counterrevolutionaries and most of the representatives
would then be counterrevolutionaries and would go against the revolution
and socialism.

Yet this still has nothing to do with individual or private ownership before the fact of contestation.

Marx (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) seemed to recognize the distinction that Castro is muddying: guns are nothing more than a tool to resist 'tyranny', and should be retained not as a legal right but as a practical matter.


To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed[...] Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Ultimately though, I would ask this question: since when in history does an armed rebellion, vanguard or otherwise, produce better results than nonviolent popular resistance? Prior to revolt, when does mere brandishing or possession of guns actually deter and defend against police and soldiers (rather than the opposite)? The history of fascist genocide, dovetailing with something I said in another thread, seems to indicate that the most salutary (or least bad) violence is indeed state-organized mass violence (in combatting other forms of state mass violence). Without some other substance, low-level armed violence seems invariably to lead to warlordism or despotism, because the immediate defining social relation becomes power and coercion, soon cascading and concentrating. Marxists are wrong if they think they can get anywhere with mass gun ownership.


EDIT: Also, pointing out something that's relevant in every sphere: a law is nothing but a fiction without its enforcement. So if the enforcement is the critical part, then whether oppressive capitalist or communist governments technically permit (or refuse to restrict) individual ownership, for individual or collective purposes regardless, it still means nothing if the state retains the means to overwhelm subsets of the population at any given time. Repression is just equivalent to extralegal or laterally-legal enforcement. Ink on paper is irrelevant, and grassroots activism to "awaken" a population to actively provide for collective self-defense at any time is far less likely to succeed (and far more likely to horrify) than just organizing a movement for universal healthcare, demilitarization, welfare, whatever.

EDIT2: Lol-Yugoslavia (https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/124881/SALW%20Yugo.pdf)

[Montmorency]

Speaking of war criminals - again - seems like Erik Prince (https://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder/) of Blackwate/Xe infamy may be being investigated by the Feds for a number of things, including money laundering, tax evasion, smuggling weapons into Iraq to sell for profit, destroying documentation to conceal criminality from the government, murdering whistleblowers, and being a barbaric paleo wingnut:


To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”


Both individuals allege that Prince and Blackwater deployed individuals to Iraq who, in the words of Doe #1, “were not properly vetted and cleared by the State Department.” Doe #2 adds that “Prince ignored the advice and pleas from certain employees, who sought to stop the unnecessary killing of innocent Iraqis.” Doe #2 further states that some Blackwater officials overseas refused to deploy “unfit men” and sent them back to the US. Among the reasons cited by Doe #2 were “the men making statements about wanting to deploy to Iraq to ‘kill ragheads’ or achieve ‘kills’ or ‘body counts,'” as well as “excessive drinking” and “steroid use.” However, when the men returned to the US, according to Doe #2, “Prince and his executives would send them back to be deployed in Iraq with an express instruction to the concerned employees located overseas that they needed to ‘stop costing the company money.'”

Doe #2 also says Prince “repeatedly ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals, and instead terminated those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men.” He says Prince and then-company president Gary Jackson “hid from Department of State the fact that they were deploying men to Iraq over the objections of mental health professionals and security professionals in the field,” saying they “knew the men being deployed were not suitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry, but did not care because deployments meant more money.”

Doe #1 states that “Blackwater knew that certain of its personnel intentionally used excessive and unjustified deadly force, and in some instances used unauthorized weapons, to kill or seriously injure innocent Iraqi civilians.” He concludes, “Blackwater did nothing to stop this misconduct.” Doe #1 states that he “personally observed multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force.” He then cites several specific examples of Blackwater personnel firing at civilians, killing or “seriously” wounding them, and then failing to report the incidents to the State Department.

Doe #2 expands on the issue of unconventional weapons, alleging Prince “made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince’s employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis.” Specifically, he alleges that Prince “obtained illegal ammunition from an American company called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince’s employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis.”

On the side, he probably definitely committed perjury before the House Intelligence Committee (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/08/erik-prince-house-russia-probe-trump-associates-448595) the past December.
spmetla

[Kagemusha]

This is what starts to happen when you deploy mercenaries. Outsourcing is not the best idea in every scenario.

[Montmorency]

Unfortunately I messed up. I got to this article from the "Most Popular" feed on The Nation website. But the article is from 2009. That's what I get for not reading bylines.

So that's embarrassing. Weird thing is, it's all over the news for August 2009, but I can't find any follow ups besides (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/) investigations for white-collar crimes and an out-of-court settlement (https://www.wired.com/2012/08/blackwater-prosecution/) with the government for other cases of arms smuggling.

:inquisitive:

[Kagemusha]

Unfortunately I messed up. I got to this article from the "Most Popular" feed on The Nation website. But the article is from 2009. That's what I get for not reading bylines.

So that's embarrassing. Weird thing is, it's all over the news for August 2009, but I can't find any follow ups besides (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/) investigations for white-collar crimes and an out-of-court settlement (https://www.wired.com/2012/08/blackwater-prosecution/) with the government for other cases of arms smuggling.

:inquisitive:

Apparently the firm in question is called these days " Constellis". It was called "Academi" before that.

[spmetla]

I'll be happy to see Erik Prince under the microscope, his "Black Water" tactics in Iraq generated plenty of extra ill will that we didn't need. I thought it a sham that he's been allowed to just repeatedly re-brand himself these past few years. With his political views and history of excesses by his organization I'd very much like to keep him as far from the US political process as possible.

[Strike For The South]

Erik Prince and Chris Kyle are cut from the same "Christian warrior" cloth. One day I hope someone will put some research into this phenomenon of white men who were able to convince themselves they were tip of the Christians Gods spear.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Erik Prince and Chris Kyle are cut from the same "Christian warrior" cloth. One day I hope someone will put some research into this phenomenon of white men who were able to convince themselves they were tip of the Christians Gods spear.

Any number of those who answered the Holy Father's call to crusade to the Holy Land were equally sincere (though admittedly most of their leadership was NOT)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Unfortunately I messed up. I got to this article from the "Most Popular" feed on The Nation website. But the article is from 2009. That's what I get for not reading bylines.

So that's embarrassing. Weird thing is, it's all over the news for August 2009, but I can't find any follow ups besides (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/) investigations for white-collar crimes and an out-of-court settlement (https://www.wired.com/2012/08/blackwater-prosecution/) with the government for other cases of arms smuggling.

:inquisitive:

Shame on you for raising awareness of an issue flying under the radar.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of war crimes - again, again - a week ago was the 50th anniversary of the My Lai massacre.

Worst America (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/opinion/the-truth-behind-my-lai.html) - Best America (https://warrantofficerhistory.org/PDF/Forgotten_Hero_of_My_Lai-WO_Hugh_Thompson.pdf).


In the early morning of March 16, 1968, Thompson's OH-23 encountered no enemy fire over My Lai
4. Spotting two possible Viet Cong suspects, he forced the Vietnamese men to surrender and flew
them off for a tactical interrogation. Thompson also marked the location of several wounded
Vietnamese with green smoke, a signal that they needed help.

Returning to the My Lai area at around 0900 after refueling, he noticed that the people he had
marked were now dead. Out in a paddy field beside a dike 200 metres (660 ft) south of the village,
he marked the location of a wounded young Vietnamese woman. Thompson and his crew watched
from a low hover as Captain Ernest Medina (commanding officer of C Company, 1st Battalion, 20th
Infantry Regiment) came up to the woman, prodded her with his foot, and then shot and killed her.
Thompson then flew over an irrigation ditch filled with dozens of bodies. Shocked at the sight, he
radioed his accompanying gunships, knowing his transmission would be monitored by many on the
radio net: "It looks to me like there's an awful lot of unnecessary killing going on down there.
Something ain't right about this. There's bodies everywhere. There's a ditch full of bodies that we
saw. There's something wrong here."]

Movement from the ditch indicated to Thompson that there were still people alive in there. Thompson
landed his helicopter and dismounted. David Mitchell, a sergeant and squad leader in 1st Platoon, C
Company, walked over to him. When asked by Thompson whether any help could be provided to the
people in the ditch, the sergeant replied that the only way to help them was to put them out of their
misery. Second Lieutenant William Calley (commanding officer of the 1st Platoon, C Company) then
came up, and the two had the following conversation:

Thompson: What's going on here, Lieutenant?
Calley: This is my business.
Thompson: What is this? Who are these people?
Calley: Just following orders.
Thompson: Orders? W hose orders?
Calley: Just following...
Thompson: But, these are human beings, unarmed civilians, sir.
Calley: Look Thompson, this is my show. I'm in charge here. It ain't your concern.
Thompson: Yeah, great job.
Calley: You better get back in that chopper and mind your own business.
Thompson: You ain't heard the last of this!

Thompson took off again, and Andreotta reported that Mitchell was now executing the people in the
ditch. Furious, Thompson flew over the northeast corner of the village and spotted a group of about
ten civilians, including children, running toward a homemade bomb shelter. Pursuing them were
soldiers from the 2nd Platoon, C Company. Realizing that the soldiers intended to murder the
Vietnamese, T hompson landed his aircraft between them and the villagers. T hompson turned to
Colburn and Andreotta and told them that if the Americans began shooting at the villagers or him,
they should fire their M60 machine guns at the Americans: "Y'all cover me! If these bastards open
up on me or these people, you open up on them. Promise me!" He then dismounted to confront the
2nd Platoon's leader, Stephen Brooks. Thompson told him he wanted help getting the peasants out
of the bunker.

Thompson: Hey listen, hold your fire. I'm going to try to get these people out of this bunker.
Just hold your men here.
Brooks: Yeah, we can help you get 'em out of that bunker—with a hand grenade!
Thompson: Just hold your men here. I think I can do better than that.

Brooks declined to argue with him, even though as a commissioned officer he outranked Thompson.
After coaxing the 11 Vietnamese out of the bunker, Thompson persuaded the pilots of the two UH-1
Huey gunships (Dan Millians and Brian Livingstone) flying as his escort to evacuate them. While
Thompson was returning to base to refuel, Andreotta spotted movement in an irrigation ditch filled
with approximately 100 bodies. The helicopter again landed and the men dismounted to search for
survivors. After wading through the remains of the dead and dying men, women and children,
Andreotta extracted a live boy named Do Ba. Thompson flew the survivor to the ARVN hospital in
Quang Ngai.

Upon returning to their base at about 1100, Thompson heatedly reported the massacre to his
superiors. His allegations of civilian killings quickly reached Lieutenant Colonel Frank Barker, the
operation's overall commander. Barker radioed his executive officer to find out from Captain Medina
what was happening on the ground. Medina then gave the cease-fire order to Charlie Company to
"knock off the killing".

After the massacre

Thompson made an official report of the killings, and was interviewed by Colonel Oran Henderson,
the commander of the 11th Infantry Brigade (the parent organization of the 20th Infantry).
Concerned, senior American officers cancelled similar planned operations by Task Force Barker
against other villages (My Lai 5, My Lai 1, etc.) in Quang Ngai Province, possibly preventing the
additional massacre of hundreds, if not thousands, of Vietnamese civilians.

Initially, commanders throughout the American chain of command were successful in covering up the
My Lai Massacre. Thompson quickly received the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions at My
Lai. The citation for the award fabricated events, for example praising Thompson for taking to a
hospital a Vietnamese child "caught in intense crossfire". It also stated that his "sound judgment had
greatly enhanced Vietnamese–American relations in the operational area. " Thompson threw away
the citation.

Thompson continued to fly the observation missions in the OH-23 Raven and was hit by enemy fire a
total of eight times. In four of those instances, his aircraft was lost. In the last incident, his helicopter
was brought down by enemy machine gun fire, and he broke his back in the resulting crash landing.
This ended his combat career in Vietnam, and he was evacuated to a hospital in Japan and began a
long period of rehabilitation. He carried psychological scars from his service in Vietnam for the rest of
his life.

When news of the massacre publicly broke, Thompson repeated his account to then-Colonel William
Wilson and during their official Pentagon investigations. In late 1969, Thompson was summoned to
Washington DC and appeared before a special closed hearing of the House Armed Services
Committee.

There, he was sharply criticized by Congressmen, in particular Chairman Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.),
who were anxious to play down allegations of a massacre by American troops. Rivers publicly stated
that he felt Thompson was the only soldier at My Lai who should be punished (for turning his
weapons on fellow American troops) and unsuccessfully attempted to have him court-martialed. As
word of his actions became publicly known, Thompson started receiving hate mail, death threats and
mutilated animals on his doorstep.

After his Vietnam service, Thompson was assigned to Fort Rucker to become an instructor pilot. His
other military assignments included, Korea, Fort Ord, Fort Hood, and bases in Hawaii. He retired from
the Army with the rank of Major in 1983.

There must have been other men like this in history - they just probably tended to get shot.

[rory_20_uk]

War is hell. Most put their survival above everything else. Those that don't will probably get killed by the first lot. For almost the entirety of human existence what happened was never known to the masses - and frankly most wouldn't really have cared what happened to the "enemies".

A long way away, diplomats and lawyers sit in a cozy room and make up rules. But strangely the "weaker" side in any conflict play to win not to the rules.

Frankly the armed forces should either not be sent in - with "paramilitaries" used (up-armed police) or the armed forces are sent in to make the place "safe". In many cases this means everyone has been interned in a POW camp or killed - since the area is a battlefield.

The former has many issues but the police are probably better able to act as a police force whereas the armed forces aren't. Most probably don't even have the mental architecture to do so - the world has friendlies and enemies and the latter are to be eliminated. To send in the armed forces isn't pretty. And lots of bystanders will die.

Whatever the politicians do, the soldiers are trained and accept the risks of being shot in the front by their enemies. They shouldn't have to deal with being stabbed in the back by their supposed countrymen.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've always felt the most sympathy for the villagers.

They were in the middle and under threat from all.

Were they manufacturing booby traps and assisting the VC? Very likely. Did they have a lot of choice? Not really, the VC was always willing to shoot those who collaborated or who did not support their efforts.

And then the people on the receiving end of the booby traps. Relatively weakly led, endlessly frustrated by taking so many casualties to an "invisible" enemy, were primed to take vengeance and to do so in an unthinking manner.

And the villagers of My Lai were simply in the cross hairs.

[Montmorency]

You two are too quick to impersonalize these events. Modern soldiers are not barbarians. A doctrine from on high that tolerates and promotes the "killing of anything that moves" must play a large role in conduct on the front line. Whole units don't commit war crimes on autonomous whim.

But as Thompson demonstrates, it's on the men and women behind the gun to know right from wrong*, then the officers, then the politicians.

Since leadership can mitigate - or inflame - atrocities, "war is hell" is the wrong attitude. Better to say 'If you make war hell, we'll make it hell for you'.

*Carrying a copy of the Geneva Convention doesn't cover your ass.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You two are too quick to impersonalize these events. Modern soldiers are not barbarians. A doctrine from on high that tolerates and promotes the "killing of anything that moves" must play a large role in conduct on the front line. Whole units don't commit war crimes on autonomous whim.

But as Thompson demonstrates, it's on the men and women behind the gun to know right from wrong*, then the officers, then the politicians.

Since leadership can mitigate - or inflame - atrocities, "war is hell" is the wrong attitude. Better to say 'If you make war hell, we'll make it hell for you'.

*Carrying a copy of the Geneva Convention doesn't cover your ass.

That is a poor characterization of what I said. I was commenting that the poor villagers were caught in the middle with little or no choice except to get hurt. The VC strategy worked like a charm, having exactly the effect they sought to evoke. They consistently drove US forces to distraction creating a degree of wastage in personnel and material that was silly -- and even their tactical defeats tended to redound to their strategic success.

And Army leadership, throughout much of the war, screwed up by the numbers playing the fool for NVA/VC strategy. And yes, free fire zones and the like are symptomatic of American military leadership thinking with its frustration rather than thinking objectively and strategically.

[Montmorency]

Ugh

UGH

I just got through reading 10K words on why modern civilization should be demolished and the rightful King Francis II (aka Mr. Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Wittelsbach) of the ancient Stuart lineage be restored to the English crown and all its proper dominions, including the Lost Colonies (the Bonnie Prince Charles III did not recognize the Treaty of Paris), because only the firm, unifying hand of the Divine hereditary monarch's station can be relied upon to with utmost vitality and conscience prosecute the defense of Law, Land, Church, and Nation.

Palate cleanser:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHVo0hJhnK4

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ugh

UGH

I just got through reading 10K words on why modern civilization should be demolished and the rightful King Francis II (aka Mr. Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Wittelsbach) of the ancient Stuart lineage be restored to the English crown and all its proper dominions, including the Lost Colonies (the Bonnie Prince Charles III did not recognize the Treaty of Paris), because only the firm, unifying hand of the Divine hereditary monarch's station can be relied upon to with utmost vitality and conscience prosecute the defense of Law, Land, Church, and Nation.

Palate cleanser:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHVo0hJhnK4

You and I are in agreement as to the leadership qualities derived as a consequence of being expelled from the correct vagina.

[Gilrandir]

the rightful King Francis II (aka Mr. Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Wittelsbach) of the ancient Stuart lineage be restored to the English crown and all its proper dominions,

Was there ever Francis I?

[Crandar]

Was there ever Francis I?
Of course, the duke of Modena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_V,_Duke_of_Modena

[Gilrandir]

Of course, the duke of Modena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_V,_Duke_of_Modena

Montmorency wrote:




the rightful King Francis II (aka Mr. Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Wittelsbach) of the ancient Stuart lineage be restored to the English crown and all its proper dominions

which I read as "there is a deposed king of England named Francis II who is likely to get his crown back", not Duke or Count or otherwise. That is why, if there is the Second of his name (as a king of England), I would like to know when there was the First of his name.

[Crandar]

And as I told you, it's Francis V of Modena and Francis I of the United Kingdom, according to the Jacobites. Don't limit yourself to the title, read the rest of the article as well.

After the death of his mother in 1840, Francis was considered the legitimate heir to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland by Jacobites as Francis I. At his death his niece Maria Theresia of Austria-Este became Jacobite claimant.

[Strike For The South]

Thompson was very lucky he was a pilot

[Montmorency]

Thompson was very lucky he was a pilot

Not really. Afterwards they sent him on suicide missions, which got him shot down multiple times, culminating in a severe back injury and the end of his active service.

[Strike For The South]

Not really. Afterwards they sent him on suicide missions, which got him shot down multiple times, culminating in a severe back injury and the end of his active service.

Better than him being simply shot.

[Montmorency]

This (https://thebaffler.com/salvos/off-our-butts-thunderstorm) will tickle InsaneApache feathers: anti-anti-smoking left-wing bleeding-heart.


THE POWERS THAT BE say anti-smoking legislation is for our own well-being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The attack on cigarette smoking does not improve the lives of those it claims to protect, be they the “self-destructive” workers who smoke or the moralizing professionals who complain about having to smell them. Anti-smoking legislation is, and always has been, about social control. It is about ratcheting up worker productivity and fostering class hatred, to keep us looking for the enemy in each other instead of in those who are making a killing off cigarettes and anti-smoking campaigns alike. It legitimates the privatization of public space, limits popular assembly, and forces the working class out of political life into private isolation via the social technology of shame. It whitewashes the violence exacted on the poor by the rich to make it all seem like the worker’s own doing. It is, in short, class war by another name.

So people suffering under capitalism find it more difficult to do small things to slightly alleviate their suffering, for a time. Perhaps. And maybe (the pretense of) preserving their health in one way doesn't matter much when it's being damaged by their work and their society. But it sure has gone fantastic for those of us who don't have to - oh yeah, the solidarity thing.

:mean:

Still though, :daisy: smoke in buildings.

[Husar]

Sounds like a load of rubbish.
I remember going to parties with thick cigarette smoke, and yes, I did absolutely hate it. Nowadays the air isn't always great, but at least it's not filled with thick smoke.
There are also communists who think solidarity means bringing back the coal mines (yes, like Trump) to give the working class jobs again.
I suppose so they can strike because they don't get a living wage anyway. :sweatdrop:

[Montmorency]

Strike For The South
a completely inoffensive name
Seamus Fermanagh

What do you know, but just as we're discussing law and order our favorite socialists publish an article (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/judging-the-judges) on judges: what are they good for, anyway?

The thrust is that judges are unaccountable little emperors who dictate reality for thousands of real people more on the basis of personal preference than anything (including consideration of the consequences for those real people), and that this derives from fundamental aspects of both our system of law and modern judgeship itself.


But what judges want is some strange intellectual product... The fact that legal arguments are usually completely divorced from reality is partially a function of the law itself, and not solely the judges. That said, nothing prevents judges from acting like rational, normal people instead of playing games with people’s lives and making lawyers jump through hoops. Yet they often play these games, especially at the Supreme Court. They will straight-facedly ask lawyers, for the sake of argument, to justify things that are clearly insane.


We’ve made a policy shift over the years that strongly favors “predictability,” in place of “justice,” as the chief virtue of the legal system.


We rarely hear a conservative complain about Scalia’s judicial activism, or a liberal bemoan that RBG wasn’t impartial enough. This is because, deep in our core, we want partiality. Even where we have different conceptions of what “justice” means, we do actually want judges to advance justice rather than merely law.


Immigration judges in New York grant 88% of asylum cases. Immigration judges in Atlanta grant 2%. Both courts are nominally employing the exact same legal standard. The difference is that most judges in New York are looking for reasons to grant cases, and most judges in Atlanta are looking for reasons to deny them. Usually, the judge will find whatever they are looking for.


This is the other problem that arises when you champion open judicial “activism”—you tend to over-emphasize the extent to which judicial rulings actually result in social change. ... Obergefell [2015 gay marriage ruling] is due much more to the activities of ACT-UP and the post-Stonewall gay rights movement than to Anthony Kennedy suddenly being a pro-gay rights “activist judge.


As with most checks and balances, the judiciary’s ability to thwart the other branches of government isn’t so much a reliable safeguard against tyranny as a wild-card element that occasionally works out in our favor. More broadly, the temptation to view judges as potential saviors often seems to sap progressive will for reform efforts through electoral and legislative channels. ... When you put power in the hands of unaccountable elites, you never know what they will do with it.


This problem does not have a simple solution, but there are perhaps three clarifying ways we can think about the Problem of Judges. One, we should break any habit of looking to the law as a primary source of social change... social justice-minded lawyers play, at best, a bit part or supporting role, formulating legal avenues for the changes already underway to become more solidified in formal practice
Secondly, when we do seek to enact legal change, one of our concerns should be to craft legal standards with an optimum humane baseline, so that the role for judicial discretion, so far as possible, is forced in the direction of mercy. ... (Sometimes, the best way to do this is to get rid of the stupid law that would have thrust a person into the back of a police car, and then in front of a judge, in the first place.)
Thirdly, it’s naïve to expect judges to be unusually moral people. That said, basic morality remains the only proper standard by which to assess whether someone is a “good” judge or not. A good judge is someone who uses whatever discretion and whatever legal tools are at their disposal to reduce human suffering. They actively seek to understand the human impact of the cases in front of them. They are humble enough to admit what they don’t understand, and to solicit whatever information or advice they think will help improve their understanding, so that they can make a decision that they believe will be really helpful to people. They care about what happens to the parties in the case. Sure, inasmuch as we disagree about what “goodness” is, this standard for assessing judges is squishy. But we’d rather have that argument any day of the week than 99% of the arguments lawyers are forced to make in court. The solution may not be clear, but what is apparent is that judges are more concerned with law than justice and that they have far too much power to ruin peoples’ lives. Ideally, no one would actually be able to authorize your ouster from your home or the prolonged caging of human beings—so to the extent that we can limit that, we ought to. Beyond that we must strive to make the system and the people within it more just and reduce our dependence on that system for justice and morality in the first place.


With judges wielding such concentrated and individualized power over cases, courtrooms quickly become stages for bizarre legal farces. Lawyers make arguments they don’t believe, that the judges know the lawyers don’t believe, but everyone has to play along. Only the judge has the power to decide when the game will end, and how.


We’ve made a policy shift over the years that strongly favors “predictability,” in place of “justice,” as the chief virtue of the legal system. It’s a well-accepted principle of the judicial craft that the important thing is to have a rule, rather than to necessarily have the right rule... We’d much rather have all “similar” cases or issues get decided the same way, instead of different ways, even if this leads to worse practical, real-world results overall for more individual people. Under this system, say, it’s much better if all U.S. agents who kill people from inside U.S. territory are deemed categorically ineligible to be sued, because this is predictable, and predictability is fair. To have a situation where some border guards are sueable and others aren’t, by contrast, is unfair.
But this binary between “impartial” and “partisan” judges is actually pretty nonsensical. First, evidence suggests that judges are not capable of being impartial at all. Factors as insidious as racial and class bias, as reasonable as background and knowledge, as mundane as when the judge last ate a meal, and as calculated as the judge’s ambitions for career advancement or political office, all clearly influence their choices.
For Scalia, the supposedly neutral “servant of the law,” the interpretation that best aligned with his socially conservative views almost always turned out to have been the “ordinary meaning of the plain language” all along! Funny how that happens! (This sometimes required Scalia to be pretty creative about what constituted “ordinary meaning”—when he didn’t like the “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” part of the Second Amendment, for example, he simply declared that it was a purely decorative “prefatory clause,” and when he didn’t like the fact the “plain meaning” intended by the Second Amendment’s drafters could not possibly have anticipated the semiautomatic handgun, he adopted a belief in a kind of evolving Constitution. And for someone who professed to dislike the idea of unaccountable judges thwarting the popular will, he certainly had no qualms about invalidating campaign finance reform legislation passed by the democratically-elected legislature.)


The law is full of attempts to determine what “reasonable” behavior would be in a particular situation. It should shock no one (except lawyers) that people often have wildly divergent views of what “reasonableness” means in any given situation. For courts, the “reasonable person” standard has a disturbing tendency to align with whatever best suits the positions of those in power. Think of all of the police officers whose shootings of unarmed black people have been deemed “reasonable”—and then say you want a judicial system run by “reasonable” or “impartial” judges.
Even where judicial discretion isn’t explicitly authored into the system, there are vast areas of law where a judge has the choice between several equally plausible legal arguments, each leading to different outcomes. This, in effect, empowers the judge to make whatever decision they want. This view of the judicial decision-making process was expounded by Richard Posner, one of the U.S.’s most well-known jurists, in an interview with The New York Times after his sudden retirement in September 2017. In Posner’s estimation, it’s rarely difficult for judges to do as they wish: his own modus operandi was to decide what a “sensible” resolution of the case would be, and then look to see if there was any precedent that explicitly barred him from implementing his preferred solution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case… When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around."


This is the other problem that arises when you champion open judicial “activism”—you tend to over-emphasize the extent to which judicial rulings actually result in social change... But it’s a very clean, simplistic view of history that thinks “well, at one point there was segregation, and then there was Brown v. Board of Education, and suddenly there wasn’t.” In fact, this isn’t true at all... In post-Civil War America, segregation fluctuated and was fought against over decades of social movements. In Louisiana, for example—a few years before the infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision which legally justified segregation—ox-carts were desegregated after a campaign of sustained protest and sit-ins. Social change doesn’t happen in the courts: courts just eventually catch up to what’s been happening on the ground. If we instead depend on activist judges or lawyers, then social change will never come, and if it does, it will likely not be sustained... The [SCOTUS] denied review of the case , stating that there was no Constitutional issue to review. Fast forward to 2015, when Supreme Court struck down a gay marriage ban in Obergefell v. Hodges. What happened in the intervening forty years to make this possible? The Constitution didn’t change regarding these rights. The legal arguments didn’t change either: if you read the briefs from both parties, the arguments advanced in 1971 and 2015 were pretty interchangeable. And the court in 2015 was more conservative, so the deciding factor wasn’t some new critical mass of “activist” liberal judges. The only thing that explains this landmark shift is that, over the past four decades, both mainstream and radical LGBT rights movements had taken to the streets and created a cultural shift. Obergefell is due much more to the activities of ACT-UP and the post-Stonewall gay rights movement than to Anthony Kennedy suddenly being a pro-gay rights “activist judge.


As with most checks and balances, the judiciary’s ability to thwart the other branches of government isn’t so much a reliable safeguard against tyranny as a wild-card element that occasionally works out in our favor. More broadly, the temptation to view judges as potential saviors often seems to sap progressive will for reform efforts through electoral and legislative channels. We currently have a legislature that is chronically unresponsive to genuine public concerns, and an ongoing concentration of de facto governing power in the president and his executive agencies. In this context, it’s understandable that people want to think of the judiciary as the last, best hope of American democracy. But even an optimally moral and courageous judiciary can usually only engage in obstructionist tactics, which a sufficiently determined executive will then maneuver around, unless the public finds some other way to make this politically inexpedient. The danger of reposing too much power in the judiciary, too, is amply illustrated by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, where the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the exact kinds of reforms that would have made the legislature more beholden to the real interests of the majority of their constituents—and which would thus have reduced the importance of the judicial deus ex machina. [B]If we aspire to a form of democracy where there is an actual connection between the organizing efforts of the general public and the subsequent behavior of our elected officials, pushing for reforms to make our elected government more responsive to popular concerns is a better route than relying on distant elites to undo the mistakes of other elites. When you put power in the hands of unaccountable elites, you never know what they will do with it.


[W]hat kind of power should judges have to decide the fate of the ordinary people, most of them poor, who come before them with criminal, domestic, housing, and immigration issues? Lower court judges—as opposed to appellate judges, who are often dealing with weird standards of review—have considerable discretion to reach whatever decision they wish to reach... But if you have a judge who fundamentally does not care about the person in front of her, or grossly misunderstands the actual circumstances of their life, this broad discretionary leeway will be, at best, useless. At worst, it will empower the judge to make a unusually bad and biased ruling.
Part of the problem, of course, is that judges are separated from poor litigants by class and, often, race. If we want more judges to exercise discretion in an empathetic direction, it seems crucial to diversify the pool of judges... Since there’s no good way to actually measure judicial “empathy,” you run the risk of simply adding a diversity gloss to a fundamentally unjust system.




Here is a list of potential solutions (https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/judges1.jpg) offered too. An interesting observation is that ancient (presumably Classical) Athens eschewed judicial rule of law entirely for majoritarian jurymaking. I knew about the juries, but not their size or dispositive power.

I'm not sure just how seriously these proposals are meant to be taken though, since there's a self-conscious layer of frivolity present.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Need to think a bit on the bigger point. My understanding of Athenian jurors comes from the apology. Juries could not deliver a sentence, but would vote between the options provided by the opposing sides once the defendant was found guilty.

[Pannonian]

Here is a list of potential solutions (https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/judges1.jpg) offered too. An interesting observation is that ancient (presumably Classical) Athens eschewed judicial rule of law entirely for majoritarian jurymaking. I knew about the juries, but not their size or dispositive power.

I'm not sure just how seriously these proposals are meant to be taken though, since there's a self-conscious layer of frivolity present.

Have you read about the Generals' trial? It's a good counterargument against those who want to argue that the will of the people is always right.

[Strike For The South]

So the authors kind of answer their own question near the end of the article. The general atrophy of legislatures has caused people to look to the courts as the main arbiter of the law. I would argue it is the legislature, not the courts, that is most court by niche interests and business money. It is an impossible ask to bemoan the judges for inserting their partiality while demanding they also show humanity (your mileage may vary).

Judicial overreach is such a hotbutton issue because the legislatures have essentially ceded there lawmaking ability beyond their pet projects. Even in a common law system a legislature can craft laws which basically compel the court to acquiesce to their meaning. They reference the supreme court a lot which I don't like. The supreme court is very much an uniqueness within the legal system. A kind of oddity.



Let’s take an example from a recent Supreme Court case: a U.S. border guard, standing on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border, shot and killed a child who was on the Mexican side of the border. The lawyer for the child’s family, in attempting to sue the border agent, argued that U.S. officials, when they kill people from inside the U.S., should be held liable. Now, it’s already ridiculous that the lawyer’s liability argument had to hinge on which side of the border the officer happened to be standing on, and not on the simple fact that a child was murdered and the person who killed him should obviously be responsible for compensating the family (I rest my case!). But it gets nuttier. The Court asked the attorney (paraphrasing), “Well, what about drone pilots who sit in Nevada and murder people in Pakistan? Are you saying we should hold them liable?” The lawyer—knowing that no court thinks drone pilots are liable for anything, knowing that if he says, “yes, they should also be liable” his client’s case will be lost—felt forced to make an argument that of course drone pilots are different, for… for some reason. In reality, of course, there is no substantive difference between a drone pilot who murders people from inside the U.S. and a border guard who murders people from inside the U.S. The lawyer knew this, and the Court likely knew it too. Yet the Court forced the lawyer to go through the exercise of attempting to draw an insincere distinction, making the lawyer look silly and further distancing the Court from the actual important questions.

I looked up the authors and both of them are lawyers (including one who went to Harvard, nice). The obviously know that this kind Socratic/logical deduction/whatever you call it is how lawyers operate. It is important to make distinctions, even if you think they are obvious on their face. Once again, they talk about the impossibility of impartiality and then bemoan the fact that judges could not see these very obvious truths. The authors may not see any distinction at all between a military strike and an officer shooting a child but plenty of people do. As a lawyer it is your job to argue that there isn't



The other problem with impartiality (besides being near impossible and possibly undesirable) is that a lot of seemingly “impartial” legal standards—like the famous “what would a reasonable person do” standard—are inherently subjective, so that it’s hard to say what an “impartial” application would even mean.
A reasonable person within the context and within the persons experiences. Anyone who has ever empathized with another person has employed this standard.



This problem does not have a simple solution, but there are perhaps three clarifying ways we can think about the Problem of Judges. One, we should break any habit of looking to the law as a primary source of social change. Sure, we want to eliminate bad laws and enact good ones. But changing the law is usually the middle- or end-point, rather than the starting-point, of on-the-ground changes in human social behavior. Most of the real work will happen not in the courtroom, but in the streets: Social justice-minded lawyers play, at best, a bit part or supporting role, formulating legal avenues for the changes already underway to become more solidified in formal practice.
Real lasting changes happens with lawmakers and court cases. The streets only create real lasting change proportional to the level of violence employed by either side. When the military desegregated or when the civil rights act was passed, white America did not celebrate a middle or end point of their racism. Rather these legal changes began to chip away at a power structure (that we are still dealing with today).


Secondly, when we do seek to enact legal change, one of our concerns should be to craft legal standards with an optimum humane baseline, so that the role for judicial discretion, so far as possible, is forced in the direction of mercy. Attempting to make perfect legal rules for all cases is a futile exercise, but we can at least shut off some possibilities for bad exercises of discretion. (Sometimes, the best way to do this is to get rid of the stupid law that would have thrust a person into the back of a police car, and then in front of a judge, in the first place.)
Humane is just as nebulous as a concept as impartiality.


Thirdly, it’s naïve to expect judges to be unusually moral people. That said, basic morality remains the only proper standard by which to assess whether someone is a “good” judge or not. A good judge is someone who uses whatever discretion and whatever legal tools are at their disposal to reduce human suffering. They actively seek to understand the human impact of the cases in front of them. They are humble enough to admit what they don’t understand, and to solicit whatever information or advice they think will help improve their understanding, so that they can make a decision that they believe will be really helpful to people. They care about what happens to the parties in the case. Sure, inasmuch as we disagree about what “goodness” is, this standard for assessing judges is squishy. But we’d rather have thatargument any day of the week than 99 percent of the arguments lawyers are forced to make in court.


This is the opinion of a single person and not the basis of the legal system. The humanity aspect needs to come from the legislature. This article is not so much about judges as it is with the authors problem with the system writ large.

[Montmorency]

This is the opinion of a single person and not the basis of the legal system. The humanity aspect needs to come from the legislature. This article is not so much about judges as it is with the authors problem with the system writ large.


I think that's part of the point.


It is an impossible ask to bemoan the judges for inserting their partiality while demanding they also show humanity (your mileage may vary).

Partiality is inevitable, humanity (humaneness) is not, perhaps.


The authors may not see any distinction at all between a military strike and an officer shooting a child but plenty of people do. As a lawyer it is your job to argue that there isn't

In their ethics it is probably obvious, so they're speaking to a wider issue of what kind of moralities are common in our world and government. It's also the biggest weakness in the position, since it relies less on a structural change and more on having a different kind of society and different people up for the job - obviously a more challenging proposition.

This companion piece (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/quiz-you-be-the-judge) of judicial scenarios probably represents their morality in the (A) options. Here's an example:


3. A prominent tech company has accidentally disclosed all of its customers’ personal data to the public, including their entire email inboxes, their web search histories, their medical histories, their chat transcripts, their credit card numbers, and their tastes in unconventional pornography. Countless lives have been ruined, mass chaos has resulted. An employee whistleblower at the company reveals to the press that before the breach, the CEO was frequently heard to shout “Fuck the public! We own the public! The customer is the product!” whenever security concerns were raised. The company immediately fired the whistleblowing employee, and citing a small-print provision of the employment contract, demanded the employee pay back the entirety of the salary earned during the 10-year course of their employment. The contract also specifies that if the employee cannot pay, they become permanently indentured to the company. The employee files a lawsuit contesting the contract and alleging wrongful termination, while the customers enter a class action lawsuit over the data breach. You are the judge. Decide.

A. They did what? Okay, first, clearly you can’t have a contract like that, that’s outrageous. No indentured servitude. Jesus, how is it that I even have to say that? Is this some colonial-era nightmare flashback? The company is ordered to restore the employee to her position, compensate her for the time she was “fired,” and apologize profusely. Actually, you know what, just turn the management of the company over the workers. As for the customers, every single one of them needs to be paid fair compensation for their harm. Duh.


A reasonable person within the context and within the persons experiences. Anyone who has ever empathized with another person has employed this standard.

It's not a standardizable standard, so the point stands. And they clearly don't trust the empathy of most judges.


Humane is just as nebulous as a concept as impartiality.

Their point is that "impartial" is an outright myth, while "humane" is concrete but rare. Of course, a Randian might say that mercy is inhumane.


Real lasting changes happens with lawmakers and court cases. The streets only create real lasting change proportional to the level of violence employed by either side. When the military desegregated or when the civil rights act was passed, white America did not celebrate a middle or end point of their racism. Rather these legal changes began to chip away at a power structure (that we are still dealing with today).

Aren't you missing who did the hard work of advancing desegregation and civil rights ideas in the public sphere? You know it wasn't "white America" as a whole. But I'll grant that it's an empirical question whether there's a spectrum here, in the relationship between judicial efficacy in social change and judicial acknowledgement of social change.

[Strike For The South]

In their ethics it is probably obvious, so they're speaking to a wider issue of what kind of moralities are common in our world and government. It's also the biggest weakness in the position, since it relies less on a structural change and more on having a different kind of society and different people up for the job - obviously a more challenging proposition.

Right they are arguing morality, not legality. Their "get rid of Judges" position is not so much a reform to the legal system as it is the spearhead of a moral world view. It is not surprising the individual who holds the most power within this system draws most of their ire.


It's not a standardizable standard, so the point stands. And they clearly don't trust the empathy of most judges.

If they don't trust judges because of harshness, they should trust juries even less. Judges tend to be much more sympathetic and acquittal prone. The problem is not so much concentrated power within a person as it is a justice system, and a populace, that is overly concerned with punishment. Turning a judges power over to "the people", under current legislative restraints will result in a lot less empathy and humanity.

An atrophied legislature is not the problem of the judicial system. Elect better legislators and everything will follow.


Their point is that "impartial" is an outright myth, while "humane" is concrete but rare. Of course, a Randian might say that mercy is inhumane.

Humane is not anymore concrete than impartial. People are simply more willing to admit their biases rather than their lack (or differing view) of humanity. Why would we even discuss Rand? She's an irrelevant thought exercise for privileged adolescents.


Aren't you missing who did the hard work of advancing desegregation and civil rights ideas in the public sphere? You know it wasn't "white America" as a whole. But I'll grant that it's an empirical question whether there's a spectrum here, in the relationship between judicial efficacy in social change and judicial acknowledgement of social change.

I don't think so. The marches and ideas themselves were very unpopular. What tipped the balance was laws that the NAACP fought for and the distaste for outright violence that began to happen in the 50s and 60s. Scratch that, violence was always happening, there was a tipping point then though. Till, 16th street, Mississippi burning all moved white America while the protests hardened them.

[Montmorency]

Humane is not anymore concrete than impartial. People are simply more willing to admit their biases rather than their lack (or differing view) of humanity. Why would we even discuss Rand? She's an irrelevant thought exercise for privileged adolescents.

If there is partiality, but no impartiality, and humaneness is a form of partiality, then you could say it's concrete whereas impartiality isn't. The problem is different manifestations. If your worldview holds that goodness and growth come from suffering, struggle, and conflict, then mercy and kindness could be inhumane. It's the problem you note above, in that if you want "better" judges, or jurors, or legislators, what you're really asking for is "better people", which is practically untheorizable in a meaningful way.


I don't think so. The marches and ideas themselves were very unpopular. What tipped the balance was laws that the NAACP fought for and the distaste for outright violence that began to happen in the 50s and 60s. Scratch that, violence was always happening, there was a tipping point then though. Till, 16th street, Mississippi burning all moved white America while the protests hardened them.

I'm not so sure; the popularity of the protests is a separate matter anyway, from their efficacy. And like I was saying, it probably isn't helpful to think of the relationship between judicial and social as a chicken-egg problem, the two processes interact with one another. Also, of course, there's the third process you are forgetting, one that was clearly influenced by grassroots activism and protest: legislation at the state and federal levels.

The most forceful argument for the efficacy of bottom-up social change is probably in the gay marriage example; SCOTUS justices are people exposed to the same trends, so it's understandable if these affect their attitudes and assumptions over time. A judge's very understanding of a question is changed, beyond recognizing 'which way the wind is blowing'. I would add the gun rights issue as another case of a judicial framework on the shoulders of long-term social change, although the social change there was more top-down from advocacy groups...

[Montmorency]

I discovered this only now, but, just relating for fun's sake:

(In the NRA Headquarters lobby)

https://i.imgur.com/v7Jxwqy.jpg

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

[Montmorency]

Interesting story (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/16/south-koreans-learn-to-love-the-other-multiculturalism/) on how the South Korean government has manufactured "multiculturalism" in place of Minjok ('ethno-state') within just a decade.


The language introduced in 2005-2006, and backed up by later legislative action, produced a striking change in attitudes. By 2010, the Korean Identity Survey, a national poll run by two research institutes and a South Korean newspaper, found that more than 60 percent of Koreans supported the idea of a multicultural society. As of July 2016, more than 2 million foreigners lived in South Korea, up from just 536,627 in 2006. The country elected its first lawmaker of foreign birth, the Philippine-born Jasmine Lee, in 2012. By 2020, an estimated one-third of all children born in South Korea will be of mixed South Korean and other Asian descent.

The caveat is that this reflects a policy of tolerating immigration, miscegenation, and assimilation, not exactly multiculturalism, and the change in attitude does not seem to extend to the global refugee conundrum, which South Koreans haven't given much thought in the past. If you look up the situation on the resort island Jeju, a few hundred Yemeni refugees arriving earlier in the year caused widespread panic and protests throughout the country. A majority of the population favors restrictive refugee policies. SK has only admitted a few hundred or thousand (non-North Korean) refugees in its entire modern history (admittedly not many have applied).

The alt-right loves to talk up East Asian countries as alleged examples of ethnostates. Unsurprisingly the Jeju story has been hot on Breitbart and other such spaces. Another corner of the battle for the future.

[rory_20_uk]

It would be like the UK saying "we're diverse - 1/3 of the citizens here are whites from other parts of Europe!!!"

Why is it a good thing all countries aiming for multi-culturalism?

~:smoking:

[Husar]

It would be like the UK saying "we're diverse - 1/3 of the citizens here are whites from other parts of Europe!!!"

Why is it a good thing all countries aiming for multi-culturalism?

~:smoking:

It would be worse if someone thought diversity were only measured in melanine difference.

[rory_20_uk]

It would be worse if someone thought diversity were only measured in melanine difference.

Sure - it makes no sense! Either go full-out morphological profiling or just give up: I think I'm about as far away from being "white" as most African-Americans are "black"...even leaving aside albinism.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Amazon warehouse work experience (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/the-need-for-workplace-democracy):


Bloodworth says it felt like a “prison,” with workers constantly monitored and having to pass through security whenever they went on break or to the bathroom. (Time spent in the security line is, of course, unpaid.) Warehouse workers frequently walked ten miles a day across ten and a half hour shifts, and frequently worked mandatory overtime. The hand-held devices they carried frequently transmitted “admonishments to speed up” and ranked workers from “highest to lowest in terms of the speed at which we collected the items.

The atmosphere was suffused with jargonistic bullshit. You weren’t supposed to call it a “warehouse,” but a “fulfillment center.” Workers weren’t “fired,” they were “released.” (That one might be accurate.) In fact, they weren’t even “workers,” they were “associates,” and Bloodworth days that on day one management told them that Amazon was an egalitarian workplace because “Jeff Bezos is an associate and so are all of you.” (Some associates are more equal than others, by about $150 billion.) Posters of happy employees had captions like “We love coming to work and miss it when we’re not here!”, though Bloodworth cites a survey of Amazon staff showing: 91 percent wouldn’t recommend working there, 89 percent felt exploited, 71 percent reported walking more than 10 miles per day, and 78 percent felt their breaks were too short. Workers were disciplined with “points,” and anyone who received six points would be fired—sorry, “released,” with points given out for “being sick” or “being late because the Amazon bus didn’t show up.”

But, amusingly, Amazon did not actually deny my actual factual assertions. Instead, it said things like “We don’t recognise the claim that people walk 20 miles” and “The article references people collapsing, which is not something we recognise.” Not that it doesn’t happen. Just that they don’t recognize it!


Generations ago, this is genuinely what people speculated a communist dystopia would look like.

[Husar]

Generations ago, this is genuinely what people speculated a communist dystopia would look like.

But they're free to quit and go live under a bridge instead!

[Crandar]

Fox struggling against the Japanese (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-friends-recalls-that-time-the-us-defeated-communist-japan_us_5b7582b4e4b02b415d76210a?guccounter=1) and the Danes (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fox-news-host-ridiculed-for-comparing-denmark-to-venezuela-a8495686.html).

[Montmorency]

Money is power to order the material world. The state's power runs as far as the material world does, no more but not inevitably less. The purpose of taxing the rich must be framed in terms of breaking their power, not in terms of 'paying for things'.

Wealth may be immoral in its own right, but unaccountable power is even worse.


Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity. The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

[Viking]

Money is power to order the material world. The state's power runs as far as the material world does, no more but not inevitably less. The purpose of taxing the rich must be framed in terms of breaking their power, not in terms of 'paying for things'.

So you move power from one small group of people to another small group of people, effectively concentrating the power at the hands of a smaller number of people overall. Then what?


Wealth may be immoral in its own right, but unaccountable power is even worse.

No one is unaccountable.

[Gilrandir]

No one is unaccountable.

Except Putin and Kim.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Except Putin and Kim.

They too can be held accountable, though the "actionable threshold" for an effort to 'bring them to justice' would be very high.

[Montmorency]

So you move power from one small group of people to another small group of people, effectively concentrating the power at the hands of a smaller number of people overall. Then what?

Aha, you made the wrong assumption. Eroding concentration of power is the broader principle here. A purely statist or managerial approach runs the risk you describe, but the trend today is to emphasize the transition to decentralized and communitarian organization of society. Without beginning to debate the timescale or balance of powers between local and megapolitan, the goal is exactly to diffuse practical power into more and more hands.


No one is unaccountable.

OK, but no one is truly powerful when set against the transcendent might of the Divine. Ask this guy -


They too can be held accountable, though the "actionable threshold" for an effort to 'bring them to justice' would be very high.

he knows his Jesus stuff.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh, I don't think it necessarily has to await the next life (what e're that may be), though Putin and Kim et al will face that hurdle as we all must.

In this life, holding such a leader to account requires existential risk for you and those close to you. Pretty much an "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" level risk with a functionally greater likelihood that any but the last will be taken away from you. Not many are willing to play at those stakes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...he knows his Jesus stuff.

Kind of you to say, but any number of hard-shell Baptists would tell you that I, as a Catholic, simply do not.

I don't agree, but nor would I claim myself to be much of a theologian.

[Crandar]

They too can be held accountable, though the "actionable threshold" for an effort to 'bring them to justice' would be very high.
Depends on what you mean by accountable. No ruler is omnipotent, neither Egyptian pharaohs nor Sarmatian chocolate magnates. Every regime is based on the collaboration and toleration of a part of the society, in order to survive. It may be the nobility, industrialists, shopkeepers, the court, the tribe or even the people, but everyone is accountable. Every wise ruler should know that he needs to fulfill certain expectations, as long as he doesn't wish to get down-voted, overthrown, poisoned or exiled.

[Montmorency]

Oh nooo

https://i.imgur.com/urXA6ti.jpg

[Montmorency]

I would define nihilism as a combination of three basic elements: a refusal to hope for anything except the ultimate vindication of hopelessness; a rejection of all values, especially values widely regarded as sacrosanct (equality, posterity, and legality); and a glorification of destruction, including self-destruction—or as Walter Benjamin put it, “self-alienation” so extreme that humanity “can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure.” Nihilism is less passive and more perverse than simple despair. “Nihilism is not only despair and negation,” according to Albert Camus, “but, above all, the desire to despair and to negate.”

Dayum. (https://newrepublic.com/article/151603/nihilist-nation-empty-core-trump-mystique)

[Montmorency]

Article on the anthropology of polygyny (https://areomagazine.com/2018/11/06/how-coercive-is-polygyny/) and its different types:


Norak, being unable to obtain a wife elsewhere, laid hands on Anengnak’s second wife one day and began to drag her away. Anengnak caught hold of her on the other side, and a tug of war ensued, but finally Norak, though the smaller of the two, succeeded in dragging her away to his hut and made her his wife.

what the $#@! is this even human reality

https://i.imgur.com/Caxfqmj.jpg

[Montmorency]

Speaking of military crimes, here's a story (https://www.thedailybeast.com/green-beret-discovered-seals-illicit-cash-then-he-was-killed?via=twitter_page) about US Special Forces in Africa (Mali):

The accusation is that a Green Beret uncovered an embezzlement plot by two members of Seal Team Six to siphon funds allocated for informants and collaborators, the SEALs offered him a cut, he refused, they killed him and claimed it an accident of the victim's drunkenness. Yet he hadn't been drinking...

If true, these SEALs have disgraced their names before gods and men. AFAIK Military Justice is relatively diligent when it comes to rooting out and punishing violence in the ranks, so they will get to the bottom of things. Right?
spmetla

Heeey spmetla, remember this?

Turns out it is murder (https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/seal-team-6-green-beret-death/).


THE NAVY HAS formally accused a member of SEAL Team 6 with choking a Green Beret to death last year, and then using his field medic skills to cut open the victim’s throat in an effort to fake a lifesaving technique and cover up the murder.

Melgar had reported to his chain of command that the two SEALs were stealing money from an operational fund used to pay informants

[spmetla]

It's some sick stuff they did. Glad they were put on trial despite the SEALs and their Command trying to distance themselves to make this go away. A "Beatdown" that went bad shouldn't be an okay thing to do. I've never like hazing of the 'cherries' and certainly don't like this.


Melgar’s accusation that DeDolph and Matthews were stealing from the informant funds led to a larger investigation of potential financial malfeasance at SEAL Team 6 involving the misuse of cash intended for operational and contingency purposes.

This will undoubtedly shake even more skeletons out of the closet. Though I like the SOF community they do a fair bit of shady stuff because they know they can get away with it.

[Montmorency]

From an essay (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/) on the international paranaissance of plutocracy enabled by globalization, the collapse of the USSR, and the opening of Chinese markets:

(The whole essay is worth reading)

rory_20_uk


The contagion has spread remarkably quickly, which is not to say steadily, in a country haunted since its founding by the perils of corruption. The United States has had seizures of conscience en route to the top of the new global order surveyed by the British journalist Oliver Bullough in his excellent book Moneyland: Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World and How to Take It Back. In the months following Palmer’s testimony, the zeitgeist swerved in the direction he urged, at least momentarily. Newspaper articles in the fall of 1999 showed how billions in Russian money, some of it seemingly tied to an alleged crime boss, had landed in the Bank of New York. These sums startled Bill Clinton’s administration, which readied tough new anti-money-laundering bills, designed to stiffen banking regulations. But the administration was in its last year, and passing any new law would have required a legislative slog and bull-rushing obstreperous lobbyists, so plans stalled.

The Clinton-era proposals would have remained an unvisited curio in the National Archives had Osama bin Laden not attacked. But in the days after the Twin Towers collapsed, George W. Bush’s administration furiously scoured Washington for ideas to jam into the 342-page piece of legislation that would become the patriot Act. A sense of national panic created a brief moment for bureaucrats to realize previously shelved plans. Title III of the patriot Act, the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-terrorist Financing Act, was signed into law little more than a month after September 11.

This section of the bill was a monumental legislative achievement. Undeterred by the smoke clouds of crisis, representatives of the big banks had stalked the Senate, trying to quash the measure. Citibank officials reportedly got into shouting matches with congressional staffers in the hall. This anger reflected the force of the patriot Act. If a bank came across suspicious money transferred from abroad, it was now required to report the transfer to the government. A bank could face criminal charges for failing to establish sufficient safeguards against the flow of corrupt cash. Little wonder that banks fought fiercely against the imposition of so many new rules, which required them to bulk up their compliance divisions—and, more to the point, subjected them to expensive penalties for laxity.

Much of what Palmer had urged was suddenly the law of the land. But nestled in the patriot Act lay the handiwork of another industry’s lobbyists. Every House district in the country has real estate, and lobbyists for that business had pleaded for relief from the patriot Act’s monitoring of dubious foreign transactions. They all but conjured up images of suburban moms staking for sale signs on lawns, ill-equipped to vet every buyer. And they persuaded Congress to grant the industry a temporary exemption from having to enforce the new law.

The exemption was a gaping loophole—and an extraordinary growth opportunity for high-end real estate. For all the new fastidiousness of the financial system, foreigners could still buy penthouse apartments or mansions anonymously and with ease, by hiding behind shell companies set up in states such as Delaware and Nevada. Those states, along with a few others, had turned the registration of shell companies into a hugely lucrative racket—and it was stunningly simple to arrange such a Potemkin front on behalf of a dictator, a drug dealer, or an oligarch. According to Global Witness, a London-based anti-corruption NGO founded in 1993, procuring a library card requires more identification in many states than does creating an anonymous shell company.

Much of the money that might have snuck into banks before the patriot Act became law was now used to purchase property. The New York Times described the phenomenon in a series of exposés, published in 2015, called “Towers of Secrecy.” Reporters discovered that condos in the ultra-luxe Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in Manhattan were owned by a constellation of kleptocrats. One condo belonged to the family of a former Russian senator whose suspected ties to organized crime precluded him from legally entering Canada for a few years. A condo down the hall belonged to a Greek businessman who had recently been arrested in an anti-government-corruption sweep. The family of a former Colombian governor, imprisoned for self-enrichment while in office, owned a unit he could no longer visit.

These denizens, all of whom denied wrongdoing, made their high-priced purchases in what has become a common way. Nationwide, nearly half of homes worth at least $5 million, the Times found, were bought using shell companies. The proportion was even greater in Los Angeles and Manhattan (where more than 80 percent of Time Warner Center sales fit that description). As the Treasury Department put it in 2017, nearly one in three high-end real-estate purchases that it monitors involves an individual whom the government has been tracking as “suspicious.” Yet somehow the presence of so many shady buyers has never especially troubled the real-estate industry or, for that matter, politicians. In 2013, New York City’s then-mayor, Michael Bloomberg, asked, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could get all the Russian billionaires to move here?”

The warm welcome has created a strange dissonance in American policy. Take the case of the aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a character who has made recurring cameos in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The State Department, concerned about Deripaska’s connections to Russian organized crime (which he has denied), has restricted his travel to the United States for years. Such fears have not stood in the way of his acquiring a $42.5 million mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and another estate near Washington’s Embassy Row.

Over time, the gap between the noble intentions of the patriot Act and the dirty reality of the property market became too wide to ignore. In 2016, Barack Obama’s administration tested a program to bring the real-estate industry in line with the banks, compelling brokers to report foreign buyers, too. The ongoing program, piloted in Miami and Manhattan, could have become the scaffolding for a truly robust enforcement regime. But then the American presidency turned over, and a landlord came to power. Obama’s successor liked selling condos to anonymous foreign buyers—and may have grown dependent on their cash.

In 2017, Reuters examined the sale of Trump Organization properties in Florida. It found that 77 of 2,044 units in the developments were owned by Russians. But that was likely an incomplete portrait. More than one-third of the units had been sold to corporate vehicles, which can readily hide the identity of the true owner. As Oliver Bullough remarks, “They might have belonged to Vladimir Putin, for all anyone else could know.” Around the time that Trump took up occupancy in the White House, the patriot Act’s “temporary” exemption for real estate entered its 15th year. Without anyone ever declaring it so, the ephemeral has been enshrined.


he war on kleptocracy had meanwhile been lurching forward on another front. If foreign plutocrats remained mostly unscathed as they made themselves at home in the U.S., American plutocrats eager to hide their fortunes abroad faced fresh trouble. In 2007, the United States experienced one of its bouts of moral clarity, jolted by the confessions of a banker named Bradley Birkenfeld, who came clean to the Department of Justice. (He would later tell his story in a book called Lucifer’s Banker.) What he freely divulged to prosecutors were his client-recruiting efforts on behalf of UBS, the Swiss banking behemoth.

Birkenfeld described how he had ensconced himself in the gilded heart of the American plutocracy, attending yacht regattas and patronizing art galleries. He would mingle with the wealthy and strike up conversation. “What I can do for you is zero,” he would say, and then pause before the punch line: “Actually, it’s three zeroes. Zero income tax, zero capital-gains tax, and zero inheritance tax.” Birkenfeld’s unsubtle approach succeeded wildly, as did his bank. As part of an agreement with the Justice Department, UBS admitted to hiding assets totaling some $20 billion in American money.

The scale of the hidden cash spun Congress into a fury. In 2010, it passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (fatca), legislation with moral clout that belies its stodgy name. Never again would a foreign bank be able to hold American cash without notifying the IRS—or without risking a walloping fine.

Here was anti-corruption leadership at work—and U.S. waffling on display. According to one powerful strain of American exceptionalism, the nation boasts superior financial hygiene and a bedrock culture of good government. Indeed, the U.S. government has devoted more attention to money laundering than perhaps any other nation on the planet. But the bar isn’t very high, and the vigilance has its limits. In 2011, the Obama administration sought to collect more information about foreigners’ bank accounts and to share it with the relevant home countries. But banks—along with their lobbyists and intellectual mouthpieces—worked furiously to prevent the expansion. A fellow at the Heritage Foundation denounced the proposed standards as “fiscal imperialism.” The president of the Florida Bankers Association said, “At a time when we are trying to create jobs and reduce the burden on businesses, this is the wrong issue.” Bankers’ associations in Texas, California, and New York followed suit. The effort went nowhere in Congress.

The pattern repeated itself when the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, following the original fatca example, took the congressional template and extended it: Each year, banks would report foreign accounts to the tax authorities in the account holders’ home country. If every nation had signed on to the OECD standards, the effect would have been a hammerblow to tax havens, shattering the vital infrastructure that allows kleptocratic money to flow unnoticed. In the end, the United States was alone in refusing to join the OECD agreement, finalized in 2014.

This obstinacy stood to subvert everything the country had done to lead the fight against dirty money: While the U.S. can ask almost any other nation’s banks for financial information about American citizens, it has no obligation to provide other countries with the same. “The United States had bullied the rest of the world into scrapping financial secrecy,” Bullough writes, “but hadn’t applied the same standards to itself.” A Zurich-based lawyer vividly spelled out the consequences to Bloomberg: “How ironic—no, how perverse—that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour … That ‘giant sucking sound’ you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA.”

Not long before the U.S. declined to sign on to the OECD standards, a branch office of the baronial Rothschild bank opened on the 12th floor of a building in Reno, Nevada, far away in miles and spirit from the home office in Paris. The bank’s name wasn’t announced on the exterior of the building or even listed in the lobby directory. Soon after the Reno outpost opened, one of the bank’s managing directors introduced the new branch’s services to potential clients in San Francisco. What made the presentation so memorable were the ideas included in a draft procured by Bloomberg. The script laid bare the reasons for wealthy foreigners to funnel money through Nevada: The state is the ideal place to hide money from governments and avoid paying U.S. taxes. The draft acknowledged a truth that bankers don’t usually admit in public, which is that the United States has “little appetite” for helping foreign governments retrieve money laundered within its borders. In fact, it has grown into “the biggest tax haven in the world.” (The firm said these statements were removed before the presentation was delivered, because they did not reflect the firm’s real views.)

The US is "the biggest tax haven in the world"


“They don’t send lawyers to jail, because we run the country … We’re still members of a privileged class in this country.”


American collusion with kleptocracy comes at a terrible cost for the rest of the world.


Paradoxically then, the formula remains: the only one left to save you from us is we.

[rory_20_uk]

So without altering the framework and properly plugging holes you can set the tax rate to whatever you like - and watch the money flow between one's fingers.

For companies, a tax on revenue / sales would help (not solve) money staying where it was created. For property, a high annual levy (call it what you like) would again help. In the UK council tax is basically "broken" with the upper limit being a matter of a few thousand pounds - so houses that cost £350,000 and £250,000,000 pay the same band. If they are owned by a shell company they do pay a lot more... unless they have an exemption such as they rent the place out. To who? Oh, perhaps another shell company that the person who actually lives in the property owns - who knows?

An almost frictionless movement of money globally without some sort of global tax problem will always end up in such a mess - but those with will pay a fraction of a percentage point to bribe those in power to keep it that way.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So without altering the framework and properly plugging holes you can set the tax rate to whatever you like - and watch the money flow between one's fingers.

For companies, a tax on revenue / sales would help (not solve) money staying where it was created. For property, a high annual levy (call it what you like) would again help. In the UK council tax is basically "broken" with the upper limit being a matter of a few thousand pounds - so houses that cost £350,000 and £250,000,000 pay the same band. If they are owned by a shell company they do pay a lot more... unless they have an exemption such as they rent the place out. To who? Oh, perhaps another shell company that the person who actually lives in the property owns - who knows?

An almost frictionless movement of money globally without some sort of global tax problem will always end up in such a mess - but those with will pay a fraction of a percentage point to bribe those in power to keep it that way.

~:smoking:

Given that you oppose international courts and voted to take the UK out of the EU just as the latter is bringing in measures (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en) to try to plug some of these holes, how do you propose to do this to your satisfaction? NB. international bodies like the ECJ that rule between countries are to be avoided, as per your objections, so the measures have to be self-contained within each state.

[rory_20_uk]

Given that you oppose international courts and voted to take the UK out of the EU just as the latter is bringing in measures (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en) to try to plug some of these holes, how do you propose to do this to your satisfaction? NB. international bodies like the ECJ that rule between countries are to be avoided, as per your objections, so the measures have to be self-contained within each state.

Yeah, the EU is the magic bullet to all problems... Get a grip!

To repeat myself ad nauseam - there's a massive difference between having an international court and having an Court system that can override national laws. I fully accept you appear to not understand the difference.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Yeah, the EU is the magic bullet to all problems... Get a grip!

To repeat myself ad nauseam - there's a massive difference between having an international court and having an Court system that can override national laws. I fully accept you appear to not understand the difference.

~:smoking:

Would you prefer to be within ATAD or without?

[Montmorency]

So without altering the framework and properly plugging holes you can set the tax rate to whatever you like - and watch the money flow between one's fingers.

For companies, a tax on revenue / sales would help (not solve) money staying where it was created. For property, a high annual levy (call it what you like) would again help. In the UK council tax is basically "broken" with the upper limit being a matter of a few thousand pounds - so houses that cost £350,000 and £250,000,000 pay the same band. If they are owned by a shell company they do pay a lot more... unless they have an exemption such as they rent the place out. To who? Oh, perhaps another shell company that the person who actually lives in the property owns - who knows?

An almost frictionless movement of money globally without some sort of global tax problem will always end up in such a mess - but those with will pay a fraction of a percentage point to bribe those in power to keep it that way.

~:smoking:

The article describes great strides made in international regulation of transparency in banking, but identifies two deficits:

1. Real estate regulation loopholes, exemptions, and special treatment.
2. The failure of the United States to hold itself to its own international-legal standard (this seems like a problem the US has in a lot of domains).

Going by this -


The pattern repeated itself when the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, following the original fatca example, took the congressional template and extended it: Each year, banks would report foreign accounts to the tax authorities in the account holders’ home country. If every nation had signed on to the OECD standards, the effect would have been a hammerblow to tax havens, shattering the vital infrastructure that allows kleptocratic money to flow unnoticed. In the end, the United States was alone in refusing to join the OECD agreement, finalized in 2014.

This obstinacy stood to subvert everything the country had done to lead the fight against dirty money: While the U.S. can ask almost any other nation’s banks for financial information about American citizens, it has no obligation to provide other countries with the same. “The United States had bullied the rest of the world into scrapping financial secrecy,” Bullough writes, “but hadn’t applied the same standards to itself.” A Zurich-based lawyer vividly spelled out the consequences to Bloomberg: “How ironic—no, how perverse—that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour … That ‘giant sucking sound’ you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA.”

it would actually be surprisingly easy to crack open the current tax haven system if the US would cooperate and abolish itself as a tax haven. How funny would it be if half the 'great international effort' needed to rationalize tax policy against the wealthy and large businesses were just down to the United States unilaterally changing a couple policies on paper?

But as the rest of the essay describes, the wealthy work hard to dissipate the political will to do so. Is there a way around this that doesn't depend on literal rhetorical class warfare?

[Pannonian]

The article describes great strides made in international regulation of transparency in banking, but identifies two deficits:

1. Real estate regulation loopholes, exemptions, and special treatment.
2. The failure of the United States to hold itself to its own international-legal standard (this seems like a problem the US has in a lot of domains).

Going by this -

it would actually be surprisingly easy to crack open the current tax haven system if the US would cooperate and abolish itself as a tax haven. How funny would it be if half the 'great international effort' needed to rationalize tax policy against the wealthy and large businesses were just down to the United States unilaterally changing a couple policies on paper?

But as the rest of the essay describes, the wealthy work hard to dissipate the political will to do so. Is there a way around this that doesn't depend on literal rhetorical class warfare?

One part of this is the EU's effort to make sure that any company wishing to operate within the EU has to sign up to ATAD. The EU, being one of the economic giants, has the power to do this, even with the US directly opposing it, even with every other economic bloc opposing it. One of the rationales of Brexit is to break up the EU and re-orientate Europe towards the US, hence the obnoxiousness from Brexiteers to burn all the bridges they can so that, even were the British populace to change their mind in the future, Europe would no longer have us back, and similarly with other EU-exit movements.

[rory_20_uk]

One part of this is the EU's effort to make sure that any company wishing to operate within the EU has to sign up to ATAD. The EU, being one of the economic giants, has the power to do this, even with the US directly opposing it, even with every other economic bloc opposing it. One of the rationales of Brexit is to break up the EU and re-orientate Europe towards the US, hence the obnoxiousness from Brexiteers to burn all the bridges they can so that, even were the British populace to change their mind in the future, Europe would no longer have us back, and similarly with other EU-exit movements.

And that has failed to work with my personal favourite case being Ireland not wanting to take money from Apple and going as far as to defend the company.

In any case, the Panama Papers showed many politicians - legally - stacking money abroad. And this was one leak of information from one legal firm at one tax haven. So it is highly likely that this only unmasked some of the EU politicians enjoying the perks they pretend to want to end.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

In any case, the Panama Papers showed many politicians - legally - stacking money abroad. And this was one leak of information from one legal firm at one tax haven. So it is highly likely that this only unmasked some of the EU politicians enjoying the perks they pretend to want to end.

You need to be more precise about what you mean with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Panama_Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_and_organisations_named_in_the_Paradise_Papers

I see one member of the EU parliament in this and dozens of people from the UK. If we can extrapolate from that, the UK parliament has at least four times as many corrupt members than the EU parliament and that's with fewer members overall. How then, can you deduce that leaving the EU would be better for the fight against corruption than staying in?

Your argument makes no sense so far.

[rory_20_uk]

You need to be more precise about what you mean with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Panama_Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_and_organisations_named_in_the_Paradise_Papers

I see one member of the EU parliament in this and dozens of people from the UK. If we can extrapolate from that, the UK parliament has at least four times as many corrupt members than the EU parliament and that's with fewer members overall. How then, can you deduce that leaving the EU would be better for the fight against corruption than staying in?

Your argument makes no sense so far.

First off, I was not saying that the UK was better.
Secondly, one second you're on about precision then you suddenly extrapolate a minuscule data set and conclude that the EU - with such countries as Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria - has less corruption. Might there be a reason that the leaders of these three countries don't need to offshore? I'm sure that Germany ranks as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. However, they've combined most of their systems with those that are known to be extremely corrupt.

So... take the blinkers off once in a while.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

First off, I was not saying that the UK was better.
Secondly, one second you're on about precision then you suddenly extrapolate a minuscule data set and conclude that the EU - with such countries as Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria - has less corruption. Might there be a reason that the leaders of these three countries don't need to offshore? I'm sure that Germany ranks as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. However, they've combined most of their systems with those that are known to be extremely corrupt.

So... take the blinkers off once in a while.

~:smoking:

What have the internal workings of member states to do with the EU? Didn't you complain that the EU overrides national laws? If the politicians of member states decide to be corrupt within their countries, what do you expect the EU to do that doesn't override national laws?

Here's an example of corruption within an EU institution. Nigel Farage, MEP for SE England, notoriously rarely turns up to work, yet takes his MEP's salary and will take his pension in due course. What do you make of this?

[rory_20_uk]

What have the internal workings of member states to do with the EU? Didn't you complain that the EU overrides national laws? If the politicians of member states decide to be corrupt within their countries, what do you expect the EU to do that doesn't override national laws?

Here's an example of corruption within an EU institution. Nigel Farage, MEP for SE England, notoriously rarely turns up to work, yet takes his MEP's salary and will take his pension in due course. What do you make of this?

Do you see the irony of what you've written? Probably not...

If the countries do not follow laws, what they are doesn't matter. The UK generally follows its laws. The three countries I mentioned have a long history of corruption and do not enforce their own laws. The EU is finally developing a spine on issues such as Poland trying to remove many judges.

Another example is when unfit horse meat was used for human consumption. The EU laws said this was illegal. And it happened anyway. And with the pretence that every country enforces laws the same it happily passes over borders with little more than a nod.

Has Farage broken any of the rules for being a MEP? Are they allowed to take large amounts of money, a final salary pension, effectively private healthcare and do sod all? I doubt it. Hence this is another small reason why the EU as it stands is unfit for purpose. It should have remained similar to NATO where national assets were used rather than adding in extra layers of leeches whose only purpose is to enhance their own existence at the expense of both individual countries and the populace thereof.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

First off, I was not saying that the UK was better.
Secondly, one second you're on about precision then you suddenly extrapolate a minuscule data set and conclude that the EU - with such countries as Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria - has less corruption. Might there be a reason that the leaders of these three countries don't need to offshore? I'm sure that Germany ranks as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. However, they've combined most of their systems with those that are known to be extremely corrupt.

So... take the blinkers off once in a while.

Exactly, you were only talking about corruption in the EU. If I was supposed to guess from that that you think Britain is not better, why did you use the argument in support of Brexit? Or did you not? That's what I meant with more precision, I am left to guess what exactly you mean.

As for extrapolating and precision, I found exactly one single MEP on the list, you said "some of the EU politicians". That's plural, so you already extrapolated from one MEP to several politicians, then say I'm imprecise for doing the same. At least I provided a source for my extrapolation, you provided absolutely nothing and left me guessing what you actually mean and where you take that info from.

So yeah, it's your argument, you might have a point, you might not, from the sources I found, you're completely wrong. It's not even my job to provide sources for your argument...
As Pannonian said, the local politicians don't matter since you specifically mentioned that the EU itself wasn't serious about corruption. Local politicians that aren't in the EU and are supposedly overruled by the EU say nothing about the EU unless they're British and will not be in the EU anymore soon. My second list has one EU MP and four British MPs, the other list has several government officials and other important British people and I wouldn't find any EU officials, so how exactly is Brexit going to help with lowering corruption based on the Panama Papers?

[rory_20_uk]

Exactly, you were only talking about corruption in the EU. If I was supposed to guess from that that you think Britain is not better, why did you use the argument in support of Brexit? Or did you not? That's what I meant with more precision, I am left to guess what exactly you mean.

As for extrapolating and precision, I found exactly one single MEP on the list, you said "some of the EU politicians". That's plural, so you already extrapolated from one MEP to several politicians, then say I'm imprecise for doing the same. At least I provided a source for my extrapolation, you provided absolutely nothing and left me guessing what you actually mean and where you take that info from.

So yeah, it's your argument, you might have a point, you might not, from the sources I found, you're completely wrong. It's not even my job to provide sources for your argument...
As Pannonian said, the local politicians don't matter since you specifically mentioned that the EU itself wasn't serious about corruption. Local politicians that aren't in the EU and are supposedly overruled by the EU say nothing about the EU unless they're British and will not be in the EU anymore soon. My second list has one EU MP and four British MPs, the other list has several government officials and other important British people and I wouldn't find any EU officials, so how exactly is Brexit going to help with lowering corruption based on the Panama Papers?

One? Odd - here's 6: https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/olaf-investigates-eu-leaders-in-panama-papers-scandal/
Some more: https://www.politico.eu/article/5-ways-panama-papers-swept-eu-figures-miguel-arias-canete-david-cameron/

Oh, and several countries. https://www.dw.com/en/panama-papers-report-calls-out-complicit-eu-countries/a-41033612

Given the UK is currently in the EU, how exactly am I to refer to things not in the EU? I appear to be in a tiny minority that isn't telling everyone how I can predict the future of what things will look like - better or worse.

To point out the obvious: Brexit will do nothing to improve corruption just as the EU has done little if anything to improve corruption - especially if every country in the EU and their conduct can be conveniently ignored - reminds me of New Zealand giving human rights... easily done since they have none in New Zealand at the time. The EU has passed some documents and they are toothless enough to ensure that they are easily avoided for everyone involved.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Do you see the irony of what you've written? Probably not...

If the countries do not follow laws, what they are doesn't matter. The UK generally follows its laws. The three countries I mentioned have a long history of corruption and do not enforce their own laws. The EU is finally developing a spine on issues such as Poland trying to remove many judges.

Another example is when unfit horse meat was used for human consumption. The EU laws said this was illegal. And it happened anyway. And with the pretence that every country enforces laws the same it happily passes over borders with little more than a nod.

Has Farage broken any of the rules for being a MEP? Are they allowed to take large amounts of money, a final salary pension, effectively private healthcare and do sod all? I doubt it. Hence this is another small reason why the EU as it stands is unfit for purpose. It should have remained similar to NATO where national assets were used rather than adding in extra layers of leeches whose only purpose is to enhance their own existence at the expense of both individual countries and the populace thereof.

~:smoking:

I'm not sure how the irony works against me here. I've never complained about international bodies enforcing international agreements, either as an individual or against said bodies. Where you see the horsemeat scandal as the fault of the EU, I see it as the fault of the officials who are supposed to be enforcing the regulations, and the relevant bodies corrected matters when this became known, as it should. Like you said, the UK, unlike much of eastern Europe, is generally law-abiding. Which is why the ECJ, the arbiter of disputes concerning EU agreements between member states, has ruled in favour of the UK the vast majority of the time. Which makes the ECJ the protector of UK rights, not the threat that you paint it to be. As a comparison, what do you make of the US lobbyists' applications to Trump for any future US-UK trade deal? All the stuff that Remainers warned about, the American lobbyists have now formally submitted to Trump. And the Japanese have withdrawn from negotiations with the UK, as they reckon they can bend us over further than they currently have. Just as the Remainers had warned, but were dismissed as Project Fear.

On your above complaint that the EU is not fit for purpose because there is an additional layer of leeches. What do you think of the additional 5,000 (minimum) officials that we need to find and pay for to deal with customs barriers that we currently don't have? You don't like the additional politicians, so you'd probably prefer inter-nation relations rather than a centralised Parliament. We also have that, in the form of EU commissioners, who are appointed by and represent the member states. Yet the EU commissioners were oft cited as an example of unelected bureaucrats who held the real power in the EU. So, of the two ways in which the EU's population is represented in the EU, the state-appointed commissioners are criticised by Brexiters as unelected bureaucrats that hold the real power, while the elected MEPs are criticised by Brexiters as an additional layer of leeches. The UK has 73 MEPs, not all of whom are corrupt like the arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage, whom you defend by arguing that he's not breaking any laws (even though I'd have thought that politicians should be subject to ethics as much as laws). You reckon that's a waste of money, and would get rid of them (even though Farage will still be taking his pension long after this), replacing them with thousands of officials who would otherwise not be needed. Which is more cost effective? 73 MEPs with associated officials? Or 5-10k customs officials? And the latter doesn't even include the cost of physical infrastructure, such as the port of Ramsgate that the government was banking on, but which is now deemed to be unuseable. I'd like to see the Brexiteers produce some accounts for all this, given that 350m/week for the NHS apparently paid such a big part in their side's win.

[Montmorency]

Related to plutocracy: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2015.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/y3eW301.png

(Bad luck economy, Eurolads.)

[Pannonian]

A Parliamentary inquiry (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/a-digital-gangster-destroying-democracy-the-damning-verdict-on-facebook) has concluded that Facebook has corrupted the exercise of British democracy, and that electoral laws have to be rewritten from bottom up, and that all British elections (including the 2016 referendum) have likely been subject to foreign interference.

[Montmorency]

Buzz Aldrin says migrate to Mars to save humanity, but that doesn't make sense. If the premise is that Mars is a backup in case Earth becomes uninhabitable, then the reasoning is all muddled. Anything we could do on Mars to habitate it would be orders of magnitude more easily done on Earth, from subterranean dwelling to geoengineering. To say nothing of actually moving people.

I support colonization, but migration is putting the speculative fiction before the horse.


Also, it registered with me that this apocalyptic diary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Savicheva) of a starving child in the siege of Leningrad


Zhenya died on December 28th at 12 noon, 1941

Grandma died on the 25th of January at 3 o'clock, 1942

Leka died March 17th, 1942, at 5 o'clock in the morning, 1942

Uncle Vasya died on April 13th at 2 o'clock in the morning, 1942

Uncle Lesha May 10th, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, 1942

Mama on May 13th at 7:30 in the morning, 1942

The Savichevs are dead

Everyone is dead

Only Tanya is left

-Tanya Savicheva

reads a lot like last records of the dwarves in Balin's tomb:


We cannot get out. We cannot get out. They have taken the bridge and Second Hall. Frár and Lóni and Náli fell there bravely while the rest retreated to Mazarbul. We still hold the chamber but hope is fading now. Óin’s party went five days ago but today only four returned. The pool is up to the wall at West-gate. The Watcher in the Water took Óin -- we cannot get out. The end comes soon. We hear drums, drums in the deep.

They are coming

As is often the case, real life beats the heck out of fiction.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And Buzz is on the right path, but not quite there. Mars is still locked into the same cycle of the same star.

[Husar]

And Buzz is on the right path, but not quite there. Mars is still locked into the same cycle of the same star.

You're not saying that climate change is due to sun cycles, are you?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're not saying that climate change is due to sun cycles, are you?

Eventually, for species survival, we will require abodes that orbit other stars. However bogglingly long the time is compared with the scale of an individual life, Sol also has a finite existence.

[Husar]

Eventually, for species survival, we will require abodes that orbit other stars. However bogglingly long the time is compared with the scale of an individual life, Sol also has a finite existence.

Well, yes, but so does the universe, ideally we should colonize beyond that as well. :sweatdrop:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Eventually, for species survival, we will require abodes that orbit other stars. However bogglingly long the time is compared with the scale of an individual life, Sol also has a finite existence.

Hot Take: By the time the Sun turns into a Red Giant, humans will be long extinct or have transcended reality into higher dimensions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, yes, but so does the universe, ideally we should colonize beyond that as well. :sweatdrop:

Exactly. If anything, we will probably accomplish dimensional shifts prior to FTL.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hot Take: By the time the Sun turns into a Red Giant, humans will be long extinct or have transcended reality into higher dimensions.

I am hopeful we will not be extinct. Transformed? mayhap.

[Husar]

The information age or even modernity as a whole was so far quite a bit too fast for our brains to actually adapt to it as can be seen in all the circumstances where our scientists can only explain our actions and reactions by referring to stone age logic. If we can't even adapt to that, I would think it might be quite a while before we actually transform or transcend into anything higher. :sweatdrop:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The information age or even modernity as a whole was so far quite a bit too fast for our brains to actually adapt to it as can be seen in all the circumstances where our scientists can only explain our actions and reactions by referring to stone age logic. If we can't even adapt to that, I would think it might be quite a while before we actually transform or transcend into anything higher. :sweatdrop:

agreed, but the "deadline" of our being eradicated by our own star is a good ways off.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

agreed, but the "deadline" of our being eradicated by our own star is a good ways off.

Or so we assume.

I recall reading a Sci-Fi novel, can't remember the name, where humanity had become advanced enough to detect instability in distant stars and map the galaxy, but hadn't got around to actually properly getting out of the Solar System. A Freak energy wave destabilised the Sun and they suddenly didn't have enough time.

We died.

So, we need FTL, we need electro-magnetic shielding, Cold Fusion to power the ships and computers smart enough to plot the jumps. Usable Cryo would also be helpful.

[Husar]

agreed, but the "deadline" of our being eradicated by our own star is a good ways off.

You mean like, after the 2020 election? :sweatdrop:


So, we need FTL, we need electro-magnetic shielding, Cold Fusion to power the ships and computers smart enough to plot the jumps. Usable Cryo would also be helpful.

FTL is so nice and short, very much unlike the way to get there. In fact it looks a lot like the way stops before you ever even get there.
Getting away from this star isn't so hard, actually arriving somewhere meaningful in a useful condition is. I'm not sure how cold fusion is going to help given that I'm not aware of any purely electric space drive. All the rockets we use depend on outputting quite a bit of mass on one end of a rocket to propel the other end through space. I'm not sure how having a lot of energy is supposed to help with having sufficient mass on board to shoot out at one end of the ship to move forwards. As for bending space around the ship for FTL, that's a nice theory, but so far that seems to require even more mass. Yes, mass and energy are related, but if it were that easy, we'd have electric spaceships already. It's not like we don't know a lot of the math already, or is it?

It's similar with jet engines I think, haven't seen those in an electric version yet, probably because they depend on burning fuel and you can't just burn electric energy. All the electric planes seem to use propellers because those work with electric engines. The electric fire on your TV also doesn't warm you quite as well as burning actual wood does.

Yes, I'm aware of ion drives, but I doubt they would profit a lot from enormous reactors, especially since a cold fusion reactor might add quite a lot of mass to a ship itself, requiring more energy and fuel for propulsion. The energy needed to even get near the speed of light is quite enormous. Maybe the energy from a dyson sphere (free fusion energy) could be used by focusing it on a lighter ship. Problem is the ship would still need energy to slow down again once it gets to its destination. Unless you want to use the colonists as a weapon.

Point being I don't believe time travel is possible and FTL appears to basically break the same rules. Not sure about electric drives, we can barely get electricity to work for cars and that should be a priority before we focus on other planets. Now if the universe is actually full of dark matter and we could find a propulsion method that interacts with that like a propeller or jet engine uses the air on earth, that would sound useful to me (maybe coupled with the cold fusion to propel it?). Also quite a bit after the 2020 election though. :shrug:

And who will be first to tell us about the universe inside a black hole?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree that FTL is the answer. But I do not think we can actually travel FTL in the sidereal universe we all share. We will have to travel on grav waves at "apparently" FTL speeds (with the wave doing the real moving); find someway to generate or use a wormhole connection (power issues about); or shift from one dimension to another, using the shift to arrive back at a different location in our own sidereal universe.

Star Trek "warp drive" is, alas, almost certainly a literary device.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Usable Cryo would also be helpful.

This century is as much Biochemistry's as the 20th was for Physics and the 19th for Chemistry.

By 2100 we will likely have much better insight into stabilizing the effects of aging and managing diseases through gene therapy, novel molecules, and controlling our environments. Cryo may not be needed.

[Montmorency]

Time to play "Guess the ethnicity."

Make your best guess and assign an ethnicity to each of these persons.

DO NOT SEARCH FOR THE ANSWER OR REVEAL IT HERE.

You have one week.

https://i.imgur.com/h4XduaW.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AfLAoV0.jpg

[Beskar]

Time to play "Guess the ethnicity."

Make your best guess and assign an ethnicity to each of these persons.

DO NOT SEARCH FOR THE ANSWER OR REVEAL IT HERE.

You have one week.

https://i.imgur.com/h4XduaW.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AfLAoV0.jpg

What do you define as Ethnicity in this context?
Americans only have 5 categories. "White", "Black/African", "Mexican", "Muslim" and "Chinese". (I jest)

[Montmorency]

What do you define as Ethnicity in this context?
Americans only have 5 categories. "White", "Black/African", "Mexican", "Muslim" and "Chinese". (I jest)

They don't have to be American; they could be Kurdish and Hmong, respectively. If you prefer, you can assign a nationality.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Time to play "Guess the ethnicity."

Make your best guess and assign an ethnicity to each of these persons.


AMERICAN

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

American.

Second one may be a bit Dutch, first one might be a bit native American.

[Montmorency]

First one is a Danish Dane. Second one is an American Jew.

[Beskar]

First one is a Danish Dane. Second one is an American Jew.

I went with American White possibly Jewish for second (kind of looks like someone I know who is an American Jew).

The first I was thinking European, but it was too vague. But probably North Eastern area which would include Denmark (along with others like Estonia/Baltics).

[Montmorency]

I went with American White possibly Jewish for second (kind of looks like someone I know who is an American Jew).

The first I was thinking European, but it was too vague. But probably North Eastern area which would include Denmark (along with others like Estonia).

lol the whole point of the exercise is to register your guess before the reveal. I hoped for a couple more posters.

I did this because reverse-searching either of their photos includes results for the other, which is amusing. Melinda Katz is one of the more Europeanized looks. Somewhat less so is someone like Valerie Plame (https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/1028x675/format/jpg/quality/85/http%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fhss%2Fstorage%2Fmidas%2Ffe674dd510d658db7a06c8615c991bfc%2F0%2FRTR1FHOQ. jpeg), then someone like her (https://imgur.com/JpmN8fu) (the Youtube animator).

[Beskar]

lol the whole point of the exercise is to register your guess before the reveal. I hoped for a couple more posters.

I found out the answers before your reveal. :laugh4: Since I thought I was rather close, I decided not to post.

[Montmorency]

Holy shit, the Sinaloa cartel just went ISIS-mode and defeated the Mexican government (https://time.com/5705358/sinaloa-cartel-mexico-culiacan/?xid=tcoshare) in a pitched battle over a mid-sized city. Pretty sure this is what we were warned about when foreign policy scholars said criminal organizations could transition to feral government organizations in a world system of weak states and strong commerce.

(Given the record of the 1990s, the US federal government would probably preemptively retreat and cede the territory in a similar situation)


But on Thursday in the Sinaloan city of Culiacan, the cartel gunmen were everywhere. They openly drove in trucks with mounted machine guns, blockaded streets flashing their Kalashnikovs and burned trucks unleashing plumes of smoke like it was a scene in Syria. They took control of the strategic points in the metro area, shut down the airport, roads, and government buildings and exchanged fire with security forces for hours, leaving at least eight people dead. In contrast, everyone else had to act like ghosts, hiding behind locked doors, not daring to step outside.

And in this unusual battle, the Sinaloa Cartel won. Their uprising was in response to soldiers storming a house on Thursday and arresting Ovidio Guzman, the 28-year old son of convicted kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. In February, the U.S. Justice Department announced it had indicted Ovidio Guzman on trafficking cocaine, marijuana and meth. But after hours of cartel chaos, Mexico’s federal government gave soldiers the go ahead to release him. It capitulated.

[Montmorency]

Fuck (https://twitter.com/Hankinstien/status/1189991231415152640).


Here are some actual things that white US Army Air Corps officers in 1945 said about the African American airmen serving with them at Freeman Field, Indiana.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fuck (https://twitter.com/Hankinstien/status/1189991231415152640).

A sad era on that issue.

[rory_20_uk]

A sad era on that issue.

It always seems to be framed as a bygone era (and you chose to describe this as "sad??!?") - definitely not a problem now... Sure, it might have somewhat improved (the bar was set very, very low) but the USA still manages to be an extremely racist country to anyone not Nordic white. Those who are rich get something of a pass.

The first step towards change is acknowledging what something currently is. Hanging on to this "best country in the world" / "land of the free" seems to enable many to ignore all the many examples why this is far from true.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

5 years ago I think I would have agreed with that without reservation. Now I find myself on the other end of dissilusionment. Too often racism has been inferred and/or manufactured rather than shown by those who provide us outsiders windows into america. Thugs turned into lanky kids, self defense turned into unprovoked murder, innocence become intent and just enough genuinity to make the farces less blatant, while the why for the portrayal is a mix of ideology, viewchasing and simple ignorance of the spin they regurgitate.

Not that its much of an improvement to do away with those mainstream; the alternatives themselves are either merely pointing out on the mainstream's spin or spinners in a different direction. There's a vaccum in journalism for impartiality while the right to define the state of the union to the biggest audience is fought over by partisans of various levels of hackery.

Still, I suspect that to say its as bad or close as 45 would find major pushback across most americans, even among the progressive hotspots. About as hard as an outsider saying britain is the same would encounter here.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, better. Than an appalling time of overt segregation, racial profiling by the police / housing boards / doctors / college admission / right to carry laws enacted to target minorities / border patrol and of course all-cause incarceration.

Now it has been improved to merely a raised risk of stop and search / incarceration / execution by the police, services affected by historic abuses and so on and so forth. And the system has become self-sustaining, enabling race to be removed and poverty added.

Ignore the media. The government stats on outcomes speak for themselves and yes whilst many laws have been (in some cases incredibly reluctantly) overturned thus improving things (some Southern state flags even continue to have those of the Confederacy FFS), this has to be taken in context of a country that prides itself in being "land of the free" rather than a colonial power presiding over the indigenous population.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fuck (https://twitter.com/Hankinstien/status/1189991231415152640).

Source looks unreliable - the final quote is cut off mid-stream. There could be a number of reasons for this, but the most likely is to make it seem ambiguous in order to present a universally negative view of American army racism during World War II

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It always seems to be framed as a bygone era (and you chose to describe this as "sad??!?") - definitely not a problem now... Sure, it might have somewhat improved (the bar was set very, very low) but the USA still manages to be an extremely racist country to anyone not Nordic white. Those who are rich get something of a pass.

The first step towards change is acknowledging what something currently is. Hanging on to this "best country in the world" / "land of the free" seems to enable many to ignore all the many examples why this is far from true.

~:smoking:

Are you surprised that some of the history of my country evokes sadness from me? I have been an advocate for the special character of American my entire adult life -- this does not mean that I am unaware of our flaws either past or present.

Or are you one of those who must assert that we always were, are, and always will be racists in our entirety? Perhaps if we all shout mea culpa for the rest of our existence as a nation...

[Pannonian]

Are you surprised that some of the history of my country evokes sadness from me? I have been an advocate for the special character of American my entire adult life -- this does not mean that I am unaware of our flaws either past or present.

Or are you one of those who must assert that we always were, are, and always will be racists in our entirety? Perhaps if we all shout mea culpa for the rest of our existence as a nation...

The US has a more liberal history than most on its own merits, as seen in its attractiveness to outsiders, and their belief in the American myth. There aren't many countries that have independently, without imposition from the outside, reached this level of liberalism. Western Europe, and in most of that it has come from weariness from extreme violence.

Edit: Anyone who thinks the US is especially racist needs to witness the world outside the west.

[Montmorency]

It always seems to be framed as a bygone era (and you chose to describe this as "sad??!?") - definitely not a problem now... Sure, it might have somewhat improved (the bar was set very, very low) but the USA still manages to be an extremely racist country to anyone not Nordic white. Those who are rich get something of a pass.

The first step towards change is acknowledging what something currently is. Hanging on to this "best country in the world" / "land of the free" seems to enable many to ignore all the many examples why this is far from true.

~:smoking:

The sad thing is, there are There a lot of people who make their bones spinning the transgressions of police onto their black victims. There ought to be a word for that...

On the other hand, the fact that there are more of us who don't like racism than those who do is a continuing source of comfort and hope. And I've had a Guyanese Social Studies teacher and a Jamaican chemistry teacher, where else in the world could I - I'll come in again.


Source looks unreliable - the final quote is cut off mid-stream. There could be a number of reasons for this, but the most likely is to make it seem ambiguous in order to present a universally negative view of American army racism during World War II

It's a photo of a page in a book bro. It's sourced from army unit histories. Check the tweet stream.

But I shouldn't need to explain the concept of primary sources to a historian.


Are you surprised that some of the history of my country evokes sadness from me? I have been an advocate for the special character of American my entire adult life -- this does not mean that I am unaware of our flaws either past or present.

Or are you one of those who must assert that we always were, are, and always will be racists in our entirety? Perhaps if we all shout mea culpa for the rest of our existence as a nation...

Or we could deal with it? Again this potential solution flies over your head. Seriously, it's like a sitcom.

"Seamus, when are you going to return the leafblower I lent you?"

"Ohhh, is that all you can talk about Fred? Yes, I'm sorry that I used your leafblower to keep my beautiful property clear of debris. What do you want me to do, get on my knees and beg for forgiveness? Should I go become a monk and dedicate my life to serving God that my sins be cleansed?"

"You can start by giving back the leafblower..."


The US has a more liberal history than most on its own merits, as seen in its attractiveness to outsiders, and their belief in the American myth. There aren't many countries that have independently, without imposition from the outside, reached this level of liberalism. Western Europe, and in most of that it has come from weariness from extreme violence.

Edit: Anyone who thinks the US is especially racist needs to witness the world outside the west.

'The US is not especially racist because ethnic cleansing exists in the world' is not a good argument. Don't lower the bar when it suits you, or one could point out that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn can't be complained about when considering some of the other politicians elsewhere in the world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Or we could deal with it? Again this potential solution flies over your head. Seriously, it's like a sitcom.

"Seamus, when are you going to return the leafblower I lent you?"

"Ohhh, is that all you can talk about Fred? Yes, I'm sorry that I used your leafblower to keep my beautiful property clear of debris. What do you want me to do, get on my knees and beg for forgiveness? Should I go become a monk and dedicate my life to serving God that my sins be cleansed?"

"You can start by giving back the leafblower..."

No shit, Sherlock. And I would have thought you would recognize the sarcastic tone in my comment.

I work in an academic department which aggressively seeks to provide opportunities to persons from traditionally marginalized groups and/or who come from other cultures. I have lodged complaints when a pre-school classmate of my child was using racist language learned from her parents, I told off my homeowners association president for using racist "code" language. I taught my children to not care about race and to think less of those who stupidly continue to do so. I discuss racism and its problems in community conflict etc. as part of teaching in my degree program.

I simply think that those who dismiss the USA as "racist" and ignore the improvements made over the last half century are painting with too broad a brush. Still more racism about than there ought to be? Absolutely. I intend to continue working against it. I am proud that it recedes and has continued to recede throughout my life.

[Pannonian]

'The US is not especially racist because ethnic cleansing exists in the world' is not a good argument. Don't lower the bar when it suits you, or one could point out that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn can't be complained about when considering some of the other politicians elsewhere in the world.

Do you know what it's like outside the US and western Europe? Even the westernised bits of east Asia, which your average western tourist would feel relatively welcome in, has attitudes that would be anathema in the west (eg. blackface, normalised acceptance of stereotypes, hierarchies of different ethnicities).

[Pannonian]

No shit, Sherlock. And I would have thought you would recognize the sarcastic tone in my comment.

I work in an academic department which aggressively seeks to provide opportunities to persons from traditionally marginalized groups and/or who come from other cultures. I have lodged complaints when a pre-school classmate of my child was using racist language learned from her parents, I told off my homeowners association president for using racist "code" language. I taught my children to not care about race and to think less of those who stupidly continue to do so. I discuss racism and its problems in community conflict etc. as part of teaching in my degree program.

I simply think that those who dismiss the USA as "racist" and ignore the improvements made over the last half century are painting with too broad a brush. Still more racism about than there ought to be? Absolutely. I intend to continue working against it. I am proud that it recedes and has continued to recede throughout my life.

Evidence from the 1940s is not an indication that the US is heading in the wrong direction. There may well be good arguments using contemporary evidence that the US is heading in the wrong direction. But Monty's presented evidence is not it.

[Montmorency]

I simply think that those who dismiss the USA as "racist" and ignore the improvements made over the last half century are painting with too broad a brush. Still more racism about than there ought to be? Absolutely. I intend to continue working against it. I am proud that it recedes and has continued to recede throughout my life.

The argument is more like: There has been less progress than mainstream white culture acknowledges - not nearly adequate - and what progress there has been (in this and other domains) faces acute peril from the forces of reaction where it hasn't already been retrenched. The necessary level of action to bring America out of disgrace demands the building of a national consensus and consciousness on race leading to appropriate economic and political reform, somewhere most white people are not yet comfortable going.

I mean hell, I'm not totally comfortable myself, but I have to admit the force of the evidence.


Do you know what it's like outside the US and western Europe? Even the westernised bits of east Asia, which your average western tourist would feel relatively welcome in, has attitudes that would be anathema in the west (eg. blackface, normalised acceptance of stereotypes, hierarchies of different ethnicities).

I am aware. :coffeenews: Did you know South Korea was formally an ethnostate until around 2005? And Israel formally advanced ethnostate status just recently? :yes:


Evidence from the 1940s is not an indication that the US is heading in the wrong direction. There may well be good arguments using contemporary evidence that the US is heading in the wrong direction. But Monty's presented evidence is not it.

My post was not in itself making any comment about contemporary America.

[Viking]

In practical terms, creating a USA where the different "races" live together as equals is impossible; for a very simple reason: if people from the different ethnicities truly consider each other equal, they will not have any preference for people of similar ancestry when selecting mates. The different ethnic groups would completely merge over some generations as a result.

For African Americans as a group (and any other ethnicity, for any country), the only prospect of a future in the US where they at the very least are the equals of every other ethnicity in the contry, is if they take control over the country. This is because the only two other options are 1) different situations that in many ways are similar to the one that exists today, and 2) being absorbed into a future pan-Usanian ethnicity where "blacks" as a group no longer exists. There is significant middle ground between the two options, but think it is very easy to overestimate its extent.

A complete answer also needs to factor in changing technology, such as the possibility of the curing of ageing and the proliferation of genetic engineering, but the above is the status quo.

Relatedly, I saw this BBC video (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-50256582/i-have-a-culture-i-have-a-people-i-belong-why-these-african-americans-are-going-back-to-ghana) yesterday about African Americans travelling to Ghana. One of the people featured was a woman that moved to Ghana on a permanent basis, after first moving there to start her own business (the quote below is from 05:53 and onwards):


To me, there is no such thing as a black woman in Ghana. I'm a woman in Ghana. We are all black.

I don't see colour here because I'm part of the majority, and I think that's a privilege and a luxury.

In more generic terms, this is exaclty how I am thinking about such issues, except that I think belonging to the majority of a country should be closer to a right than a privilege or a luxury.

[Greyblades]

Yes, better. Than an appalling time of overt segregation, racial profiling by the police / housing boards / doctors / college admission / right to carry laws enacted to target minorities / border patrol and of course all-cause incarceration.

Now it has been improved to merely a raised risk of stop and search / incarceration / execution by the police, services affected by historic abuses and so on and so forth. And the system has become self-sustaining, enabling race to be removed and poverty added.

Ignore the media. The government stats on outcomes speak for themselves and yes whilst many laws have been (in some cases incredibly reluctantly) overturned thus improving things (some Southern state flags even continue to have those of the Confederacy FFS), this has to be taken in context of a country that prides itself in being "land of the free" rather than a colonial power presiding over the indigenous population.

~:smoking:

I have another set of numbers relevant to this: blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43). With this the inferral of prejudice looks much less plausable does it not? Perhaps the reason for the "raised risk" of stop and search, incarceration and execution by the police is not because of racist oppresion but due to the demographic's propensity towards crime and thus thier "raised risk" is due to requiring higher exposure to the police?

I hope you see the flaw with my argument here because its important to my higher point: the FBI statistics count arrests not convictions. There is nothing in those numbers to differentiate between innocence and guilt in those arrests. Even if it had, how many were wrongly convicted?

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

The numbers are real, the reason is inferred. The same is almost certainly true of the numbers you were presented with that inform your viewpoint, how much of that risk is a consequence of racism? Considering those that presented those numbers I would say very little.

[Beskar]

Murder rate of Ghana is 1.68 in 100,000 compared to USA of around 5 in 100,000.
Now, as a percentage, Ghana is significantly more black than the USA. So if it is a case 'black people are inherently bad', I think we can expect Ghana to have a lot higher than the USA, correct?

Racial tensions have a special meaning in the USA. As Greyblades comments, the amount of crime is dis-appropriate for example. The problems go into the reasons why and no, it isn't because they are 'black', it is because black's are treated dis appropriately in life in the USA. Relevant to the Ghana example, to quote from a recent BBC video (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-50256582/i-have-a-culture-i-have-a-people-i-belong-why-these-african-americans-are-going-back-to-ghana) "In Ghana, I am not a black person, I am just a person".

[Pannonian]

Murder rate of Ghana is 1.68 in 100,000 compared to USA of around 5 in 100,000.
Now, as a percentage, Ghana is significantly more black than the USA. So if it is a case 'black people are inherently bad', I think we can expect Ghana to have a lot higher than the USA, correct?

Racial tensions have a special meaning in the USA. As Greyblades comments, the amount of crime is dis-appropriate for example. The problems go into the reasons why and no, it isn't because they are 'black', it is because black's are treated dis appropriately in life in the USA. Relevant to the Ghana example, to quote from a recent BBC video (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-50256582/i-have-a-culture-i-have-a-people-i-belong-why-these-african-americans-are-going-back-to-ghana) "In Ghana, I am not a black person, I am just a person".

I can think of a catchy slogan to describe dealing with crime and its root causes. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. Deal with the symptoms, and simultaneously deal with the sociological issues that lead to these symptoms. I can't believe no one has ever come up with that before.

[Montmorency]

Relatedly, I saw this BBC video (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-50256582/i-have-a-culture-i-have-a-people-i-belong-why-these-african-americans-are-going-back-to-ghana) yesterday about African Americans travelling to Ghana. One of the people featured was a woman that moved to Ghana on a permanent basis, after first moving there to start her own business (the quote below is from 05:53 and onwards):

In more generic terms, this is exaclty how I am thinking about such issues, except that I think belonging to the majority of a country should be closer to a right than a privilege or a luxury.

I have no interest in continuing to discuss your ideas of an ethnoseparatist world order - for which there is a specific term that always eludes me - as we do on what seems to be a yearly basis. However, I'd like to point out that the perspective of the immigrant to Ghana you quote is extremely American. Ghana, like many African countries, is highly ethnically diverse, so the concept of "black" would have little internal significance; this woman is almost certainly perceived as an outgrouper by most autochthonous Ghanaians. From her perspective, she is surrounded by similarly-colored people from the 'motherland' and it's not any more complicated than that to her.

On one hand this makes me feel good as an American, that we have this shared national characteristic of looking down and out at the rest of the world, but on the other hand I know it's not a fair or realistic worldview; it's a form of arrogance.


I can think of a catchy slogan to describe dealing with crime and its root causes. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. Deal with the symptoms, and simultaneously deal with the sociological issues that lead to these symptoms. I can't believe no one has ever come up with that before.

It's a slogan that seems to pay service to the idea that punitive deterrence is equally important to structural reform, which isn't self-evident. Putting everything through the lens of legacy Blairism is not a robust worldview. In abstract it can reinforce prejudiced inferences such as the one that blacks commit a disproportionate share of crime and therefore their harassment by the state is justified.



PVC, I hope you're geared up to appreciate this (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2015/09/30/churlish/).


Over a decade ago I sat in a lecture hall and listened to a visiting scholar of English history talk about the end of Roman rule in Britain and the remarkable – it may be fair to say incomprehensible – speed and comprehensiveness with which a previously undistinguished group of people called the Saxons became the cultural hegemon of what is today the United Kingdom. As this is a topic about which I knew (and know) next to nothing I was an easy mark; impressing me was like sinking a half-inch putt. I'm forever indebted to that person whose name I have completely forgotten, though, for giving me one of my favorite examples / metaphors / anecdotes for explaining what is wrong, and I mean what is really, fundamentally wrong, with the way people in the United States view politics and their rights as citizens today: the Churl.

Aside from being the root of names like Charles and its Germanic cousin Carl, we know "churl" as the root of the regrettably rare adjective "churlish," or "rude in a surly, mean spirited way." This seems unnecessary until you realize that rudeness does not automatically imply the latter part, and in fact a good deal of rudeness is cloaked in politeness or ignorance. But I digress. The word "churl" as a noun is still used by some English speakers of a more antiquated bent to refer to a mean spirited person. Its archaic meaning, though, is for a person of low class. Specifically, in early Saxon England the churls were the lowest class of free people, which is to say they were not nobles nor royalty nor clergy, but nor were they serfs. They were essentially peasants; poor, but with the social and practical advantage of not being bound to a manor as serfs were. They were, in words used by the Mystery Lecturer that I will never forget, "possessing the freedom of the upper classes but without the economic means to take advantage of it." They could go wherever they wanted to and do whatever pleased them, in other words, if only they had any money. Alas, they didn't. So all that freedom was for naught, except inasmuch as it permitted them to look at serfs as their inferiors.

This is such a perfect analogy for the state in which the majority – and I do mean the overwhelming majority – of Americans find themselves today that I can hardly believe I was lucky enough to stumble across it. The great masses of Americans cling so desperately to their own imagined versions of things like freedom of religion and right to bear arms because those are the only freedoms they can claim without deceiving themselves to have. If those are taken away they would be forced to recognize how truly un-free in any useful sense they are. If people are unable to find work that pays a sufficient amount to cover life's necessities and to live in a manner and place of their choosing, then all of their many intangible rights and freedoms guaranteed by law provide only a superficial – important, but superficial nonetheless – freedom. We are free, in short, to do whatever we can afford, which, in the majority of cases, is to say "Not much."

A few weeks ago I posted about one of the last major manufacturers – Mitsubishi Motors – in the area closing operations in Central Illinois. Last week the colossus of the non-Chicago part of the Illinois economy, Caterpillar, announced that it is laying off 10,000 workers. Ten thousand. The vast majority of those figure to be in Peoria, Caterpillar's already cripplingly depressed, moribund, and crumbling home base. Without going deep into the intricacies of local politics, Caterpillar, along with a few hospitals and one small university, is the only place one can work in this city and hope to make what has traditionally been considered middle class income. In Peoria one is either unemployed, in the low wage service industry, paid to care for the large, old, dying population, or working for Cat and its associated suppliers. There is nothing else here. The people laid off by Cat are not going to find comparable jobs here. Their choices will be to stay here and accept a job hovering precariously above the minimum wage, probably serving food, stocking store shelves, or manning a cash register, or to move to a state devoid of labor laws and accept manufacturing work at a vastly lower wage.

If those were my options, I would be working overtime mentally to conceive of some way I could define myself as free too. Without implying that the government owes everyone a job of their choosing in the exact location of their choosing, it's fair to say that if you can't find work that pays enough to live a life that gives you real choices and options then you are free only in the sense that you are not imprisoned (although there will be plenty of that as well) and nobody can tell you how many Jesus fish and Rush Limbaugh bumper stickers you can put on your car, nor how many expensive guns you can hoard in your meager home that you struggle to afford. Americans obsess over those largely symbolic freedoms, the threats to which exist only in their own imaginations, because even though we dare not admit it we understand that many of us lack anything better. Like denials of alcoholism are often directly proportional to the probability that one is indeed an alcoholic, the extent to which any people are truly free when they go to such comical excesses with such regularity to declare how free they are is to be evaluated with skepticism. By silent consensus this country has chosen "Fake it 'til you make it" as a coping mechanism in the face of stagnant or declining incomes and a constantly shrinking selection of choices and opportunities beyond at-will, low paid employment at The Company's pleasure. We have a country in which you can buy as many guns as you want but can't count on having a job beyond the end of business today. We can refuse to bake cakes for gay people but we can't decide where and how we want to live. Freedoms are not all created equal, and we content ourselves with the ones that do us the least good.

[Gilrandir]

"Seamus, when are you going to return the leafblower I lent you?"

"Ohhh, is that all you can talk about Fred? Yes, I'm sorry that I used your leafblower to keep my beautiful property clear of debris. What do you want me to do, get on my knees and beg for forgiveness? Should I go become a monk and dedicate my life to serving God that my sins be cleansed?"

"You can start by giving back the leafblower..."



A typical talk between Homer Simpson and Ned Flanders.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a photo of a page in a book bro. It's sourced from army unit histories. Check the tweet stream.

But I shouldn't need to explain the concept of primary sources to a historian.

Indeed - the book is a secondary source which may or may not misrepresent the primary source.

The generally reaction on twitter, and here, seems to be that whilst things are far from perfect the US has come a very long way.

So, why the expletive?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, I hope you're geared up to appreciate this (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2015/09/30/churlish/).

The adjective "churlish" has little or nothing to do with the poverty or low status of churls, it has to do with their lack of education - specifically their inability to read or speak French when the Normans invaded in 1066.

The idea that "churlishness" is a class-related concept is outdated, it's a race-related concept. Essentially after 1066 the Normans were unable to subdue the Anglo-Saxons and resorted to establishing an apartheid system which classified everyone as either English or Norman, with only the latter being accorded any rights. Among the particularly burdensome laws the Normans enacted was the necessity to prove "Englishry" when someone was murdered - i.e. that the person was not Norman. This was necessary because the Saxons would habitually murder any Normans they came across in the first years after the Conquest and the only way to (supposedly) get them to stop was to threaten to beggar entire villages.

On the subject of serfs - not a Saxon concept. The Saxons did sometimes practice slavery, it was common enough that several Saxons kings legislated against it until it was finally outright banned under Cnut. They also practised a form of indenture for debts similar to the one used for prisoners in early English colonies. Serfdom, however, was entirely alien to Anglo-Saxon society and when the Normans invaded serfdom was principally imposed upon the churls - which is another reason why the word "churlish" has attracted so many negative connotations.

By the by, the word "rude" used to just mean simple" but it attracted the same negative associations as the word "churl" by also having an English root. Another example, the word "buxom" just means willing so a "buxom" maid is (an English) one willing to go to bed with you.

All of which is to say that visiting English scholar isn't very good - or is discoursing on a topic he knows little about - and the blogger has got completely the wrong end of the stick.

[Montmorency]

Indeed - the book is a secondary source which may or may not misrepresent the primary source.

The generally reaction on twitter, and here, seems to be that whilst things are far from perfect the US has come a very long way.

So, why the expletive?

I don't really understand your point? The tweet author came across the quotes in a book about the integration of the air force while researching a mutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Field_mutiny) that occurred at the time and place of the quoted primary source. I don't see why I need to justify a strong reaction to horrible pervasive racism either.

It remains strange that your first reaction was that the source must be misrepresenting something.


The adjective "churlish" has little or nothing to do with the poverty or low status of churls, it has to do with their lack of education - specifically their inability to read or speak French when the Normans invaded in 1066.

The idea that "churlishness" is a class-related concept is outdated, it's a race-related concept. Essentially after 1066 the Normans were unable to subdue the Anglo-Saxons and resorted to establishing an apartheid system which classified everyone as either English or Norman, with only the latter being accorded any rights. Among the particularly burdensome laws the Normans enacted was the necessity to prove "Englishry" when someone was murdered - i.e. that the person was not Norman. This was necessary because the Saxons would habitually murder any Normans they came across in the first years after the Conquest and the only way to (supposedly) get them to stop was to threaten to beggar entire villages.

On the subject of serfs - not a Saxon concept. The Saxons did sometimes practice slavery, it was common enough that several Saxons kings legislated against it until it was finally outright banned under Cnut. They also practised a form of indenture for debts similar to the one used for prisoners in early English colonies. Serfdom, however, was entirely alien to Anglo-Saxon society and when the Normans invaded serfdom was principally imposed upon the churls - which is another reason why the word "churlish" has attracted so many negative connotations.

By the by, the word "rude" used to just mean simple" but it attracted the same negative associations as the word "churl" by also having an English root. Another example, the word "buxom" just means willing so a "buxom" maid is (an English) one willing to go to bed with you.

All of which is to say that visiting English scholar isn't very good - or is discoursing on a topic he knows little about - and the blogger has got completely the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting, but the substance that the blogger took toward the post was a modern analogy from the combination of the freedom and low-status of the churls, which is what I considered worthy of comment. The blogger didn't relate the lecturer as saying anything about Norman England; that makes sense given the lecture is described as being about Anglo-Saxon (early Medieval) England. Might you be barking up the wrong tree?

[Viking]

However, I'd like to point out that the perspective of the immigrant to Ghana you quote is extremely American. Ghana, like many African countries, is highly ethnically diverse, so the concept of "black" would have little internal significance; this woman is almost certainly perceived as an outgrouper by most autochthonous Ghanaians. From her perspective, she is surrounded by similarly-colored people from the 'motherland' and it's not any more complicated than that to her.

One obvious question is how this outgroup perception compares to the country she left behind. Certain outgroups may also be perceived positively in sum.

Another highly relevant question is to what extent the locals tend to notice ethnicity based on appearance, including physical traits and cultural markers, particularly in the urban environment where this woman lives.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't really understand your point? The tweet author came across the quotes in a book about the integration of the air force while researching a mutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Field_mutiny) that occurred at the time and place of the quoted primary source. I don't see why I need to justify a strong reaction to horrible pervasive racism either.

It remains strange that your first reaction was that the source must be misrepresenting something.

My first reaction to the source, as an historian, is that it appears to be misrepresenting something. All secondary sources are written with a particular goal/thesis and it behoves me to ask why that is. The American army in WWII was and is a byword for institutional racism at all levels and there have been two films about the trials and successes of the Tuskegee Airmen specifically. Given that this was surely known to you it behoves me also to ask why you are posting this?

As to why it looks dodgy - I'll elaborate on my previous explanation. The final quote from an American airman is cut off mid-sentence and it's unclear whether his view of coloured airmen is actually positive or negative, but it's made to look negative by grouping it with the other quotes. If this is the sort of historiography the book employs then the book is manipulative and not to be trusted. You need to drill back to the original unit histories.


Interesting, but the substance that the blogger took toward the post was a modern analogy from the combination of the freedom and low-status of the churls, which is what I considered worthy of comment. The blogger didn't relate the lecturer as saying anything about Norman England; that makes sense given the lecture is described as being about Anglo-Saxon (early Medieval) England. Might you be barking up the wrong tree?

As I said, the negative connotations to "churl" are post-Norman. The word really just means "man" in the same way Adam does. Do you think there would have been so many Germanic Kings calls Karl if it was an insult as far back as Late Antiquity? If you want some orientation on this I suggest you look up the story of Thrall, Karl and Jarl which is a Norse legend about Heimdall that maps the social classes in Germanic society.

The point is that the example is faulty - there is no real correlation between the blogger's perception of the churl and the modern American - they've created a false equivalency. In so doing they've taken precisely the wrong lesson from history.

[Montmorency]

One obvious question is how this outgroup perception compares to the country she left behind. Certain outgroups may also be perceived positively in sum.

Another highly relevant question is to what extent the locals tend to notice ethnicity based on appearance, including physical traits and cultural markers, particularly in the urban environment where this woman lives.

How do all types of Europeans and Africans and Asians distinguish one another? There are shibboleths.

What do you think of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EITJBDO_wvI)?


My first reaction to the source, as an historian, is that it appears to be misrepresenting something. All secondary sources are written with a particular goal/thesis and it behoves me to ask why that is. The American army in WWII was and is a byword for institutional racism at all levels and there have been two films about the trials and successes of the Tuskegee Airmen specifically. Given that this was surely known to you it behoves me also to ask why you are posting this?

As to why it looks dodgy - I'll elaborate on my previous explanation. The final quote from an American airman is cut off mid-sentence and it's unclear whether his view of coloured airmen is actually positive or negative, but it's made to look negative by grouping it with the other quotes. If this is the sort of historiography the book employs then the book is manipulative and not to be trusted. You need to drill back to the original unit histories

I'm surprised you didn't know that ellipses in quotes is widely used in all forms of non-fiction. It is not inherently misleading.

To assume that this sequence is "dodgy" and that the author is manipulating the abbreviated quote to turn a positive sentiment negative would surely require some evidence. or else it would be nothing more than a malicious attack on someone for printing subject matter you don't like. The author's prior history of improper or misleading citation for instance. But you didn't offer any.

Turning to the actual content it's hard to look at:

1. Racism
2. Racism!
3. Racism
4. Racism

and not think one would have to be motivated to confidently interject that the last quote might read something like "That isn't just what they are looking for. What they want to do is to stand at the same bar with you, and be able to talk with your wife. They are insisting on equality... [and I think that's totally awesome!]" What, do you need them to say something like this (https://soundcloud.com/user-546964481/leaked-audio-richard-spencer-reacts-to-the-death-of-heather-heyer-explicit)? (Don't be like Spencer.)

Your judgement on this quote also suggests you are unaware of the historical association between white racism and misogyny/chauvinism. I should emphasize there's a reason a number of these quotes refer to white women or wives in relation to the undesirability of black contact with them. Historically it has been an overwhelmingly prevalent trope that non-white (not just black) men are sexually predator and hunger for the sweet pure flesh of white women, who are themselves judged to vulnerable to succumbing to the aggression or blandishments of swarthy ravishers. Thus in the US there was a great deal of paranoia over white women having any sort of relations, especially as peers, with black men. With the last quote anyone familiar with this history would instantly be aware of the connotation of the speaker's reference to black soldiers wanting to "talk with your wife," and it's not that he's open to sharing an interracial cuckold fetish...



As I said, the negative connotations to "churl" are post-Norman. The word really just means "man" in the same way Adam does. Do you think there would have been so many Germanic Kings calls Karl if it was an insult as far back as Late Antiquity? If you want some orientation on this I suggest you look up the story of Thrall, Karl and Jarl which is a Norse legend about Heimdall that maps the social classes in Germanic society.

The point is that the example is faulty - there is no real correlation between the blogger's perception of the churl and the modern American - they've created a false equivalency. In so doing they've taken precisely the wrong lesson from history.

Here is the operative part of the post:


Its archaic meaning, though, is for a person of low class. Specifically, in early Saxon England the churls were the lowest class of free people, which is to say they were not nobles nor royalty nor clergy, but nor were they serfs. They were essentially peasants; poor, but with the social and practical advantage of not being bound to a manor as serfs were. They were, in words used by the Mystery Lecturer that I will never forget, "possessing the freedom of the upper classes but without the economic means to take advantage of it."

The premise of the article lies in the one and only line that the writer attributes to the lecturer, which I bolded. It has nothing to do with the Normans or the later insulting connotation of the word "churl," which was just mentioned as a lead-in by the author. The author's analogy is from the status of ceorlas as the lowest-class freemen of early Anglo-Saxon (pre-Norman) society. Do you not accept that ceorl = low-status freeman? Do you not accept the validity of the statement attributed to the lecturer (in bold)? I think you just had a lapse of reading comprehension, it happens.

[Viking]

How do all types of Europeans and Africans and Asians distinguish one another?

Unless they can hear the other person speak, they don't necessarily.

For example, unless a person of Sami descent is wearing traditional clothing or is heard speaking Sami, the average ethnic Norwegian might not be able to tell that they are of Sami descent, because there isn't really any physiological trait that makes the conclusion inevitable (for reference, here's (https://www.flickr.com/photos/samediggi/10323811996/in/photolist-gGX1bW-gJheCy-gL1voa-hTe3MB-kEhzw2-hTdyoL-hTdN1J-qgfcjQ-t7Nwxx-qiwjJp-qixP4P-qggE8s-6nMqcs-gGUTe4-qgfbVd-q1zeZe-hhpRU2-pkjhUS-pmN5Cz-9kcVju-q1XPYm-qimk7p-q1YpMW-q1XQjS) the Norwegian Sami parliament for 2013-2017, a parliament where participation by law is supposed to be limited to people of Sami ethnic identity).

Let's put it this way: You are told to categorize 100 random people based on ethnicity with the information that there are 50 from each group. Even if you get everything right, you might still tend to not notice the ethnicity when you meet people on the street, because the difference in appearance is just not that large.

If you live in an ethnically homogeneous area, you would tend to assume that people share your ethnic background unless you have a particular reason not to.

If people normally can't tell that you have a different background than them before you say anything, you are already fitting in quite well.


What do you think of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EITJBDO_wvI)?

Don't see what it is supposed to add. Any effects of his ancestry on his life in the US are barely touched on, likewise regarding his cultural background from the US and his new life in Korea.

[Montmorency]

Unless they can hear the other person speak, they don't necessarily.

For example, unless a person of Sami descent is wearing traditional clothing or is heard speaking Sami, the average ethnic Norwegian might not be able to tell that they are of Sami descent, because there isn't really any physiological trait that makes the conclusion inevitable (for reference, here's (https://www.flickr.com/photos/samediggi/10323811996/in/photolist-gGX1bW-gJheCy-gL1voa-hTe3MB-kEhzw2-hTdyoL-hTdN1J-qgfcjQ-t7Nwxx-qiwjJp-qixP4P-qggE8s-6nMqcs-gGUTe4-qgfbVd-q1zeZe-hhpRU2-pkjhUS-pmN5Cz-9kcVju-q1XPYm-qimk7p-q1YpMW-q1XQjS) the Norwegian Sami parliament for 2013-2017, a parliament where participation by law is supposed to be limited to people of Sami ethnic identity).

Let's put it this way: You are told to categorize 100 random people based on ethnicity with the information that there are 50 from each group. Even if you get everything right, you might still tend to not notice the ethnicity when you meet people on the street, because the difference in appearance is just not that large.

If you live in an ethnically homogeneous area, you would tend to assume that people share your ethnic background unless you have a particular reason not to.

If people normally can't tell that you have a different background than them before you say anything, you are already fitting in quite well.

Many say you can tell from the face (I wonder if the variation in faces trends greater the larger in population the ethnic group). As you say, all sorts of people living in homogeneous areas may not be conditioned to be visually sensitive to ethnicity.

White faces are still normative to many, but a salient feature of American-ness is that one can never tell by face alone whether someone is American or not.


Don't see what it is supposed to add. Any effects of his ancestry on his life in the US are barely touched on, likewise regarding his cultural background from the US and his new life in Korea.

It didn't jump out at you that he is a Korean-American who basically became a Mexican-American (chicano)? Hence opening a Mexican restaurant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm surprised you didn't know that ellipses in quotes is widely used in all forms of non-fiction. It is not inherently misleading.

To assume that this sequence is "dodgy" and that the author is manipulating the abbreviated quote to turn a positive sentiment negative would surely require some evidence. or else it would be nothing more than a malicious attack on someone for printing subject matter you don't like. The author's prior history of improper or misleading citation for instance. But you didn't offer any.

Turning to the actual content it's hard to look at:

1. Racism
2. Racism!
3. Racism
4. Racism

and not think one would have to be motivated to confidently interject that the last quote might read something like "That isn't just what they are looking for. What they want to do is to stand at the same bar with you, and be able to talk with your wife. They are insisting on equality... [and I think that's totally awesome!]" What, do you need them to say something like this (https://soundcloud.com/user-546964481/leaked-audio-richard-spencer-reacts-to-the-death-of-heather-heyer-explicit)? (Don't be like Spencer.)

Your judgement on this quote also suggests you are unaware of the historical association between white racism and misogyny/chauvinism. I should emphasize there's a reason a number of these quotes refer to white women or wives in relation to the undesirability of black contact with them. Historically it has been an overwhelmingly prevalent trope that non-white (not just black) men are sexually predator and hunger for the sweet pure flesh of white women, who are themselves judged to vulnerable to succumbing to the aggression or blandishments of swarthy ravishers. Thus in the US there was a great deal of paranoia over white women having any sort of relations, especially as peers, with black men. With the last quote anyone familiar with this history would instantly be aware of the connotation of the speaker's reference to black soldiers wanting to "talk with your wife," and it's not that he's open to sharing an interracial cuckold fetish...

I'm going to sum up my response by simply saying, "Son, I ain't that stupid."

You really need to stop assuming otherwise, it's becoming beyond insulting.

The use of ellipsis in popular history is usually used to obfuscate. Remember, those quotes were excerpted and edited by the author, those probably don't represent an organic collection of quotes in their original context.

The point is, you don't know what the end of that last quote would be and there's nothing in the book to tell you. This is the problem with secondary sources.

Either the book is badly written or it's deliberately intended to mislead for some reason. Given that people there at the time, like my own grandfather, have always told me the American Army was incredibly racist even by 1940's standards the content doesn't interest me as much as the motives of the historian.


Here is the operative part of the post:

The premise of the article lies in the one and only line that the writer attributes to the lecturer, which I bolded. It has nothing to do with the Normans or the later insulting connotation of the word "churl," which was just mentioned as a lead-in by the author. The author's analogy is from the status of ceorlas as the lowest-class freemen of early Anglo-Saxon (pre-Norman) society. Do you not accept that ceorl = low-status freeman? Do you not accept the validity of the statement attributed to the lecturer (in bold)? I think you just had a lapse of reading comprehension, it happens.

No, I don't accept those statements and what I'm trying to explain to you is that Anglo-Saxon society didn't work like that.

To start with, churls were not "freemen" they were free men, and yes there is a fundamental difference between those two words. Secondly, churls or "ceorls" if you wish, were simply the free men who were not nobles, i.e. Thanes owing loyalty to an Earldorman or the King. To be a ceorl did not mean you were poor or lacking social or legal rights, it simply meant you were not a warrior by profession.

The lowest free men in Anglo-Saxon society were called "geburs", these were churls who lacked enough land to feed themselves effectively and had to rent land from their liege lord in return for service, mostly agricultural. These men might have been, or be descended from, churls who were more wealthy but had fallen on hard times, i.e. by making a bad land purchase, or they could be former slaves. Now, at this actual lowest wrung it was indeed difficult to progress up the social ladder but it was certainly still possible via frugality or you could end up even worse off by having to sell yourself into slavery.

This is old-world slavery, mind, not new-world slavery and with hard work you might be able to buy your freedom.

Here, have a little read:

https://ahgray.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/anglo-saxon-social-ladder-from-kings-to-slaves/

Monty, I defecate you not, I am working at that level were I can ball out a professor from Oxford or Harvard for saying something really dumb and then refusing to back down. So some "visiting lecturer" is not an authority level that remotely impresses me.

This guy impresses me but I still had things to say about his BBC TV series: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/robert-bartlett-FBA

I'm sorry, I'm not really into intellectual penis measuring but today is my birthday and I'm frankly a bit sick of putting up with your habit of talking down to people. You may recall last month or so saying you would not "presume" to lecture me on my field, but that's exactly what you're doing. Worse, you presume that my reading is faulty simply because you do not comprehend or agree with my point.

Doubtless you will now shift tack and argue that by churls the lecturer really meant geburs and even if they did not the analogy still stands if you substitute the geburs for the churls as a whole. To this I would respond, again, that Anglo-Saxon society didn't work like that. Anglo-Saxon society was less of a crab-pot trap than modern American society, I might even hazard that it was easier to escape Anglo-Saxon slavery than it is modern low-income "wage slavery" in the US. This is what I mean by "taking the wrong lesson" because the lesson is not that modern American society is like Anglo-Saxon society in that it has an underclass that perceives itself as free whilst being economically disenfranchised, the lesson is that modern US society is worse.

[Greyblades]

God I wish this forum had someone as well versed in fascism as you are in pre feudal english society.

[Montmorency]

I'm going to sum up my response by simply saying, "Son, I ain't that stupid."

You really need to stop assuming otherwise, it's becoming beyond insulting.

The use of ellipsis in popular history is usually used to obfuscate. Remember, those quotes were excerpted and edited by the author, those probably don't represent an organic collection of quotes in their original context.

The point is, you don't know what the end of that last quote would be and there's nothing in the book to tell you. This is the problem with secondary sources.

Either the book is badly written or it's deliberately intended to mislead for some reason. Given that people there at the time, like my own grandfather, have always told me the American Army was incredibly racist even by 1940's standards the content doesn't interest me as much as the motives of the historian.

PVC, have you considered that writing nonsense and having me take the time to carefully address it may be insulting. You say:

1. The use of ellipsis in [non-fiction; this is not popular history anyhow] is usually used to obfuscate.
2. Because the writer placed an abbreviated quote alongside non-abbreviated quotes that all have the same effect of reinforcing your preexisting impression of the subject matter, you conclude the motives of the historian are questionable.

Anyone who has read or written any measure of non-fiction of any form or genre would laugh at the first assertion. On the second, I question how your motives could be anything other than malicious. Think about what you're doing, imputing potential, and therefore presumptive, dishonesty to an author for doing something universal, on a topic where you implicitly acknowledge there would be no paucity of honest representations to the same effect that the author produces.

It's especially galling when you on the Org make ostentatious demands for the most generous treatment regardless of your record. I will hold this against you.


To start with, churls were not "freemen" they were free men, and yes there is a fundamental difference between those two words. Secondly, churls or "ceorls" if you wish, were simply the free men who were not nobles, i.e. Thanes owing loyalty to an Earldorman or the King. To be a ceorl did not mean you were poor or lacking social or legal rights, it simply meant you were not a warrior by profession.

The above conforms with what I have read. None of that contradicts, however, the designation as "low-status." I could provide you with half a dozen academic sources that describe ceorls thus.

Moreover, the post I introduced was specifically based on the fact that ceorls were NOT lacking in social or legal rights. That was the point!!! Once again, your response is evidence that you either did not read what I posted or fundamentally misunderstood the plain language! Honestly you should be embarrassed.


Here, have a little read:

https://ahgray.wordpress.com/2013/11...ngs-to-slaves/


If you were not part of the aristocratic set, and let’s face it many of us will come under this next group, then you were a peasant worker known as a ceorl (churl). These were freemen

To start with, churls were not "freemen" they were free men, and yes there is a fundamental difference between those two words.

:laugh4:


Doubtless you will now shift tack and argue that by churls the lecturer really meant geburs and even if they did not the analogy still stands if you substitute the geburs for the churls as a whole. To this I would respond, again, that Anglo-Saxon society didn't work like that. Anglo-Saxon society was less of a crab-pot trap than modern American society, I might even hazard that it was easier to escape Anglo-Saxon slavery than it is modern low-income "wage slavery" in the US. This is what I mean by "taking the wrong lesson" because the lesson is not that modern American society is like Anglo-Saxon society in that it has an underclass that perceives itself as free whilst being economically disenfranchised, the lesson is that modern US society is worse.

I was going to point this out, but saved it in a notepad in preparation for your reply. I think it serves my position better than you would like. This is hilarious. What I had written:


And don't respond by pointing out something tangential like churls having access to slave ownership that is today proscribed. That would suggest a different complication of the analogy, one from an unflattering direction that reinforces its insight: the level of inequality between a common churl and a king back then was in many ways less than that between a common modern citizen and one of the "masters of the universe."

See also (https://capitalandmain.com/is-america-ready-to-tackle-economic-inequality-1105):

https://mk0capitalandmaeb6q4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/life-expectancy-of-rich-vs-poor-in-men-and-women.png

The fact that there was not an elites-peasants dichotomy like some old historiography has it is beside the point. All societies are more complicated than that, including ours. That there was a certain continuity does not negate the reality that neither slave-owning, land-owning churls nor the modern middle class have the full substantive freedoms enjoyed by the upper class. What you could point out instead is that the churl analogy is unnecessary because this has always been true, everywhere that there have been complex economic structures.



I'm sorry, I'm not really into intellectual penis measuring but today is my birthday and I'm frankly a bit sick of putting up with your habit of talking down to people. You may recall last month or so saying you would not "presume" to lecture me on my field, but that's exactly what you're doing. Worse, you presume that my reading is faulty simply because you do not comprehend or agree with my point.

I'm going to be very blunt with you. I will not demand that someone prove themselves before I extend them the benefit of the doubt. But I will not infinitely allow someone the enjoyment of this benefit of the doubt when they demonstrate that they do not know what they are talking about or to what they are responding. You had something useful to contribute but your insistence on tangential circumlocutions that don't address the substance or merits of the printed text, even when offered opportunities to recalibrate, is irritating and I expect better. I refuse to make on your behalf the best arguments I perceive available to you - you should do that. Maybe my meaning is unclear. Allow me to steelman you as an example of what I think an appropriate way to problematize my contribution would have been:

The blogger you quote, while making an important point about the distinction between nominal and substantive rights and freedoms, falls prey to a common sort of popular impression of medieval social structures. He assumes that there has been an uncomplicated linear progress from Medieval times to the present and that the population under late capitalism is regressing in its means, living standards, and social relations to a caricature of the oppressed and immiserated peasant of the distant past. On the contrary, history is not necessarily an linear transformation from crushing aristocratic impunity to meritocratic liberal democracy. Social indicators shift in this or that direction varying by time and place. For example, the original Saxon migrants into the British isles were relatively hierarchically flat compared to the later development of more centralized and sophisticated monarchies in the region. The Anglo-Saxon churls' combination of duties and protections owed them from above as well as their own rights and statistical habits of ownership in slaves and land may in some relative terms leave them better off in their own social context than their modern analogues are in theirs, contradicting the writer's subtext of a uniform and universal improvement currently being jeopardized. When comparing past and present it is important to validate preconceptions that are misleading in specific aspects.

There, see? It's not difficult to make a contribution that comprehends, expands on and improves the prompt. Happy birthday. Here's your gift (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-national-american-history-founders-month-2019/).

And here's (https://xkcd.com/2225/) a little something for Rory that he will like.


EDIT: I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that the diagram in the spoiler has a special outfit for the representation of a rich man, but the representations of rich and poor women are identical. Hmm...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, have you considered that writing nonsense and having me take the time to carefully address it may be insulting. You say:

1. The use of ellipsis in [non-fiction; this is not popular history anyhow] is usually used to obfuscate.
2. Because the writer placed an abbreviated quote alongside non-abbreviated quotes that all have the same effect of reinforcing your preexisting impression of the subject matter, you conclude the motives of the historian are questionable.

Have you considered that only you seem to think it's nonsense? Cutting off the end of the quote is bizarre in the extreme - either the entire quote would have conformed to the racist stereotype, in which case print it, or it wouldn't - in which case omit the quote entirely.

So the Book was written by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_L._Gropman, and you can find it here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/231760/the-air-force-integrates-1945-1964-second-edition-by-alan-l-gropman/9781935623557/

So, let's look at what people said about it...

This review is generally favourable but notes a couple of failings, specifically on the post-war situation "At this timenumerous Army studies and the report of the Gillem Board (despite Gropman's claim to the contrary) favored maintaining military segregation."

So, looks like the book is not entirely reliable and possibly makes some unsupportable claim - even if it is meant to be a serious academic study. That being said, Black Athena is supposed to be a serious academic study.

So, as I originally said, the book does not look entirely reliable and may be manipulating sources for a specific purpose - or just cherry picking.


Anyone who has read or written any measure of non-fiction of any form or genre would laugh at the first assertion.

I rather think not. I have read works, serious and otherwise which, when you drill back to the original sources, can be shown to be highly selective. Generally speaking I have found ellipsis to be something that is used to hide the parts of a source you'd rather the reader not see. If you want to disagree with my opinion, that's fine


On the second, I question how your motives could be anything other than malicious.

That's because you keep trying to fit me into your preconceptions - especially your right-wing Christian ones.


Think about what you're doing, imputing potential, and therefore presumptive, dishonesty to an author for doing something universal, on a topic where you implicitly acknowledge there would be no paucity of honest representations to the same effect that the author produces.

OK, let's look at what I'm actually doing, what I actually said. I said that everybody knows how racist the US Army was in WWII so I'm not really interested in the content, but that excerpt from the book makes me think the book is unreliable.

It doesn't matter what the content or purpose of the book is to me, I'm interested in critiquing the author. I'm also interested in why you posted the link without comment.


It's especially galling when you on the Org make ostentatious demands for the most generous treatment regardless of your record. I will hold this against you.

On the contrary, I think you treat everyone here poorly - not me specifically. I merely note that your previous gestures of intellectual generosity were without substance. When you do not understand what I say you assume it's my fault, you don't even consider that you might be failing to comprehend my point, you don't try to explore what I mean to expand your own comprehending.

You just resort to ridicule.

You never like my opinion, so why do you keep soliciting it?


The above conforms with what I have read. None of that contradicts, however, the designation as "low-status." I could provide you with half a dozen academic sources that describe ceorls thus.

Any from the last 20 years that describe churls, without qualification, as "low status"?

Oh, and if you insist on writings "ceorls" then you should also write "Cyning" and not "king". Otherwise, stop being pretentious.


Moreover, the post I introduced was specifically based on the fact that ceorls were NOT lacking in social or legal rights. That was the point!!! Once again, your response is evidence that you either did not read what I posted or fundamentally misunderstood the plain language! Honestly you should be embarrassed.

I believe the point was that whilst they had theoretical legal rights they were unable to effectively exercise them because of their low socio-economic status.


:laugh4:

First source I could find at 8am this morning that was generally correct, then I added a qualification where I disagreed with the source. I also disagree with the comment that the Council of London in 1102 banning slavery, given that's not technically true and in fact Wulfstan of York had already promulgated a more extensive ban under Cnut, as I previously noted. Having said that, and I did not previously know this, Wulfstan of Worcester (nephew of Wulfstan of York) was at the London Council in 1102.


I was going to point this out, but saved it in a notepad in preparation for your reply. I think it serves my position better than you would like. This is hilarious. What I had written:

Owning a slave in Anglo-Saxon England was perhaps akin to owning a VHS recorder in the 80's, something of a luxury but hardly remarkable. I fail to see how this is germain to your oriignal point, which was that the churls in Anglo-Saxon England were legally free but economically enslaved.


The fact that there was not an elites-peasants dichotomy like some old historiography has it is beside the point. All societies are more complicated than that, including ours. That there was a certain continuity does not negate the reality that neither slave-owning, land-owning churls nor the modern middle class have the full substantive freedoms enjoyed by the upper class. What you could point out instead is that the churl analogy is unnecessary because this has always been true, everywhere that there have been complex economic structures.

So you concede the analogy is wrong?

Anglo-Saxon society had a surprising amount of social freedom and mobility, probably more than modern American society. My point was, and remains, that the correct lesson to draw from Anglo-Saxon society is that despite (or perhaps because of) our greater economic security our society is in many ways less free and fair now than it was then. This is especially true in America, but then that's not surprising because America doesn't have a king.

A king is essential to understanding most historical theories of power and governance. It seems that the American discourse on, among other things, the medieval past, is somewhat hampered by the lack of an Upper Class. In Anglo-Saxon England there was an Upper Class, it was composed of the King, his blood-kin, his wife's kin and whoever else he decided it included.

That's the other side of it - Anglo-Saxon society may have been freer from the perspective of social mobility but it was still an absolute monarchy.


I'm going to be very blunt with you.

You're never anything else, so presumably you mean you are going to now be openly rude.


I will not demand that someone prove themselves before I extend them the benefit of the doubt. But I will not infinitely allow someone the enjoyment of this benefit of the doubt when they demonstrate that they do not know what they are talking about or to what they are responding.

You've never accorded me the benefit of the doubt. So, perhaps, actually, I would need to provide proof?


You had something useful to contribute but your insistence on tangential circumlocutions that don't address the substance or merits of the printed text, even when offered opportunities to recalibrate, is irritating and I expect better. I refuse to make on your behalf the best arguments I perceive available to you - you should do that. Maybe my meaning is unclear. Allow me to steelman you as an example of what I think an appropriate way to problematize my contribution would have been:

The blogger you quote, while making an important point about the distinction between nominal and substantive rights and freedoms, falls prey to a common sort of popular impression of medieval social structures. He assumes that there has been an uncomplicated linear progress from Medieval times to the present and that the population under late capitalism is regressing in its means, living standards, and social relations to a caricature of the oppressed and immiserated peasant of the distant past. On the contrary, history is not necessarily an linear transformation from crushing aristocratic impunity to meritocratic liberal democracy. Social indicators shift in this or that direction varying by time and place. For example, the original Saxon migrants into the British isles were relatively hierarchically flat compared to the later development of more centralized and sophisticated monarchies in the region. The Anglo-Saxon churls' combination of duties and protections owed them from above as well as their own rights and statistical habits of ownership in slaves and land may in some relative terms leave them better off in their own social context than their modern analogues are in theirs, contradicting the writer's subtext of a uniform and universal improvement currently being jeopardized. When comparing past and present it is important to validate preconceptions that are misleading in specific aspects.

There, see? It's not difficult to make a contribution that comprehends, expands on and improves the prompt. Happy birthday. Here's your gift (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-national-american-history-founders-month-2019/).

More reading is a rubbish gift - could you not have linked me a video on the intricacies of forging an Anglo-Saxon sword or making medieval ink?

As to your supposed "steelman", I don't agree with it - because it doesn't address the points I was making.

1. At no point did I say early Anglo-Saxon society was relatively "flat" compared to later Anglo-Saxon society. Rather, I contrasted the relatively mobile Anglo-Saxon society where churls were simply the non-noble majority with the apartheid society constructed by the Normans where being "English" and therefore a churl was a mark of racial inferiority.

2. I don't think the blogger actually sees history as linear. If anything, I would say that the blogger is arguing that history is cyclical, i.e. likely to repeat at relatively regular intervals. Overall, though, I would say that the mistake the blogger makes is to link two points in time without any real awareness or consideration of the different circumstances or the distance between those two points.

3. My point was, and is, that Anglo-Saxon society simply didn't work the way the blogger, and by extension you, imagine. Anglo-Saxon society is not really a useful comparison to modern society. The Witan was not a precursor to parliament, the folkmoot was not a precursor to trial by jury or local "town hall" government and the churl was not a counterpoint to the American wage-slave.

4. I'd never use such dreadful purple prose.

Anglo-Saxon society was also actually very hierarchical, with people and tribes categorised according to wealth, inheritance, sometimes race, religion and social and physical proximity to the King. Under a strong King Anglo-Saxon kingdoms could be highly centralised with the king able to hire and fire his "nobles" on a whim, raising them to the titles of Earl or stripping them of their assigned lands and reducing them to virtual penury, possibly even virtual churldom if they could find no one to take them as a Thane.

Even so, Anglo-Saxon society was completely different to American society, where wealth rather than social position tends to be the defining class feature. As I have noted previously, America does not really have an "Upper Class", it just have a very wealthy Upper Middle Class.

So, really, your "steelman" just demonstrates you don't apprehend my point.

Now, I shall be blunt - given that I don't seem to have difficulty representing my ideas to people undoubtedly cleverer than either of us, and being taken seriously, whose fault is it that you don't understand me?

Oh, thanks for continuing to be an arsehole to me on my birthday. Don't suppose you could have just saved all this up for tomorrow, could you?

Just trying being nice Monty.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Truman issued an executive order in 1948 that made discrimination on race or national origin illegal for the US military. It took until 1954 for the last "colored" unit to disband. There was a lot of opposition to the move, with less than 30% of the US population favoring military units with Whites and Blacks living and working together. The US military achieved a largely "color-blind" organizational culture somewhere in the early 1980s. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) this is after virtually all of those serving before 1948 had retired from military service (usual max is 30 years, with rare exceptions for senior flag officers and senior NCO's and warrants). Cultural changes seldom happen swiftly, and much of the older generation has to die off for the shift to finalize.

[Montmorency]

Have you considered that only you seem to think it's nonsense? Cutting off the end of the quote is bizarre in the extreme - either the entire quote would have conformed to the racist stereotype, in which case print it, or it wouldn't - in which case omit the quote entirely.

What if it's a long quote? You'll notice all the quotes on that page are about a single sentence.

That's one of the primary usages of ellipsis in any context: to cite or present without full transcription. Is it possible for such a usage to be deceptive? Sure - bring evidence either from the material itself, or the author's record. If you can't, it's a baseless attack that undermines your own claims to decorum and authority.

If you sincerely believe that such a use of ellipsis should be presumptively suspect in all cases, then you deserve ridicule.


So, looks like the book is not entirely reliable and possibly makes some unsupportable claim

Your syllogism:

A. This reviewer thinks the book has limitations
B. The book is not entirely reliable
C. The author is misrepresenting primary source material

Absurd.


So, as I originally said, the book does not look entirely reliable and may be manipulating sources for a specific purpose - or just cherry picking.

Again, manipulating or cherry picking how? Looking at the subject matter, you yourself admit that the author would have no shortage of quotes denouncing integration. The author did in fact present multiple uncontestable examples. What do you think the rest of the abbreviated quote could possibly have said? "I support Negro equality because I want to see our honorable black servicemen talking to my wife"? Just wild. I can't get over the disparity between your self-regard and your cavilling dismissal of an entire person you've never previously heard of.

I might as well give my own example of a (self-formulated) elliptic quote apt to be misleading: "[T]he English are not a methodical or logical nation—they perceive and accept facts without anxiously inquiring into their reasons or meanings[...]"


That's because you keep trying to fit me into your preconceptions - especially your right-wing Christian ones.

It's because you keep stirring up outrageous and poorly-considered contentions.


I'm also interested in why you posted the link without comment.

Because it's a quick share and I didn't have a comment, nor thought I needed one.


On the contrary, I think you treat everyone here poorly - not me specifically. I merely note that your previous gestures of intellectual generosity were without substance. When you do not understand what I say you assume it's my fault, you don't even consider that you might be failing to comprehend my point, you don't try to explore what I mean to expand your own comprehending.

*sigh*

It is possible that I may understand you and that you may be wrong. You are rarely able to acknowledge when I am arguing directly against the propositions you maintain, which rather conveys a misunderstanding on your part.


You never like my opinion, so why do you keep soliciting it?

Trying out that conciliatory generosity. I guess it hasn't worked out. I'm always thinking of elaborations and complications in the subjects I choose to raise that I desperately wish someone would present or allude to so I could develop them. I don't want to post exhaustive essays on any given item following every conceivable strand, causing suffering for everyone. My hope is to introduce opportunities (for you or anyone) to eruditely expand the prompt. Too often I wind up in meritless and unproductive arguments, which I resent. Please tell me something interesting that I don't know or haven't considered, not what I already know to be bullshit or indefensible! The tension here isn't some autogenous eruption from me; we've had plenty of mundane disagreements in the past, and there are others whose offerings I have appreciated (yours as well sometimes).




Any from the last 20 years that describe churls, without qualification, as "low status"?

*heavy sigh*



Social rank and dignity in Alfred’s Wessex were determined
in part by birth and in part by service to God and
king. The law code refers to three ranks of free men, whose
deaths were to be compensated with payments of 1,200, 600,
and 200 shillings. Elsewhere, it categorizes all free men as
either ‘husbandman or noble’ (ge ceorle ge eorle).25
To judge by the laws of Ine, the 1,200- and 600-shilling men comprised the nobility,
the former perhaps being landed nobles and
the latter landless or of Welsh descent. The 200-shilling men
apparently described all free commoners, ceorls, regardless
of the size of their holdings or the extent of their economic
and personal freedom.
An even more basic division was between freedom and
servitude. Alfred’s Wessex was a slave society. No one can
even begin to estimate how many slaves (or free men, for
that matter) there were in ninth-century Wessex, but from
Alfred’s laws it is clear that even ceorls owned slaves.26
[...]
Still, when Alfred thought of the commoners he must
have considered them, as a group, to have been ‘working
men’. The place of the ceorl, the ordinary free man, in
Anglo-Saxon society has been a subject of controversy among
historians for generations. The dominant historiographical
school would place the ceorl at the centre of the AngloSaxon
legal and social world, at least in the earliest centuries
of Anglo-Saxon England before the rise of a powerful
centralized monarchy in the tenth century depressed his
status and paved the way for the further levelling of the
Norman Conquest. Other historians have questioned the
centrality of the ceorl even in the settlement period, suggesting
that his freedom was greatly circumscribed by economic
and judicial obligations to noble lords.39 For Alfred’s
Wessex, at any rate, the latter view comes closer to the mark.
A fortuitous mistranslation in the Old English Orosius, a work
apparently commissioned by Alfred as part of his educational
programme, suggests that even in ninth-century terms
the ceorl was not completely ‘free’.40 The translator relates
that the Volscians ‘had freed some of their slaves and also
became too mild and forgiving to them all. Then their
ceorls [Latin: libertini, ‘freedmen’] resented the fact that
they had freed the slaves and would not free them.’ The
less-than-free status of the ‘ceorl’ in this text is echoed in
Alfred’s treaty with the Danish king, Guthrum. There ‘the
ceorls who occupy tributary land’ are imputed the same
200-shilling wergeld as Danish freedmen rather than the
higher wergeld of free viking warriors.
In what way were ceorls unfree? The key lies, perhaps, in
the relationship between the ninth-century husbandmen and
their lords, especially if the lord was also a landlord. The
West Saxon royal dynasty, even before Alfred, promoted the
rights and obligations of lordship as a mechanism through
which the king could rule the realm more firmly and securely.
From the late seventh century on, the freedom of the West
Saxon ceorl was bounded by the rights of his lord over him.
The ceorl of Ine’s day, in fact, was so tightly bound to his
lord that if he attempted to seek another, the law prescribed
that he be returned and fined sixty shillings, payable to the
lord from whom he had fled. A ceorl who held land from
his lord could be obliged to labour under the lord’s command.
Indeed, if he had accepted a dwelling-place when he
covenanted for his yardland, he became tied to his tenancy.
Because he had accepted the gift of a house, he was no
longer free to leave his holding, even if his lord were to
demand increased services from it.41
It is unlikely that the condition of the lesser free peasantry
improved substantially between the late seventh and the
late ninth century. From an extremely interesting vernacular
memorandum attached to a royal charter of Alfred’s son,
Edward the Elder (a d 901), we learn that the tenure of the
ceorls of the royal estate of Hurstbourne Priors in Hampshire
in the last years of Alfred’s reign and in the first of his
son was heavily burdened with labour services. The body of
the charter relates the complex tenurial history of the estate
and stipulates that the land pass to Winchester with all the
people who had been on it when Alfred was still alive. The
memorandum attached to the charter enumerated what was
expected from them. From each ‘hide’ (an assessment of tax
liability equivalent to a notional 120 acres (forty-nine hectares)
) the ceorls were to pay forty pennies at the autumnal
equinox, and six church-measures of ale, and three sesters
of wheat for bread. They were to plough three acres (1.2
hectares) in their own time and sow them with their own
seed and bring it to the barn in their own time, and give
three pounds (1.36 kilograms) of barley, supply split wood
and poles for fencing, and mow half an acre (0.2 hectares)
of meadow in their own time as rent. At Easter they were to
render two ewes with two lambs, which they were first to wash
and shear in their own time. They were to work as bidden
every week except for one at midwinter, a second at Easter,
and a third on the Rogation days. (Curiously, Alfred was
more generous in his law code than to his tenants, allowing
all free men some thirty-seven days of rest.)42 In the onerous
obligations of their tenure, the ceorls of Hurstbourne prefigure
the villeins of the Domesday Book. They are cousins
to the humble geburs of Wynflaed’s will and similar tenthcentury
testaments who also were bequeathed along with
the estates in which they held land.
The condition of the ceorls of Hurstbourne does not prove
that all men below the rank of noble were heavily burdened
with rent and labour services, free men in name but ‘trembling
on the verge of serfdom’.43 The actual social structure
of Alfredian Wessex was even more complex and highly
stratified than suggested by his law code, and the general
category of 200-shilling men embraced men and women of
quite disparate fortune and rank. The most prosperous ceorls
may well have possessed more land and wealth than many
young nobles striving for a place in a lord’s household. Ceorls
as well as nobles fought in Alfred’s armies and attended his
folk moots. Their main function in Alfred’s eyes, though,
was to be the king’s ‘working men’, whose labours helped
feed those who prayed and those who fought. The ‘lord’ of
Hurstbourne, after all, had been Alfred himself; it was to a
royal reeve that the ceorls of the estate had rendered their
labour services and rents. In this they served the king in the
same capacity as other king’s ceorls, settled in Charltons
appended to nearby royal manors, who worked the king’s
demesne and rendered to his reeves the food rent upon
which the king and his court depended.44 They were, as
Alfred’s tripartite scheme recognizes, an integral part of a
closely knit society, bound to one another by ties of kinship
and to the nobles and the king by bonds of lordship.



The social structure of early Anglo-Saxon England is a subject that was
originally confined to historians and social anthropologists. They depended on
limited amounts of written evidence, particularly the laws and the charters, which
are frequently difficult to reconcile with each other (Chadwick 1905; Seebohm
1911; Bullough 1965). Information regarding early Anglo-Saxon social structure
has often been extrapolated from these documents that all tend to belong to the
latter half of the period or even later. The view has been expressed that the task
is made more difficult because much of the earlier structure of society may have
been suppressed by the power of later lordship and Christian kingship (Loyn
1974:209). From the later laws it emerges that there were a number of classes of
person, ranging from the slave (theow) to the governor of the shire (ealdorman),
and including unfree or half-free cottagers (the ceorl), freedmen occupying farms
and rent-paying tenants (gafolgelda), and also the free farmer (frigman) and
landed nobleman (gesith). It is notable that in this hierarchical representation of
society distinctions were sometimes made in terms of property holding and at
other times status was reflected in the fines paid by each class for specific crimes.
Hence it belongs to a period when systems for the ownership of land with fixed
boundaries had been established, something that, as we have seen, occurred late
in the period under consideration.


In this social context (https://gup.ub.gu.se/publication/283288?lang=en), a ceorl (modern English churl,
German Kerl, Old Norse karl, etc.) is usually
understood as a ‘commoner’, a ‘rank-and-file’
member of the Anglo-Saxon society. Rosamond
Faith (1997: 127) characterises ceorlas as “a large
and loosely defined social category [...], which
included all those who were neither unfree nor of
aristocratic birth,” which also “may preserve
vestiges of a social class of a type which escapes our
modern typologies, a class in which both peasant
farmers and lesser landowners were to be found.”


WERGILD, literally ‘man-payment’, was the legal
value set on a person’s life. All classes of society
excepting *slaves were protected by a wergild, the
sum payable to their relatives to buy off the *feud
if they were killed (see also *kinship). Under the
seventh-century Kentish *laws of Hlothhere and
Eadric, the wergild of a nobleman was 300 shillings,
and that of an ordinary freeman 100 shillings. The
corresponding sums under the West Saxon laws of
*Ine were 1,200 shillings and 200 shillings, with
an intermediate class of 600 shillings; but the West
Saxon shilling was worth much less than its Kentish
counterpart (see *coinage). Ecclesiastics were fitted
in at appropriate points on the scale, according to
Law of the North People (?early eleventh century),
which defines the king’s wergild as 30,000 thrymsas
(90,000 pence), half payable to the kindred and
half to the people, and equates an archbishop with
an *ætheling at 15,000 thrymsas, a bishop with an
*ealdorman at 8,000 thrymsas, a hold (nobleman)
with a high-reeve at 4,000 thrymsas, and a masspriest
with a *thegn at 2,000 thrymsas: a ceorl is valued
at 266 thrymsas. Mercian wergilds of the same
period are defined in Law of the Mercians as 30,000
sceattas (120 pounds) for the king, 1,200 shillings for
a thegn, and 200 shillings for a ceorl.

The wergeld tariffs reveal the subdivision of the free (as opposed to slave)
population into ceorlas (ceorls, free men) and þegnas (thegns, aristocrats). Such
simple distinctions could be used to embrace everybody, or at least everybody
who mattered. In his First Letter to the English people, King Cnut addressed ‘all
his people in England, twelfhynde and twihynde’; for the king and his entourage,
thegns and ceorls made up the whole English nation (Angelcynn).12 In practice,
of course, matters were much more complicated than this tidy legal fiction
implies. In the uncertain years of the tenth and eleventh centuries, it was easy
for free men to slip into slavery, either by the formal act of selling themselves
and their families in order to gain a master’s protection, or by attrition, as
landlords gradually increased services and customary dues until formerly free
peasants became serfs.13 The ranks of the ceorls thus included men teetering
on the edge of serfdom. Upward mobility, however, was also possible, and
some ceorls might aspire to the ranks of thegnhood, so that it was no easy
matter to distinguish between more prosperous ceorlisc men and less affl uent
thegns. The only thing which all ceorls had in common was that legally they
were neither thegns nor slaves. It is for this reason that ceorl is better translated
as ‘free man’ rather than as ‘peasant’, for not only has the latter acquired pejorative
associations, but it is also clear that not all ceorlas personally worked
the land; some were themselves landlords with dependants who worked it for them.

[...]

Some social repercussions might be expected. The appearance of king’s thegns
whose status depended on service rather than land or birth may have been resented
by those magnates whose rank derived from inherited wealth and ancient
(in some cases royal) lineage.16 Archbishop Wulfstan certainly had occasion
to reprove great laymen who looked down on bishops and priests from more
modest backgrounds, reminding them that God could make a shepherd-boy
(David) into a king, and a fi sherman (Peter) into the greatest of bishops.17 The
same attitudes perhaps applied to prospering free men as well; the insistence in
Norðleoda lagu that a ceorlisc family must maintain the property qualification
(fi ve hides of land) for three generations for the offspring to be regarded as a
thegn (gesiðboren) suggests a desire to close ranks against intruders.18 A similar
stipula tion is found in Conrad II’s legislation for north Italian vavassors in 1037
but this concerns the ability of the vavassor’s grandson to render the correct
heriot, thus entitling him to his benefice; this would not have sufficed in England,
where rank followed land, not military equipment.19 The crisis caused by the
Danish incursions of King Æthelred’s day might have put ‘aristocratic’ weapons
into the hands of those ordinary free men who followed their lords into battle,
but ‘even if he prospers so that he possesses a helmet and a coat of mail and a
gold-hilted sword, if he has not the land, he is a ceorl all the same’.20

WHO WERE THE PEOPLE?
So much has been written about the social structure of the Anglo- Saxon ‘peasantry’ that one
might think that we know quite a lot about them. But when the documentary evidence is
distinguished by region, its severe limitations become obvious. Detailed sources for rural
cultivators in estate- management contexts are almost entirely post- 900, and from the West
Saxon zone. Surviving law- codes of the seventh to early eighth centuries are from Kent and
Wessex; in the post- Viking period, they are from Wessex alone; and the rich narrative
sources for early eighth- century Northumbria emphasise Bernicia rather than Deira, and
give only fleeting glimpses of the ordinary laity. Kent, Wessex, and Bernicia are among the
regions where archaeological evidence for mainstream settlements is hard to find. Maybe
some of the categories of people itemised in the ‘Laws of Ine’ lived in places like Collingbourne
Ducis or Wantage, or the rustici occasionally mentioned by the Northumbrian histories
and hagiographies occupied upland farms like those around Ingleborough, but such
possibilities are too broad and indirect to help us very much.
The two archetypal Anglo- Saxon groups below the nobility were free farmers (ceorlas)
and slaves (þeōwas).71 In some and perhaps most regions, they dominated rural society
through the whole period. There must have been gradations among the ceorlas—some richer
than others, many no doubt owning slaves—but they look like a culturally coherent class of
independent householders, to whom ties of kindred and community were more important
than vertical stratification. From the seventh century, however, the rise of great (and initially
monastic) estates generated the dynamic that would ultimately result in the high medieval
demesne economy, with its servile workforces. There were many stages in that process, and
for present purposes the word ‘demesne’ is anachronistic. It is better—with Paul Vinogradoff
and Rosamond Faith—to follow Old English terminology, and describe the intensively exploited
cores of great estates as ‘inlands’.72 With their formation and expansion, a new social
category emerged, intermediate between free farmers and slaves. These were the people
known as gebūras, a word that in origin just means ‘farmers’; legally they were free, and
therefore members of society in a way that slaves were not.73 When we first meet them, however,
they had relatively small holdings, they were burdened with services to the lords of big
estates, and they were—at least to some extent—constrained from leaving those estates without
permission. While we should never forget how little we really know about their lives, it
is tempting to borrow a later expression and call them ‘serfs’.74
When and how did this category come into existence? In parts of Wessex, the southeast
Midlands, and western Mercia, it is demonstrable that gebūr workforces existed by the
880s.75 The only earlier piece of evidence is a single, less- than- lucid clause in the laws of Ine
of Wessex: ‘If anyone comes to terms about a yard of land or more at an agreed payment and
ploughs, if the lord wishes to increase that land for him as regards either labour or payment,
he need not accept it from him if he does not give him a house, and let him suffer loss of the
crops’.76 Like several clauses in Ine’s chaotically organised code, to which additional enactments
may have been added well into the eighth century, this one reads like the overcondensed
summary of discussions on a specific, complex case. The crux is whether the man to
whom a lord ‘gives a house’ is initially free, and thus sinks into a relationship of subjection,
or initially a slave, and thus rises into the ranks of small cultivators.77 The latter is perhaps
more likely (and is supported by Bede’s story that Saint Wilfrid baptised and freed 250 slaves
at Selsey, since he presumably expected them to remain as an estate workforce78), but in
either case the clause implies a category of tenants who not only owed labour, but who were
also constrained from leaving their land.
In southern and western England, then, it is likely that gebūras became more common
through the eighth and ninth centuries, though even there they may still have been confined
to the major estates: islands in an essentially ceorlisc society. Nothing useful can be said here
about their domestic building culture, or how it may have differed from that of ceorlas, since
the houses of all social groups are equally invisible. More important for present purposes is
to emphasise the lack of any trace of gebūras—either then or long afterwards—in the eastern
zone of England,79 with its high coin circulation, abundant jewellery, and tradition of substantial
timber construction. The laity of that area are essentially undocumented before 900,
but in later centuries they were notably free, and there are strong grounds for thinking that
this freedom was long- standing.80 The quantities of finds now being recovered by metaldetecting
imply that some of them were rich enough to lose or discard copper- alloy and even
silver dress fittings.81 Some evidently prospered by producing—and presumably selling or
exporting—commodities that must have included wool, cloth, and grain, but it is imponderable
whether they did this independently, or as tenants or agents. They must have included
merchants, or at least have interacted with them regularly.82
It is unhelpful to call these people ‘peasants’: not because the term is derogatory (which
it is not), but because we have no idea whether they matched any useful definition of it. It is
likewise against common sense to define them all as ‘lords’—and, strong though the monastic
influence was, they can hardly all have been monks and nuns. Many inhabitants of the
eastern province, and of the houses that we can excavate and study there, are likely to have
been prosperous weapon- bearing farmers supported by an underclass of slaves. The combination
of grid- planning with relatively poor material culture on some monastically associated
sites might point to the origins there of a gebūr- type class, but might also suggest that
the inhabitants were identified specifically as monastic workforces, bound by ties that were
religious as well as economic. There must have been a spectrum in status and wealth, ranging
from farmers through monastic personnel to the top aristocrats. In any case this was
clearly a society with a broad spread of disposable resources; it must have contained its
disadvantaged groups, but a ‘lords- versus- peasants’ dichotomy does not help us to understand
it.

For surplus, check the Online Dictionary of Old English (http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/). I can't access it.

Frame it this way: Were there any groups between churls and theows (slaves)? If not, then logically as the only general class of free men above slaves the churls must be the lowest-status freemen.


Oh, and if you insist on writings "ceorls" then you should also write "Cyning" and not "king". Otherwise, stop being pretentious.

This is a point of generosity: OK.


I believe the point was that whilst they had theoretical legal rights they were unable to effectively exercise them because of their low socio-economic status.

"...possessing the freedom of the upper classes but without the economic means to take advantage of it."


First source I could find at 8am this morning that was generally correct, then I added a qualification where I disagreed with the source. I also disagree with the comment that the Council of London in 1102 banning slavery, given that's not technically true and in fact Wulfstan of York had already promulgated a more extensive ban under Cnut, as I previously noted. Having said that, and I did not previously know this, Wulfstan of Worcester (nephew of Wulfstan of York) was at the London Council in 1102.

I'm sure the demographic proportion of slaves in different parts of England at different times is a murky matter of controversy. I won't look for the source but in the readings on churls I came across an estimate that by the time of the Norman conquest 10% of the English population were still slaves, and in Cornwall 25%.


Owning a slave in Anglo-Saxon England was perhaps akin to owning a VHS recorder in the 80's, something of a luxury but hardly remarkable. I fail to see how this is germain to your oriignal point, which was that the churls in Anglo-Saxon England were legally free but economically enslaved.

Churls had to do and manage backbreaking labour in the fields and in common works. Could a churl fick off and decide to take it easy for the summer? Can you tell your administrators you're taking a year's sabbatical to travel the world, and fund it? This isn't enslavement - it's constraint. Economic constraint.

I would add social control: A churl could (I venture) no more tell a thane how to relate to their lord than a line worker can tell their supervisor what company policy should be.


So you concede the analogy is wrong?

No, that it's superfluous. The insight into modern society is nothing we haven't heard before, but here I thought you would be gladdened by the Medieval reference. How poorly I can anticipate your feelings.


Anglo-Saxon society had a surprising amount of social freedom and mobility, probably more than modern American society. My point was, and remains, that the correct lesson to draw from Anglo-Saxon society is that despite (or perhaps because of) our greater economic security our society is in many ways less free and fair now than it was then. This is especially true in America, but then that's not surprising because America doesn't have a king.

Anglo-Saxon society was a shithole. It's all relative.


A king is essential to understanding most historical theories of power and governance. It seems that the American discourse on, among other things, the medieval past, is somewhat hampered by the lack of an Upper Class. In Anglo-Saxon England there was an Upper Class, it was composed of the King, his blood-kin, his wife's kin and whoever else he decided it included.

That's the other side of it - Anglo-Saxon society may have been freer from the perspective of social mobility but it was still an absolute monarchy.

You've seen our neo-Medieval movies.


You're never anything else, so presumably you mean you are going to now be openly rude.

I don't have the energy for that.


You've never accorded me the benefit of the doubt. So, perhaps, actually, I would need to provide proof?

I'm saddened you feel that way, but I don't want to litigate it further.


More reading is a rubbish gift - could you not have linked me a video on the intricacies of forging an Anglo-Saxon sword or making medieval ink?

The title is enough to read, because it's relevant to something.

Do you like lindybeige? If you don't like lindybeige then I am truly unable to learn how to relate to you.


As to your supposed "steelman", I don't agree with it - because it doesn't address the points I was making.

A steelman does not characterize an actual argument from an interlocutor. It constructs what a good argument from that interlocutor might be. See, you don't get it.


1. At no point did I say early Anglo-Saxon society was relatively "flat" compared to later Anglo-Saxon society. Rather, I contrasted the relatively mobile Anglo-Saxon society where churls were simply the non-noble majority with the apartheid society constructed by the Normans where being "English" and therefore a churl was a mark of racial inferiority.

Between Roman and Norman rule.

Norman = Roman(n)! Isn't that fun?


2. I don't think the blogger actually sees history as linear. If anything, I would say that the blogger is arguing that history is cyclical, i.e. likely to repeat at relatively regular intervals. Overall, though, I would say that the mistake the blogger makes is to link two points in time without any real awareness or consideration of the different circumstances or the distance between those two points.

3. My point was, and is, that Anglo-Saxon society simply didn't work the way the blogger, and by extension you, imagine. Anglo-Saxon society is not really a useful comparison to modern society. The Witan was not a precursor to parliament, the folkmoot was not a precursor to trial by jury or local "town hall" government and the churl was not a counterpoint to the American wage-slave.

There were some elites in the past who had much wealth and political power in their realms. The churls as a group were not these elites. In that they did not share these characteristics with the elites they are similar to the contemporary middle class vis-a-vis the wealthy and politically connected. Kings can dispose of more than peasants. Billionaires can dispose of more than software engineers. (This is unaffected by a purely hypothetical ability of churls to assassinate kings or of software engineers to sabotage governments.)

You could say it is not a deep or insightful analogy, but it is a perfectly valid one.


4. I'd never use such dreadful purple prose.

Cautious academic language?


Anglo-Saxon society was also actually very hierarchical, with people and tribes categorised according to wealth, inheritance, sometimes race, religion and social and physical proximity to the King.

Sure. It got more so over time.


Now, I shall be blunt - given that I don't seem to have difficulty representing my ideas to people undoubtedly cleverer than either of us, and being taken seriously, whose fault is it that you don't understand me?

I do understand you. My amply supported position is that your understanding is deficient.

Wouldn't you say the ideas you communicate in your academic context are more restricted, refined, and specialized than those offered here? If you wanted to lecture me on the proper translation and interpretation of Beowulf in the context of linguistic and archaeological evidence, I wouldn't have anything to say to you; I would just respectfully listen.


Oh, thanks for continuing to be an arsehole to me on my birthday. Don't suppose you could have just saved all this up for tomorrow, could you?

OK, you have a point. I didn't think of that. (I don't really celebrate birthdays.) Well, it's not your birthday anymore... :sweatdrop:


Just trying being [I]nice Monty.

I do! :bigcry:

I wouldn't call your approach to me nice. Sometimes it feels like you're advancing something ridiculous deliberately to antagonize me. How about this: how would you rewrite something I had to say to you in a way that, aside from the disagreement at the heart of it, you would accept as nice and/or respectful?

[Gilrandir]

Please tell me something interesting that I don't know or haven't considered,



concupiscible
Concupiscible is a word meaning "worthy of being desired" or worthy of being lusted after. This archaic adjective can also refer to passionately desiring something. It does make one think of bodice rippers or possibly … literotica. Or, you know, of Channing Tatum with his shirt off in Magic Mike, which we would definitely describe as concupiscible.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/s/archaic-words-we-need-to-bring-back-to-life/#concupiscible

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What if it's a long quote? You'll notice all the quotes on that page are about a single sentence.

That's one of the primary usages of ellipsis in any context: to cite or present without full transcription. Is it possible for such a usage to be deceptive? Sure - bring evidence either from the material itself, or the author's record. If you can't, it's a baseless attack that undermines your own claims to decorum and authority.

If you sincerely believe that such a use of ellipsis should be presumptively suspect in all cases, then you deserve ridicule.

As an historian approaching secondary sources I have found that the best was to approach ellipsis is to ask "what has been omitted and why?" That is how you do source criticism, otherwise you're assuming that the source quoted with ellipsis is as the author presents it. If you want to criticise me for something you can criticise my for snobbishness over "popular history", which might be fair. On the other hand, even serious historians are guilty of "dumbing down" when writing popular history.

1. Telling me I deserve ridicule is insulting and unnecessary.


Your syllogism:

A. This reviewer thinks the book has limitations
B. The book is not entirely reliable
C. The author is misrepresenting primary source material

Absurd.

I said the way the source was quoted made it look suspect, then I quoted a professional review which suggested that the author has a tendency to make miss-representations in the book. I did at any point suggest that this misrepresentation undermined the thesis that US Army = Racist in the 1940's etc. I merely noted the incongruity, for which I criticised the historian, and I'm apparently not the only one, based on that review.

If it's long either quote it in full or quote part of it and paraphrase.

2. I clearly quoted the part of the review where the reviewer held up the author for misrepresenting the conclusions of a report. I am not being absurd and accusing me of such is just an insult.


Again, manipulating or cherry picking how? Looking at the subject matter, you yourself admit that the author would have no shortage of quotes denouncing integration. The author did in fact present multiple uncontestable examples. What do you think the rest of the abbreviated quote could possibly have said? "I support Negro equality because I want to see our honorable black servicemen talking to my wife"? Just wild. I can't get over the disparity between your self-regard and your cavilling dismissal of an entire person you've never previously heard of.

I might as well give my own example of a (self-formulated) elliptic quote apt to be misleading: "[T]he English are not a methodical or logical nation—they perceive and accept facts without anxiously inquiring into their reasons or meanings[...]"

Again, critiquing the historiography, not the point. Go back and look at what I originally said, i.e. that the way the quote is presented makes it look misleading. I have now, several times, noted that using such a quote in a misleading way is pointless in the context of this particular argument.


It's because you keep stirring up outrageous and poorly-considered contentions.

Sometimes a critique of poor historiography is just a critique of poor historiography.


Because it's a quick share and I didn't have a comment, nor thought I needed one.

You clearly felt it required you to breach the forum rules on profanity, without explaining your interpretation. That was always going to ellit and obtuse response.


*sigh*

It is possible that I may understand you and that you may be wrong. You are rarely able to acknowledge when I am arguing directly against the propositions you maintain, which rather conveys a misunderstanding on your part.

Indeed, it is possible - but I can't remember the last time you actually argued against my point directly. Remember the time you spent pages accusing me of being transphobic just because I said I could appreciate why some fathers are more worried about their daughters safety than being socially inclusive to complete strangers? Remember how you you interpreted my critique of Beskar's appeal to gender-fluidity as transphobic when my point was actually that trans people are rarely gender-fluid and are often actually very much gender-conforming, just not their physical gender?

Your combative style means you attack the other person on what you percieve their platform to be, rather than trying to understand that platform.


Trying out that conciliatory generosity. I guess it hasn't worked out. I'm always thinking of elaborations and complications in the subjects I choose to raise that I desperately wish someone would present or allude to so I could develop them. I don't want to post exhaustive essays on any given item following every conceivable strand, causing suffering for everyone. My hope is to introduce opportunities (for you or anyone) to eruditely expand the prompt. Too often I wind up in meritless and unproductive arguments, which I resent. Please tell me something interesting that I don't know or haven't considered, not what I already know to be bullshit or indefensible! The tension here isn't some autogenous eruption from me; we've had plenty of mundane disagreements in the past, and there are others whose offerings I have appreciated (yours as well sometimes).

So you expect others to raise certain arguments for you so that you can respond to them? See above about attacking percieved targets. I'm not you, I don't understand you, I don't know what you want.

If you want to discuss something raise it, if nobody argues against it then it may just be because we all agree with you and aren't interested in debating it.


*heavy sigh*











For surplus, check the Online Dictionary of Old English (http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/). I can't access it.

I struggle to understand how you can have sourced all the above and written all of the following.


Frame it this way: Were there any groups between churls and theows (slaves)? If not, then logically as the only general class of free men above slaves the churls must be the lowest-status freemen.

The question is malformed, because as I said Anglo-Saxon society doesn't work like that.

A churl is simply anyone not a noble or a slave, the very idea that they are "lowest status" is anachronistic and a relic of the Normon Conquest when almost all English were reduced to the status of churls and legally disenfranchised.

Some thanes may have become knights, but even they would have lost the freehold to their lands and it's just as likely their lands were taken from them, they were made destitute and either emigrated to the Byzantine Empire (a well documented phenomenon) or became churlish serfs.


This is a point of generosity: OK.

If you want to go all thorn, ash and yew we can do that, but you're just creating a barrier to understanding and being pretentious. It's also a hassle to have to use all the keyboard codes.

3. Suggesting it's generous to condescend to use consistent orthography is just another insult. Talk about not being able to back down.


"...possessing the freedom of the upper classes but without the economic means to take advantage of it."
Right, and there's no evidence for this - it's a 19th Century invention.


I'm sure the demographic proportion of slaves in different parts of England at different times is a murky matter of controversy. I won't look for the source but in the readings on churls I came across an estimate that by the time of the Norman conquest 10% of the English population were still slaves, and in Cornwall 25%.

I believe I've heard those figures before - remember the people in Cornwall may not be considered "English". We really don't know, what we do know is that the Kings issued Law Codes aimed at preventing the sale of slaves, or the forcible enslavement of someone to pay a debt. The fact it was legislated against shows it was clearly relatively common whilst also considered to be, how to say, un-Christian.


Churls had to do and manage backbreaking labour in the fields and in common works. Could a churl fick off and decide to take it easy for the summer? Can you tell your administrators you're taking a year's sabbatical to travel the world, and fund it? This isn't enslavement - it's constraint. Economic constraint.

Really - here's some quote from your sources:

"The most prosperous ceorls may well have possessed more land and wealth than many young nobles striving for a place in a lord’s household. Ceorls as well as nobles fought in Alfred’s armies and attended his folk moots. Their main function in Alfred’s eyes, though, was to be the king’s ‘working men’, whose labours helped feed those who prayed and those who fought."

"The only thing which all ceorls had in common was that legally they were neither thegns nor slaves. It is for this reason that ceorl is better translated as ‘free man’ rather than as ‘peasant’, for not only has the latter acquired pejorative associations, but it is also clear that not all ceorlas personally worked the land; some were themselves landlords with dependants who worked it for them."

The ONLY thing all churls have in common is being free and not being noble and some of them DO NOT directly work the land. Do you not see how different that is to later Norman society, and how it is different to the plight of the modern American wage-slave?

Let's put this another way - you are a churl - but so is Warren Buffet.

Is Warren Buffet economically constrained?


I would add social control: A churl could (I venture) no more tell a thane how to relate to their lord than a line worker can tell their supervisor what company policy should be.

True and not true - as a couple of sources hint all churls, like all thanes, needed a liege lord but the lord didn't need to be the local thane. Consider the wealthy church whose liege is the king vs the less wealthy thane whose liege is another than or an Earl.


No, that it's superfluous. The insight into modern society is nothing we haven't heard before, but here I thought you would be gladdened by the Medieval reference. How poorly I can anticipate your feelings.

The insight into modern society is banal, the connection to Anglo-Saxon society is misconstrued. I simply pointed this out and now we're having a big fight about how I'm a bad historian?

You just like picking fights.


Anglo-Saxon society was a shithole. It's all relative.

I'd rather live there than modern American society.


You've seen our neo-Medieval movies.

Yeah - that's the wierd thing - they get kings better than you do in some cases.


I don't have the energy for that.

I numbered the insults above for you.


I'm saddened you feel that way, but I don't want to litigate it further.

I don't believe you, on either point. We've spent weeks litigating it and you seem unrepentant.


The title is enough to read, because it's relevant to something.

I just clicked the link and realised it was more screed, and you'd already accused me of supporting racism on my birthday. Yet, great present, more work.


Do you like lindybeige? If you don't like lindybeige then I am truly unable to learn how to relate to you.

He's amusing, but I'm much, much, less of a cynic.


A steelman does not characterize an actual argument from an interlocutor. It constructs what a good argument from that interlocutor might be. See, you don't get it.

No, I get it. You don't get the point I'm trying to make - so your supposedly "good argument" doesn't address itself to my thesis. So you've demonstrated that you either don't understand my argument or you want me to make a different one.

Like I said, if you don't like my contributions or value them (and you never do) why do you keep soliciting them?

I gave you may opinion in my fist most - banal point - completely misunderstands Anglo-Saxon society and here we are days later and you're trying to argue against my interpretation of the historiography making points that are directly contradicted by the sources you quote.


Between Roman and Norman rule.

Norman = Roman(n)! Isn't that fun?

Normanum non Romanorum est?


There were some elites in the past who had much wealth and political power in their realms. The churls as a group were not these elites. In that they did not share these characteristics with the elites they are similar to the contemporary middle class vis-a-vis the wealthy and politically connected. Kings can dispose of more than peasants. Billionaires can dispose of more than software engineers. (This is unaffected by a purely hypothetical ability of churls to assassinate kings or of software engineers to sabotage governments.)

You could say it is not a deep or insightful analogy, but it is a perfectly valid one.

You're still tangling up wealth, power, and class in a totally anachronistic way. The medieval King has wealth and power because of his class, his social status, he doesn't get that status because of his wealth and power.. You really need to accept what I'm telling you when I tell you that America doesn't really have an "Upper Class" as it is traditionally understood, otherwise you're going to keep making these anachronistic comparisons.

Trump is a churl.


Cautious academic language?

I meant "oppressed and immiserated". If I wrote that and sent it to my supervisor I'd get it back with the last word triple underlined and the word "miserable" above it with multiple question marks.


Sure. It got more so over time.

It got more clearly delineated in its sub-divisions but it was always a system with the King at the top and everyone else under him. As time progressed the "great monastic estates" developed as Kings bequeathed land in charters that the monasteries were able to hold onto - as opposed to land that automatically reverted to the King when someone died. Gradually this "book lnad" also came to be held by members of the laity and from this developed the concept of the freehold where a man held land freely - i.e. had been granted it and could keep it or sell the holding of it.

Note holding - not ownership. You can't actually own land if you're not the king, but you can own the use of it, and the property on it. This point, incidentally, has implications for appropriation of land and property (and its permissible limits) under English Common Law even today.


I do understand you. My amply supported position is that your understanding is deficient.

You've quoted sources that demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic concepts we are discussing - you continue to hold to an American concept of class as being wealth-derived.


Wouldn't you say the ideas you communicate in your academic context are more restricted, refined, and specialized than those offered here? If you wanted to lecture me on the proper translation and interpretation of Beowulf in the context of linguistic and archaeological evidence, I wouldn't have anything to say to you; I would just respectfully listen.

I'm not actually an expert on Old English - and in fact I've never claimed to be an expert. Although that being said I suppose I would be considered "expert" in lay circles. If I were an actual Anglo-Saxonist, or I were to direct one here, I imagine you'd be buried under an avalanche of sources I would struggle to wade through.

The fact is you're making a rear-guard action over a point that's clearly no longer accepted - i.e. that churls were the "lower class" of Anglo-Saxon society when in reality they were not, some of them had not only legal but actual rights and privileges in Anglo-Saxon society, some did not. Some were economically constrained (geburs) but many were not. Despite which they constituted a single legal class in society.

In fact, the more appropriate interpretation of the churl with regards to modern American society (so much as it is applicable) is that all Americans are churls because all Americans are equal before the law. What you are trying to do is to compare wealthy Americans today to a legally distinct class that existed over a thousand year ago.

This is not quite the case in Europe, although the aristocracy have become less and less powerful over the last five decades in particular.


OK, you have a point. I didn't think of that. (I don't really celebrate birthdays.) Well, it's not your birthday anymore... :sweatdrop:

I do! :bigcry:

I wouldn't call your approach to me nice. Sometimes it feels like you're advancing something ridiculous deliberately to antagonize me. How about this: how would you rewrite something I had to say to you in a way that, aside from the disagreement at the heart of it, you would accept as nice and/or respectful?

I certainly wasn't nice to you yesterday, but then again you insinuated I was racist just because I critiqued a source on racism in the American Air Force, and it was my birthday.

Why don't you just avoid phrases like "deserve ridicule", especially when I've quoted a review of said book which indicates far more serious forms of misrepresentation in the work. Also, do you actually think I'm being ridiculous, if so why do you bother?

Have you considered just asking for clarification?

Also - have you considered that you hold beliefs that I consider patently ridiculous? Like the belief that it's possible to differentiate between right and wrong without appeal to any higher power? I could give you a long, well sourced, argument on how a conceptual "higher power" is necessary to be able to define something as "right" or "wrong" and the difference between the objectively right and human perception which is only "subjectively right".

Such an argument would, however, be utterly pointless between us because you would reject it on unprovable first principles - you would first dispute my definition of "right" and then you would argue that there is no discernible "higher power" and therefore I must be wrong. The only reason to have such a discussion would be to try to better understand each other's positions but given you have indicated you have no interest in exploring philosophical beliefs you reject. So - utterly pointless.

Like this discussion has become.

[Montmorency]

concupiscible
Concupiscible is a word meaning "worthy of being desired" or worthy of being lusted after. This archaic adjective can also refer to passionately desiring something. It does make one think of bodice rippers or possibly … literotica. Or, you know, of Channing Tatum with his shirt off in Magic Mike, which we would definitely describe as concupiscible.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/s/archaic-words-we-need-to-bring-back-to-life/#concupiscible

Good. One topic you probably have special familiarity with that others here would be interested in, but would find it challenging to navigate on their own, is how Ukrainian media is covering recent aspects of the country's relationship with America. If you have any comments we have a suitable thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153951-The-XYZelensky-Affair-and-the-Whole-Impeachment-Shebang) for them.


As an historian approaching secondary sources I have found that the best was to approach ellipsis is to ask "what has been omitted and why?"

But you didn't do that, which shows the very process behind your supposition to be supposititious.


I said the way the source was quoted made it look suspect, then I quoted a professional review which suggested that the author has a tendency to make miss-representations in the book.

Unless you can support your reading from the review, you are the one guilty of misrepresentation here; the line you quote (without citation) gives no such implication. If it were the case that disagreement over academic conclusions eo ipso equated to misrepresentation by one party, scholarship across all fields of inquiry would hardly be possible.


If it's long either quote it in full or quote part of it and paraphrase.

Partial quotations are properly used if they materially represent the substance of the quote or highlighted meaning. No one holds that partial quotation is inherently misleading, but if someone did it would not be rational for them to apply such a standard knowing the prevalence of partial quotation. If one does not believe partial quotation is always misleading, one would have to make a case on the facts of a specific instance. You still have not.


I am not being absurd and accusing me of such is just an insult.

if one were even to follow your reasoning, it would refute itself as bare pretense. One could imagine finding a second review, a review in existence saying, "Gropman is widely considered in the field to be prone to dishonestly presenting sources to the opposite of their meaning." But one could not point to such a review to justify their initial characterization of the quote as misleading if it came to their attention after they had attacked the quote - that would be ex ante reasoning, a sharpshooter fallacy.

Malpractice warrants condemnation. You cannot be ignorant of the implications of falsely and maliciously accusing a historian of dishonest historiography.


Sometimes a critique of poor historiography is just a critique of poor historiography.

If you were more self-aware you would reflect on how this line redounds to you.


That was always going to ellit and obtuse response.

How could I take this as anything other than an admission that you have been purposely obtuse with (i.e. trolling) me?


I went to the trouble of getting access to the original work (https://archive.org/stream/AirForceIntegrates1945-1964/af_integrates_djvu.txt), The Air Force Integrates 1949-1964. The relevant section is "The Freeman Field Mutiny." The unit (477th Bombardment Group) in question had since its formation seen conflict between segregationist white officers - including the commanders - and black officers. The black officers were denied access to the white officers' club (barred under penalty of arrest). This was a widespread policy under First Air Force Commander General Frank Hunter, and a colonel under his command had been reprimanded in 1943 by the Chief of Air Staff in Washington when black officers put segregation to the test (they didn't even have a colored club) and were arrested. The surprisingly perspicacious military regulations prohibited racial segregation of officers' facilities, on the account that


...the idea of racial segregation is disliked by almost all Negroes and downright hated by most. White people and Negro . . . fail to have a common understanding of the meaning of segregation . . . . The protesting Negro . . . knows from experience that separate facilities are rarely equal, and that too often racial segregation rests on a belief in racial inferiority.

But Hunter didn't take this too seriously, protesting that "The doctrine of social equality cannot be forced on a spirited young pilot preparing for combat." Also in 1943 under Hunter, Colonel William Colman shot his black chauffeur because he didn't want a black chauffeur and was given a light punishment.

Low unit readiness, refusal to promote any blacks over whites (one calculated loophole was to designate all blacks as trainees and only whites as supervisors), and the officers' club issue led to open insubordination when the unit was transferred to inadequate basing (movement back and forth between Godman and Freeman Fields) and the whites tried to formalize segregation of officers. In summary, in April 1945 the blacks forced their way into the white club en masse; 61 were arrested, 3 later court-martialed. On following days even more officers attempted mass entry and were arrested. The incident gained national notoriety in Congress and the press. Within days the commanders attempted to force all officers to sign consent to segregated facilities. All whites signed, but some blacks refused. These were arrested, leading to the renewed insubordination of almost all black officers, with a resultant closing (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pools-closed) of of the white club as they tried to gain ingress.

How this story ends is not the issue and can be studied to independent satisfaction. Here is the place to reemphasize the total lack of cause to suspect any manipulation of primary material on the author's part to insert racist sentiment. Indeed, below is the full excerpt around the prompting screenshot, which is sourced to a "Rpt. of Racial Situation" on Freeman Field with scope of the few weeks before the mutiny:


Some whites made "disgruntled remarks" in the presence of
blacks, but all those put in the report had been made at the
white officers' club. They included, for example, the following
remarks:

c. "If one of them makes a crack at my wife, laughs or whistles
at-her, like I saw them do to some white girls downtown,
so help me, I'll kill him."

d. "I killed two of them in my home town, and it wouldn't
bother me to do it again."

e. "I went to the show on this base my first and last time
because I'm afraid I'll get into trouble some night when
they start making remarks about the white actors and actresses:
besides that, the smell in the show is terrible."

h. "Their club is better than ours. Why don't they stay in
their place."

i. "That isn't just what they are looking for. What they
want to do is stand at the same bar with you, and be able to
talk with your wife. They are insisting on equality . . . . "75

That is, the source material listed what it described as "disgruntled remarks" from white officers, prompted by Negro agitation for desegregated facilities. Gropman quotes these remarks - not idly or coincidentally assembled - from the report. For quote (i) to have been deceptively included one would have to believe that an officer signaled approval of blacks talking to his wife as equals, and that this was included in a list of negative racial remarks from other white officers. If one does not believe this, then there is no way in which the quote could have been materially misrepresented. To have advanced on nothing but sentiment any notion that this remark must have instead been supportive of the desegregationist aim the white officer class from Hunter down had long been unified in suppressing among blacks, is indefensible. In the worst case, you did not identify any conceivable misrepresentation but chose to level a spurious character assault regardless. To continue in this vein would be repugnant for any so-called scholar, a confirmation of bad faith. Complaints of mistreatment at my hands would hold little weight in that light, and would be deserving of more than disgruntled remarks.




Indeed, it is possible - but I can't remember the last time you actually argued against my point directly. Remember the time you spent pages accusing me of being transphobic just because I said I could appreciate why some fathers are more worried about their daughters safety than being socially inclusive to complete strangers? Remember how you you interpreted my critique of Beskar's appeal to gender-fluidity as transphobic when my point was actually that trans people are rarely gender-fluid and are often actually very much gender-conforming, just not their physical gender?

I remember that your statements entailed rather more than that, which I delineated carefully, and I never accused you of transphobia. You are rewriting the terms of a discussion after the fact.


Your combative style means you attack the other person on what you percieve their platform to be, rather than trying to understand that platform.

I see a reflexive refusal on your part to grapple with flaws in your positions as they have been stated.


So you expect others to raise certain arguments for you so that you can respond to them? See above about attacking percieved targets. I'm not you, I don't understand you, I don't know what you want.

If you want to discuss something raise it, if nobody argues against it then it may just be because we all agree with you and aren't interested in debating it.

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp. For example, if I post about a proposed policy, I will privately consider pros and cons, and open questions, as well as potential challenges to both the pros and cons from various perspectives. I may or may not post about some of these, which in full would look like a rather dense and meandering wall of text. I would however be prepared to discuss these points should someone else present an opportunity. Insofar as there is any response it almost never works out that way here, so I should probably leave well enough alone.


The question is malformed, because as I said Anglo-Saxon society doesn't work like that.

It is a mere logical necessity of hierarchy.If you are thinking through any attachments you have to Anglo-Saxon culture, step back. Some propositions:

A. Churls are lower in status than thanes.
B. Slaves are lower in status than churls.
C. Churls and above are free.
D. Slaves are not free.
E. Churls are the lowest-status men who are free.


A churl is simply anyone not a noble or a slave,

What is a whole number between 1 and 3? There is only one whole number between 1 and 3.


3. Suggesting it's generous to condescend to use consistent orthography is just another insult. Talk about not being able to back down.

I bet you and all your colleagues routinely use "king" instead of "cyning" alongside Old English words, because king is a generic term with the same meaning.


Right, and there's no evidence for this - it's a 19th Century invention.

What's the evidence against this? I have presented evidence for, and common sense agrees.


The ONLY thing all churls have in common is being free and not being noble and some of them DO NOT directly work the land. Do you not see how different that is to later Norman society, and how it is different to the plight of the modern American wage-slave?

This account on its terms alone maps pretty well to the broad middle class today, which ranges from garbage collectors to oncologists. Why do you reject my defense of the weak analogy and inadvertently argue for the strong?


Let's put this another way - you are a churl - but so is Warren Buffet.

Is Warren Buffet economically constrained?

In fact, the more appropriate interpretation of the churl with regards to modern American society (so much as it is applicable) is that all Americans are churls because all Americans are equal before the law. What you are trying to do is to compare wealthy Americans today to a legally distinct class that existed over a thousand year ago.

You're abusing language. Literal formal peerage is not what's relevant.


The insight into modern society is banal, the connection to Anglo-Saxon society is misconstrued. I simply pointed this out and now we're having a big fight about how I'm a bad historian?

You just like picking fights.

As I said, I didn't post that for its insight - countless others, including Obama, have made it in more or less detail - but because I thought you would like it.

Right now this is two separate "fights." If you're a bad historian it's not because of obtuseness over the content of the churl analogy.


I don't believe you, on either point. We've spent weeks litigating it and you seem unrepentant.

Yes, I'm saying I won't bother litigating your perception of me going forward. How much appetite I have to continue any other dispute is still indeterminate.


I just clicked the link and realised it was more screed, and you'd already accused me of supporting racism on my birthday. Yet, great present, more work.

What? It's a link to a White House press release. I didn't accuse you of supporting racism.


No, I get it. You don't get the point I'm trying to make - so your supposedly "good argument" doesn't address itself to my thesis. So you've demonstrated that you either don't understand my argument or you want me to make a different one.

Yes, I was saying your pedantry was misplaced and sketched a better attempt.


Like I said, if you don't like my contributions or value them (and you never do) why do you keep soliciting them?

Sometimes I have (I don't know how valuable 'America be craycray' is, but I'll take it). It's been a rough spot lately.


I gave you may opinion in my fist most - banal point - completely misunderstands Anglo-Saxon society and here we are days later and you're trying to argue against my interpretation of the historiography making points that are directly contradicted by the sources you quote.

I've covered this.


You're still tangling up wealth, power, and class in a totally anachronistic way. The medieval King has wealth and power because of his class, his social status, he doesn't get that status because of his wealth and power.. You really need to accept what I'm telling you when I tell you that America doesn't really have an "Upper Class" as it is traditionally understood, otherwise you're going to keep making these anachronistic comparisons.

Trump is a churl.

By anachronistically insisting that archaic class distinctions and modern class distinctions would have to map to each other one to one to be compared at all you make the error you accuse me of.


I meant "oppressed and immiserated". If I wrote that and sent it to my supervisor I'd get it back with the last word triple underlined and the word "miserable" above it with multiple question marks.

Some of the sources I quoted use the word immiserated, and it's hardly an unfamiliar word. El gustando no disputando. :shrug:


You've quoted sources that demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic concepts we are discussing - you continue to hold to an American concept of class as being wealth-derived.

Are you saying the sources are wrong about something, or that I've misunderstood them? To clarify, I never said Anglo-Saxon class was based on wealth. Modern class is largely wealth-based.


The fact is you're making a rear-guard action over a point that's clearly no longer accepted - i.e. that churls were the "lower class" of Anglo-Saxon society when in reality they were not, some of them had not only legal but actual rights and privileges in Anglo-Saxon society, some did not. Some were economically constrained (geburs) but many were not. Despite which they constituted a single legal class in society.

The best I can give you is that you're opposing an equivocation of status and class that no one fouled over. To say that someone is lower-status is not to imply that they have no rights or resources. If there were a world in which the worst-off lived like kings as we know them, it would still be correct to call them lower or lowest-status.


This is not quite the case in Europe, although the aristocracy have become less and less powerful over the last five decades in particular.

I've linked in this very thread how the majority of wealth in American and European countries is inherited. There is more to aristocracy than a certain title.


I certainly wasn't nice to you yesterday, but then again you insinuated I was racist just because I critiqued a source on racism in the American Air Force, and it was my birthday.

I didn't, but if you're frequently in the position of thinking I'm insinuating bigotry on your part, well - guilty conscience perhaps? :creep:


Why don't you just avoid phrases like "deserve ridicule", especially when I've quoted a review of said book which indicates far more serious forms of misrepresentation in the work. Also, do you actually think I'm being ridiculous, if so why do you bother?

I won't bother. You've lost credibility.


Have you considered just asking for clarification?

I do that frequently, and then you complain I'm accusing you of something.


Also - have you considered that you hold beliefs that I consider patently ridiculous? Like the belief that it's possible to differentiate between right and wrong without appeal to any higher power? I could give you a long, well sourced, argument on how a conceptual "higher power" is necessary to be able to define something as "right" or "wrong" and the difference between the objectively right and human perception which is only "subjectively right". Such an argument would, however, be utterly pointless between us because you would reject it on unprovable first principles - you would first dispute my definition of "right" and then you would argue that there is no discernible "higher power" and therefore I must be wrong.

Whatever the case, your argument would be not even wrong.


The only reason to have such a discussion would be to try to better understand each other's positions but given you have indicated you have no interest in exploring philosophical beliefs you reject. So - utterly pointless.

I have interest, but you're not that person.

[Greyblades]

I simultaniously want you to both shut up and not stop, its getting confusing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're abusing language. Literal formal peerage is not what's relevant.

This, right here, is you not listening. You accuse me of abusing language, and yet you insist that churl is the only "whole number" between slaves and nobles.

Clearly, as your own sources indicate, the Geburs were a legally-defined sub-class among the Churls present in Wessex (but not in all regions) and they were the ones directly butting up against slaves.

Now, you've done everything up to and including character assassination just to try to prove that your initial point against me was correct, despite which you claim that the historiography doesn't matter, which gives you a double out.

So what was the point?

I think this is really about your defence of the thesis that the wealthy in modern America form an aristocratic class, I'd argue that they don't because as a class they aren't cohesive. Yes, the wealthy in America often inherit their wealth, but then so did churls. The fact is for every Donald Trump you also have a Michael Bloomberg.

The difference is, with a real aristocracy if you take away all their money, it doesn't matter. This has remained true in the UK to the extent that up until 1997 every titled aristocrat in the UK automatically got a seat in the legislature, regardless of wealth. This was also true in many other countries at the start of the 20th Century.

Wealthy Americans wish they had that, and they wish they had the social access that real aristocrats have world-wide. This is the crucial difference, and this is why any critique of modern American society based on a comparison to medieval class structures is inherently faulty and needs to be challenged.

[Montmorency]

This, right here, is you not listening. You accuse me of abusing language, and yet you insist that churl is the only "whole number" between slaves and nobles.

I insisted that there is only one whole number between 1 and 3: that number is 2. There is nothing precious about an ability to convince yourself otherwise.


Clearly, as your own sources indicate, the Geburs were a legally-defined sub-class among the Churls present in Wessex (but not in all regions) and they were the ones directly butting up against slaves.

Beside the point, but to be accurate none of the sources I quoted describes a legal definition of "gebur". Building Anglo-Saxon England speculates that the group known as geburs in Wessex possibly arose out of freed slaves (as opposed to free men sinking into subjection).


Now, you've done everything up to and including character assassination just to try to prove that your initial point against me was correct, despite which you claim that the historiography doesn't matter, which gives you a double out.

The historiography reinforces the intermediate status of churls between slaves and nobility, which you don't contest. I don't know of what character assassination you speak with regard to churls, but since you engaged in character assassination to troll me I can't respect this whinging.


I think this is really about your defence of the thesis that the wealthy in modern America form an aristocratic class,

It has nothing to do about whether the wealthy form an "aristocratic" class. The analogy is valid whether or not that word applies. You have been hung up on the historical definitions of classes (e.g. stratified legal standing vs. theoretical equality under the law) rather than observing the cross-sectional relationship in practice, which latter is the point.


I'd argue that they don't because as a class they aren't cohesive.

What does it mean for a class to be cohesive?


The fact is for every Donald Trump you also have a Michael Bloomberg.

If by this you mean that most super-wealthy individuals were not born into wealth, you are correct - especially as concerns people outside the US or Europe. But the growth opportunities of the globalizing age have always been vanishingly few and predicated on criminality and political access at that level, and the good times have given way to secular stagnation. Below the masters, the petite bourgeois are much better at staying affluent (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf) or getting more so than those below are at breaking into their ranks.

23054
23055

But this has always been so. Most wealth is inherited, and what is inherited is mostly passed between the upper ramparts of society. in America this is especially a foundational racial problem, where as we see black families pass on almost no accumulated wealth whatsoever, even compared to middle class whites.


The difference is, with a real aristocracy if you take away all their money, it doesn't matter. This has remained true in the UK to the extent that up until 1997 every titled aristocrat in the UK automatically got a seat in the legislature, regardless of wealth. This was also true in many other countries at the start of the 20th Century.

Wealthy Americans wish they had that, and they wish they had the social access that real aristocrats have world-wide. This is the crucial difference, and this is why any critique of modern American society based on a comparison to medieval class structures is inherently faulty and needs to be challenged.

You are making two mistakes:

First, modern oligarchs and plutocrats, and their families, do have special access despite a lack of formally-specified status. This is still called privilege.

Second, even if the above were not the case it would not be relevant to instigating analogy, which is explicitly about the substantive inherent capacities of common people, and implicitly of their relationship to the ruling classes.

Again, this is the point. Your contrarian posture here is as misguided as if you said we cannot refer to modern military servicepeople as soldiers because they do not form in blocks or carry spears.

[Viking]

A long-delayed reply for Montmorency.


I wonder if the variation in faces trends greater the larger in population the ethnic group

I would say necessarily. The larger the population, the stronger the evolutionary pressure needs to be to enforce homogeneity for a given trait. As far as human faces go, that sounds most relevant for sexual selection, and I am not sure it would be up to the task.

Size in numbers also correlates with size in area, so you can have founder effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect) and other phenomena that push for the branching off of new, distinct ethnic groups.


It didn't jump out at you that he is a Korean-American who basically became a Mexican-American (chicano)? Hence opening a Mexican restaurant.

Adoptees that are adequately young tend to adopt the culture they are adopted into. He would have a much easier time passing as a Mexican than a European where he grew up, so it's not the most surprising cultural identity he adopted.

I get the impression that he has a bit of a conservative personality (cf. the Action facet of the Openness to experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory#Personality_dimensions) dimension in the NEO PI-R model); he does not seem very interested in trying out new things in general. He was set in his ways before he got to Korea.

If he had ended up in Mexico instead, I don't think he would be very interested in exploring aspects of Mexican culture that he does not already have some familiarity with, because that's how his personality works.

[Montmorency]

I would say necessarily. The larger the population, the stronger the evolutionary pressure needs to be to enforce homogeneity for a given trait. As far as human faces go, that sounds most relevant for sexual selection, and I am not sure it would be up to the task.

Size in numbers also correlates with size in area, so you can have founder effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect) and other phenomena that push for the branching off of new, distinct ethnic groups.

Pretty much all ethnic groups grow by outright absorbing/assimilating disparate ethnic groups as well as by intragroup sexual reproduction. But there's two ways to interpret what I said about facial variation, first in terms of variability in particular measurements within a group (e.g. interocular distance, ear height), second in terms of how the population can be divided into something like facial archetypes. These are obviously not unrelated but I would guess the former has prompted more research.


Adoptees that are adequately young tend to adopt the culture they are adopted into. He would have a much easier time passing as a Mexican than a European where he grew up, so it's not the most surprising cultural identity he adopted.

He mentioned that kids at school or in the gang identified him as Asian, so there's more to it than a scale of appearance (particularly as perceived from without).


I get the impression that he has a bit of a conservative personality (cf. the Action facet of the Openness to experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory#Personality_dimensions) dimension in the NEO PI-R model); he does not seem very interested in trying out new things in general. He was set in his ways before he got to Korea.

If he had ended up in Mexico instead, I don't think he would be very interested in exploring aspects of Mexican culture that he does not already have some familiarity with, because that's how his personality works.


:confused:

I don't know how to evaluate your impression of his personality. I would say he comes across as insecure or defensive (stemming from trauma), but that's not the same as what you're describing.

[Viking]

Pretty much all ethnic groups grow by outright absorbing/assimilating disparate ethnic groups as well as by intragroup sexual reproduction. But there's two ways to interpret what I said about facial variation, first in terms of variability in particular measurements within a group (e.g. interocular distance, ear height), second in terms of how the population can be divided into something like facial archetypes. These are obviously not unrelated but I would guess the former has prompted more research.

I don't recall hearing about facial archetypes in a scientific context like this. Skull shapes (smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/neanderthal-genes-influence-contemporary-humans-skull-shape-brain-size-180971043/), on the other hand..

By the way, I generally wouldn't take large-scale assimilation for granted. Newcomers or expanding groups could displace or outcompete existing groups. It would be interesting to find out how common the different scenarios have been throughout history.


He mentioned that kids at school or in the gang identified him as Asian, so there's more to it than a scale of appearance (particularly as perceived from without).

If there were no social groups for "bad" (his word) Asian kids, then it is not difficult to see his choice as the second-best option.



:confused:

I don't know how to evaluate your impression of his personality. I would say he comes across as insecure or defensive (stemming from trauma), but that's not the same as what you're describing.

The scientific underpinnings of the five-factor model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits) (which NEO PI-R is based on) I haven't read much about, but I have listened to tens of episodes of a podcast where celebrities have their personalities broken down according to the 30 facets of the NEO PI-R (with both hosts and guests taking the endeavour seriously). From these episodes, for any of the 30 facets, it seems clear to me that the two extreme ends of a facet describe very different people.

For the facet in question, based on the episodes of this podcast, I would informally describe the people that score the lowest on "openness to actions" this way: when they book a holiday, they book the same destination as always, the same hotel at that destination as always, the same hotel room in that hotel as always; and when at the destination, they eat the same meals at the same nearby restaurant. People who score high on this facet, in contrast, like to travel to new destinations and try new things.

In other words, I think this guy, if he goes on holidays, prefers to go to the same old destination(s).

Perhaps insecurity, caused by trauma or otherwise, could indirectly lead to conservative choices as a means of keeping things stable and under control, but I can't immediately see that applying here.

Another facet where it seems that his score comes through clearly (much clearer, really) is achievement striving. He comes across as very ambitious, making sure that his restaurant has the highest standards. He focuses a lot on that his restaurant is the best, not just to boast; and emphasizes that it took "hard work" to get there (i.e. he doesn't take it for granted simply because of his background, he had to want to get there).

Nah, I think his underlying personality is coming through well enough. Maybe with a significantly rougher edge than it would have had with a different childhood and youth.

[Montmorency]

What does "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of" mean?



I don't recall hearing about facial archetypes in a scientific context like this. Skull shapes (smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/neanderthal-genes-influence-contemporary-humans-skull-shape-brain-size-180971043/), on the other hand..

By the way, I generally wouldn't take large-scale assimilation for granted. Newcomers or expanding groups could displace or outcompete existing groups. It would be interesting to find out how common the different scenarios have been throughout history.

Skull shape in itself creates much of the face shape, and craniofacial bones and tissues are made up of multiple segments with distinct genetic and developmental processes. How that biologically comes together is not the point right now.

What I'm saying is, haven't you ever looked at people's faces and found that sometimes people from a given nationality or ethnic group will often have what looks like the same facial model but with slight variations? Like: 'that face looks like a face I'd often see on a French person,' or 'that's a distinctly Chinese (as opposed to Japanese or Korean) face.' It's not to say that a handful of facial models typify entire ethnic groups, but that particular basic facial models are particularly associated.

Unfortunately I can't clearly illustrate what I mean, since I don't make a habit of collecting prosopography from whatever visual media I encounter. If I can't collate examples of the kinds of trend I have in mind, I can at least give examples of what look like archetypes to me.

HP Lovecraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft) epitomizes the WASPy physiognomy in my mind.

This protester is easily identifiable as Jewish (aside from it being a Jewish-led protest).

23057



If there were no social groups for "bad" (his word) Asian kids, then it is not difficult to see his choice as the second-best option.

Certainly the context-specific interrelationships between groups matter. A white/European-American child in that position would have barriers to assimilation due to the wider societal racial hierarchy. A (dark) black/African-American child could indeed grow up much like our subject D, though there would be an additional layer of influence from the prevalent African-American representation (not to say whether it's good or bad) in TV, film, and music that would be very difficult to conceal from a child even if living in a location with no other black people around.

I don't understand your framing of "second-best."


In other words, I think this guy, if he goes on holidays, prefers to go to the same old destination(s).

I can't really argue with a gut feeling, but why? I have read people who live through poverty often display this kind of behavioral/psychological tendency, but what did you see in the video that left you with this judgement? Making and persisting with a risky business investment in a foreign country seems like contrary evidence.

[Viking]

What I'm saying is, haven't you ever looked at people's faces and found that sometimes people from a given nationality or ethnic group will often have what looks like the same facial model but with slight variations? Like: 'that face looks like a face I'd often see on a French person,' or 'that's a distinctly Chinese (as opposed to Japanese or Korean) face.' It's not to say that a handful of facial models typify entire ethnic groups, but that particular basic facial models are particularly associated.

I think I get what you mean.


Certainly the context-specific interrelationships between groups matter. A white/European-American child in that position would have barriers to assimilation due to the wider societal racial hierarchy. A (dark) black/African-American child could indeed grow up much like our subject D, though there would be an additional layer of influence from the prevalent African-American representation (not to say whether it's good or bad) in TV, film, and music that would be very difficult to conceal from a child even if living in a location with no other black people around.

I don't understand your framing of "second-best."

Koreans and Latin Americans can have similar skin tones, so in the absence of any relevant groups of Asians to join, a group of Latin Americans (or natives) would in practice be the group where his physical appearance would be the most similar to the other members.


I can't really argue with a gut feeling, but why? I have read people who live through poverty often display this kind of behavioral/psychological tendency, but what did you see in the video that left you with this judgement? Making and persisting with a risky business investment in a foreign country seems like contrary evidence.

I would like to emphasize that in the five-factor model, the starting point is not that the aspects of a person's personality that it describes tend to be heavily affected by a person's background (the model is not supposed to describe a person's personality exhaustively, at any rate). In theory, a preference for the same holiday destination every year is independent of your current and past wealth; though I suppose greater wealth could lead to more expensive habits. If you are very rich, maybe you'll take a cruise in your personal yacht to the same five destinations every year instead of sticking to just one destination. The key is a preference for doing the same rather than trying something new.

I also want to emphasize that the five-factor model does not operate with dichotomies; for every facet, most people fall somewhere in the middle between the two extremes, but it is easier to understand the facets by looking at the extremes.

Now for why I think he has that personality trait: one thing that really stood out, is the language. It is possible he has difficulty learning Korean, but my theory is that he doesn't really care to learn Korean, which would be consistent with a low score on this facet. His personal style, like the way he dresses, also seems a bit like he is stilling living his old life. Granted, if a person has been forced to live a very different life, they could try to hold onto something from their old life because it relates to their identity, even if they have a general preference for trying out new things.

He did say that he was a "little bit" excited to get out of his old lifestyle; but it also seems that this excitement was about leaving behind a life he didn't really enjoy rather than being excited at the prospect of moving to a new country and integrating into a new culture.

In personality theory, I think success is generally associated with the dimension of conscientiousness. The facet of ambition, which I mentioned above, belongs to this dimension. He could have scores that are average or above on some other facets of that dimension as well, such as self-discipline (cf. his reference to "hard work").

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I insisted that there is only one whole number between 1 and 3: that number is 2. There is nothing precious about an ability to convince yourself otherwise.

It's not a scale between one and three, it's a scale between something like one and seven.

You have the nobility, broken down into the Royal family, containing the Cyning and the Æthelings, his sons, brothers, nephews etc., then the mass of the þeȝns from whom the king selected his Æorldormon and from which class came most of the non-monastic bishops. Then, below them, you have the mass of the ceorles, who were themselves subdivided into a, the geneats - the "peasant aristocracy" distinguished from the lower Þeȝns by being primarily landholders and farmers as opposed to warriors, the mass of men - the kotsetlas - and the bottom rung, just hanging on, the geburs who were tenant farmers often economically tied to a given estate.

Then you have slaves, mostly non-Saxons.

You'r just engaging in reductio ad absurdem - a geneat would be indistinguishable from a less affluent Þeȝn in the street or in the shieldwall - both mean "follower" or "retainer", the distinction is not one of wealth or even necessarily practical function, both could serve as landlords, the distinction is that one has access to the royal family in a direct way (in theory) and the other does not.In Anglo-Saxon England its all about personal relationship - status is defined (formally) by who you owe your loyalty to and in what context. Þeȝns are warriors first and foremost and it is from this that they derive their status and their privileged access to the royal court, not wealth, not even necessarily birth. Oh, I know you're going to mention Huscarls next - so let me preempt you by pointing out that huscarls are not self-supporting, they're professional paid soldiers as opposed to simply being retainers. Þeȝns were also farmers with their own lands who equipped themselves out of their own pockets. Incidentally, both þeȝns and ceorles fought in the Fyrd together as mounted infantry, in addition to weapons and armour they had to provide their own horses. That's why the property qualification for a þeȝn was five hides, or the equivalent of five small-holdings, because every hundred was required to provide one man for every five hides - þeȝns were that man for their own landholdings, ceorles might send someone else.


Beside the point, but to be accurate none of the sources I quoted describes a legal definition of "gebur". Building Anglo-Saxon England speculates that the group known as geburs in Wessex possibly arose out of freed slaves (as opposed to free men sinking into subjection).

The fact they're described in a charter regarding a manor owned by the king indicates a certain legal status. The problem is we can't be certain what that status is, something life slaves, like serfs? We don't know, exactly, what we do know is that they represented a different kind of status to that enjoyed by other ceorles.


The historiography reinforces the intermediate status of churls between slaves and nobility, which you don't contest. I don't know of what character assassination you speak with regard to churls, but since you engaged in character assassination to troll me I can't respect this whinging.

"You've lost credibility" was what you said.

You don't like it when people call you out for your bad behaviour, well suck it up - you once told Furnunculus his "caution [was] not respectable."


It has nothing to do about whether the wealthy form an "aristocratic" class. The analogy is valid whether or not that word applies. You have been hung up on the historical definitions of classes (e.g. stratified legal standing vs. theoretical equality under the law) rather than observing the cross-sectional relationship in practice, which latter is the point.

Outside the US class is inherited regardless of wealth. Go re-watch Downton Abbey, it's a study in class relationships, right down to the perpetually awkward position of the Early's American wife and brother-in-law.


What does it mean for a class to be cohesive?

It means they form a cohesive group with similar social standards, goals, tastes, etc. - a community with an in-group and out-group.


If by this you mean that most super-wealthy individuals were not born into wealth, you are correct - especially as concerns people outside the US or Europe. But the growth opportunities of the globalizing age have always been vanishingly few and predicated on criminality and political access at that level, and the good times have given way to secular stagnation. Below the masters, the petite bourgeois are much better at staying affluent (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf) or getting more so than those below are at breaking into their ranks.

23054
23055

But this has always been so. Most wealth is inherited, and what is inherited is mostly passed between the upper ramparts of society. in America this is especially a foundational racial problem, where as we see black families pass on almost no accumulated wealth whatsoever, even compared to middle class whites.

So you acknowledge that the most wealthy in America, those "holding the reigns" so to speak were not born into it. Do you understand how different this is to a class-system where people are born into a certain class and that defines their social standing? Do you understand that the only was to access a higher class in those circumstances is through personal patronage of the person at the top of that class (the monarch) and no amount of money will ever get you in?


You are making two mistakes:

First, modern oligarchs and plutocrats, and their families, do have special access despite a lack of formally-specified status. This is still called privilege.

Privilege of wealth is not privilege of class. They aren't the same and your insistence on trying to equate them demonstrates that a refusal to believe that class works differently outside a Republic like the US. Compare the Anglo-Saxons and the Romans.


Second, even if the above were not the case it would not be relevant to instigating analogy, which is explicitly about the substantive inherent capacities of common people, and implicitly of their relationship to the ruling classes.

Again, this is the point. Your contrarian posture here is as misguided as if you said we cannot refer to modern military servicepeople as soldiers because they do not form in blocks or carry spears.

And this is the part you refuse to accept, Anglo-Saxon society doesn't work like that'. Status is conferred by access to the King, he decides if you're a þeȝn or a ceorl - and then everyone else agrees with him. So how do you make the change? Pretty simple really, you demonstrate loyalty to the king and an ability to kill his enemies. Anglo-Saxon society is totally militarised, all free men serve, and even priests and bishops can be found in the shield wall. If you don't have the requisite five hides, well, the king will just give you land.

In this society deeds grant access and access grants wealth. Wealth does not, by itself, grant access.

You're engaging in Marxist historiography again, insisting on seeing other times and places in the context of your own society. In this case you're comparing an absolute monarchy with a completely militarised (free) population against a largely demilitarised republic. Apples and oranges.

[Montmorency]

I think I get what you mean.

I think I've found a good comparison to illustrate: HP Lovecraft (colonial Anglo) and TE Lawrence (British Anglo).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/H._P._Lovecraft%2C_June_1934.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Te_lawrence.jpg

Tell me you don't see it? Now the next step if my notion has any validity would be to identify any systematic proportion among the general population of this facial model - maybe it's just a weird coincidence. (Well, the proper first step would be to parametrize the putative facial model but...)


Koreans and Latin Americans can have similar skin tones, so in the absence of any relevant groups of Asians to join, a group of Latin Americans (or natives) would in practice be the group where his physical appearance would be the most similar to the other members.

Considering the great variation in appearance within the groups "Asian" and "Latin American" (of whom the latter comprise everything from overwhelmingly European-ancestry countries like Argentina and overwhelmingly Amerindian (and minimally-admixed mestizo) countries like Bolivia), that's too sweeping an assessment. At any rate, it isn't helpful to dignify sorting by appearance or color.


I would like to emphasize that in the five-factor model, the starting point is not that the aspects of a person's personality that it describes tend to be heavily affected by a person's background (the model is not supposed to describe a person's personality exhaustively, at any rate). In theory, a preference for the same holiday destination every year is independent of your current and past wealth; though I suppose greater wealth could lead to more expensive habits. If you are very rich, maybe you'll take a cruise in your personal yacht to the same five destinations every year instead of sticking to just one destination. The key is a preference for doing the same rather than trying something new.

I also want to emphasize that the five-factor model does not operate with dichotomies; for every facet, most people fall somewhere in the middle between the two extremes, but it is easier to understand the facets by looking at the extremes.

Now for why I think he has that personality trait: one thing that really stood out, is the language. It is possible he has difficulty learning Korean, but my theory is that he doesn't really care to learn Korean, which would be consistent with a low score on this facet. His personal style, like the way he dresses, also seems a bit like he is stilling living his old life. Granted, if a person has been forced to live a very different life, they could try to hold onto something from their old life because it relates to their identity, even if they have a general preference for trying out new things.

He did say that he was a "little bit" excited to get out of his old lifestyle; but it also seems that this excitement was about leaving behind a life he didn't really enjoy rather than being excited at the prospect of moving to a new country and integrating into a new culture.

In personality theory, I think success is generally associated with the dimension of conscientiousness. The facet of ambition, which I mentioned above, belongs to this dimension. He could have scores that are average or above on some other facets of that dimension as well, such as self-discipline (cf. his reference to "hard work").

OK, like any model of personality insight more data (interview material, professional examination) is better, but I understand where you're coming from.



It's not a scale between one and three, it's a scale between something like one and seven.

You have the nobility, broken down into the Royal family, containing the Cyning and the Æthelings, his sons, brothers, nephews etc., then the mass of the þeȝns from whom the king selected his Æorldormon and from which class came most of the non-monastic bishops. Then, below them, you have the mass of the ceorles, who were themselves subdivided into a, the geneats - the "peasant aristocracy" distinguished from the lower Þeȝns by being primarily landholders and farmers as opposed to warriors, the mass of men - the kotsetlas - and the bottom rung, just hanging on, the geburs who were tenant farmers often economically tied to a given estate.

Then you have slaves, mostly non-Saxons.

You'r just engaging in reductio ad absurdem - a geneat would be indistinguishable from a less affluent Þeȝn in the street or in the shieldwall - both mean "follower" or "retainer", the distinction is not one of wealth or even necessarily practical function, both could serve as landlords, the distinction is that one has access to the royal family in a direct way (in theory) and the other does not.In Anglo-Saxon England its all about personal relationship - status is defined (formally) by who you owe your loyalty to and in what context. Þeȝns are warriors first and foremost and it is from this that they derive their status and their privileged access to the royal court, not wealth, not even necessarily birth. Oh, I know you're going to mention Huscarls next - so let me preempt you by pointing out that huscarls are not self-supporting, they're professional paid soldiers as opposed to simply being retainers. Þeȝns were also farmers with their own lands who equipped themselves out of their own pockets. Incidentally, both þeȝns and ceorles fought in the Fyrd together as mounted infantry, in addition to weapons and armour they had to provide their own horses. That's why the property qualification for a þeȝn was five hides, or the equivalent of five small-holdings, because every hundred was required to provide one man for every five hides - þeȝns were that man for their own landholdings, ceorles might send someone else.

This is well-worn ground by now, and it reinforces the logical necessity of the proposition that churls are the lowest class of freemen. The internal structure of the churl class does not change the external hierarchy!


"You've lost credibility" was what you said.

You don't like it when people call you out for your bad behaviour, well suck it up - you once told Furnunculus his "caution [was] not respectable."

Your bad behavior was the problem here!


Outside the US class is inherited regardless of wealth. Go re-watch Downton Abbey, it's a study in class relationships, right down to the perpetually awkward position of the Early's American wife and brother-in-law.

All class at all times is a matter of networking above wealth. Formal title applies to very few humans today, and it's not the meaningful thing.


So you acknowledge that the most wealthy in America, those "holding the reigns" so to speak were not born into it. Do you understand how different this is to a class-system where people are born into a certain class and that defines their social standing? Do you understand that the only was to access a higher class in those circumstances is through personal patronage of the person at the top of that class (the monarch) and no amount of money will ever get you in?

Almost all megamillionaires and billionaires have been created in the past two or three generations, because of contingencies in the global economy that are fluid. Even adjusted for inflation there were almost no such people a hundred years ago. You're born into it after the first generation, similar to how an immigrant family in America will always give birth to lifelong Americans regardless of their own original status.

But before that, it's applicable at all points in modern history. If, for instance, you've read anything about early America you'll notice that people from wealthy, landed, educated families were falling into destitution all the time. Some even died penniless or in debtor's prison. Yet even so they were typically able to maintain access to capital, professional opportunities, other influential bourgeois people, political power, etc. Why? Because they were from the "right" families! Ain't you ever heard of the Boston Brahmins? And that's just New England, it was all over the country like that. The Southern slavers, who were in any sense an aristocratic throwback, had almost all their wealth destroyed in the Civil War. Guess what happened in the aftermath? Most of those slavers picked up and re-enslaved the blacks and rebuilt their wealth and political power. With the invention of sharecropping where planters could not rely on slaves they literally transformed the blacks into serf-like tenant farmers, who could leave or demand remuneration at the risk of their lives.

To this day descendants of the aristocratic families are disproportionately represented in Southern business and politics.


Privilege of wealth is not privilege of class. They aren't the same and your insistence on trying to equate them demonstrates that a refusal to believe that class works differently outside a Republic like the US. Compare the Anglo-Saxons and the Romans.

You don't understand how class works today.


And this is the part you refuse to accept, Anglo-Saxon society doesn't work like that'. Status is conferred by access to the King, he decides if you're a þeȝn or a ceorl - and then everyone else agrees with him. So how do you make the change? Pretty simple really, you demonstrate loyalty to the king and an ability to kill his enemies. Anglo-Saxon society is totally militarised, all free men serve, and even priests and bishops can be found in the shield wall. If you don't have the requisite five hides, well, the king will just [I]give you land.

Again, this doesn't affect the analogy because the analogy does not depend on these specific relationships.


In this society deeds grant access and access grants wealth. Wealth does not, by itself, grant access.

A wealthy enough landowner will always have access to the king, unless it's war. Obviously.


You're engaging in Marxist historiography again, insisting on seeing other times and places in the context of your own society. In this case you're comparing an absolute monarchy with a completely militarised (free) population against a largely demilitarised republic. Apples and oranges.

Wrong. This is because you fundamentally don't understand the comparison. I don't think I can help you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is well-worn ground by now, and it reinforces the logical necessity of the proposition that churls are the lowest class of freemen. The internal structure of the churl class does not change the external hierarchy!

OK, so... what?

"There's always been a 1%"?


Your bad behavior was the problem here!

If by bad behaviour you mean "trolling" that's just slanderous.

I'm not trolling you, I'm reflecting you, I tried being polite and you ignored me, so now I'm deliberately being antagonistic because it's all you respond to. You don't value good manners or compassion, so I refuse to avail you of those things. It is a waste of my time.


All class at all times is a matter of networking above wealth. Formal title applies to very few humans today, and it's not the meaningful thing.

Formal title has never applied to many humans. In England only a few hundred people at any one time have ever held formal title, excepting baronets and knights. You're avoiding the core point here - in this case it's not about "networking" but about access to one specific person, a person who in all instances claimed decent from a pagan God, Woden. This was true for all Anglo-Saxon Kings from all seven kingdoms, excepting possibly the last, Harold II.


Almost all megamillionaires and billionaires have been created in the past two or three generations, because of contingencies in the global economy that are fluid. Even adjusted for inflation there were almost no such people a hundred years ago. You're born into it after the first generation, similar to how an immigrant family in America will always give birth to lifelong Americans regardless of their own original status.

Debatable - the globalised economy has had certain perverse effects on human society. The landed aristocracy held a strangle hold on the lives of all people prior to the French Revolution. It's difficult to quantify their wealth in today's terms, or the extent of their political power.


But before that, it's applicable at all points in modern history. If, for instance, you've read anything about early America you'll notice that people from wealthy, landed, educated families were falling into destitution all the time. Some even died penniless or in debtor's prison. Yet even so they were typically able to maintain access to capital, professional opportunities, other influential bourgeois people, political power, etc. Why? Because they were from the "right" families! Ain't you ever heard of the Boston Brahmins? And that's just New England, it was all over the country like that. The Southern slavers, who were in any sense an aristocratic throwback, had almost all their wealth destroyed in the Civil War. Guess what happened in the aftermath? Most of those slavers picked up and re-enslaved the blacks and rebuilt their wealth and political power. With the invention of sharecropping where planters could not rely on slaves they literally transformed the blacks into serf-like tenant farmers, who could leave or demand remuneration at the risk of their lives.

To this day descendants of the aristocratic families are disproportionately represented in Southern business and politics.

Well, technically, modern history begins with the Renaissance, aka the Early Modern Period. The American South is certainly a fascinating culture, one which established a landed aristocracy and a slave-caste based on race whilst also managing to distinguish between that aristocracy and the mass of non-slaves. On the other hand, we have an untitled-aristocracy here too. When I visited the Trecarrell estate with my mother over the summer the owner, whom you would call a "country squire" was telling us about the time be managed to talk his way into Lambeth Palace library to see manuscripts relating to the manor house.


You don't understand how class works today.

On the contrary, I understand it works differently outside the US. One is reminded of the rather amusing story of when Her Majesty visited Normandy in the 1960's, I believe it was then. The local peasants lined the streets, doffed their caps and shouted "Viva la Duchess!" to the considerable embarrassment of her French hosts.


Again, this doesn't affect the analogy because the analogy does not depend on these specific relationships.

The blogger's analogy was between the modern American who is disenfranchised but doesn't realise it because he votes and the churl imagined to be disenfranchised but doesn't realise it because he's better than a slave. Well, the churl did realise it, and he was still better off than the modern American.


A wealthy enough landowner will always have access to the king, unless it's war. Obviously.

This ignores the point I referred to a while back, where the king owns all the land, so it's up to him if you're wealthy or not. This is true in early Anglo-Saxon society and later post-conquest. It's less true in late Anglo-Saxon society where landholding (as opposed to renting) has become much more prevalent but the central point stands. The only really practical way to get that wealthy that you have access by default is to get into the aristocracy because your ability to acquire land and wealth is dependent on the king or a powerful magnate.

A really good example of this in Early Modern times is Thomas Cromwell, a more enduring example is Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Brandon's father was a knight, Sir William, who was of sufficiently low standing that he was accused of raping a "gentlewoman" which isn't something that happens to genuinely noble people in late-medieval England as a rule. he got off. Cromwell, of course, was just a good lawyer who amassed fabulous wealth and titles under Henry VIII until he was offed by some actual aristocrats for basically being too common.


Wrong. This is because you fundamentally don't understand the comparison. I don't think I can help you.

There is no meaningful comparison, that's the point. Your view is no more applicable than Greyblades labelling Anglo-Saxon society "pre-feudal". In both cases you're drawing a false comparison that is based on common (and therefore shallow) modern understanding of the historical context.

We are not living in a post Anglo-Saxon society, we haven't been for centuries. We're living in a post-Roman society. Don't believe me, look up how votes for magistrates were conducted in the Roman Republic and compare it to the Primary process for selecting presidential candidates in the US, never mind the junk food (including pizza).

Remember, this started because you asked for my opinion. My opinion is, and was, that the point being made by the blogger is banal and the comparison is misconstrued. Don't like that opinion? well, you'll remember not to ask in future, then, won't you?

[Greyblades]

There is no meaningful comparison, that's the point. Your view is no more applicable than Greyblades labelling Anglo-Saxon society "pre-feudal". In both cases you're drawing a false comparison that is based on common (and therefore shallow) modern understanding of the historical context.

Elucidate, historian. Was the norman conquests not a substanstive enough societal change to consider a book mark in history to lable pre and post?

[Montmorency]

OK, so... what?

"There's always been a 1%"?

I don't like the application of the "1%" concept, which is just a slogan, but sure, whatever.


If by bad behaviour you mean "trolling" that's just slanderous.

I'm not trolling you, I'm reflecting you, I tried being polite and you ignored me, so now I'm deliberately being antagonistic because it's all you respond to. You don't value good manners or compassion, so I refuse to avail you of those things. It is a waste of my time.

There have been about two instances this year in which your thought process was so outrageously defective that I tried to unmistakably and compassionately impress on you the severity of your mistakes. I hoped you would take it to heart and check yourself. If from that you've learned only to double down and preemptively attack, well, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.


Formal title has never applied to many humans. In England only a few hundred people at any one time have ever held formal title, excepting baronets and knights. You're avoiding the core point here - in this case it's not about "networking" but about access to one specific person, a person who in all instances claimed decent from a pagan God, Woden. This was true for all Anglo-Saxon Kings from all seven kingdoms, excepting possibly the last, Harold II.

The way you speak makes it seems as though you think kings were the sole and unlimited sources of political power in pre-modern times. Who you knew and what you could do for each other has always been an organizing principle of complex societies.


Debatable - the globalised economy has had certain perverse effects on human society. The landed aristocracy held a strangle hold on the lives of all people prior to the French Revolution. It's difficult to quantify their wealth in today's terms, or the extent of their political power.

I don't know about Mansa Musa sprinkling gold here and there, but there was a coherent monetary framework in place in the 18th century. It's not debatable that there were relatively few megamillionaires and billionaires, adjusted for inflation, before the world wars and globalization.


Well, technically, modern history begins with the Renaissance, aka the Early Modern Period. The American South is certainly a fascinating culture, one which established a landed aristocracy and a slave-caste based on race whilst also managing to distinguish between that aristocracy and the mass of non-slaves. On the other hand, we have an untitled-aristocracy here too. When I visited the Trecarrell estate with my mother over the summer the owner, whom you would call a "country squire" was telling us about the time be managed to talk his way into Lambeth Palace library to see manuscripts relating to the manor house.

The important takeaway is that de facto hereditary class has been big throughout American history, it is cultivated and perpetuated through interrelationships among the elite as much as wealth per se, and wealth can always be obtained through mutual services and leveraging of prestige and privilege. As has been increasingly pointed out, even the entire American upper-middle-class looks ever more like a hereditary class in practice.


On the contrary, I understand it works differently outside the US. One is reminded of the rather amusing story of when Her Majesty visited Normandy in the 1960's, I believe it was then. The local peasants lined the streets, doffed their caps and shouted "Viva la Duchess!" to the considerable embarrassment of her French hosts.

You always return to your understanding of modern English class. Without even engaging on those terms, you should realize that the world is bigger than England.

Though separately I would be interested if you can find any other examples of French "peasants" cheering Queen Elizabeth. She visits Normandy frequently enough, after all, usually to commemorate WW2 events. Come to think of it, I wonder if that has any relevance...


The blogger's analogy was between the modern American who is disenfranchised but doesn't realise it because he votes and the churl imagined to be disenfranchised but doesn't realise it because he's better than a slave. Well, the churl did realise it, and he was still better off than the modern American.

A certain kind of modern American doesn't realize it because he has access to consumer choice, and to tribal opiates like god and guns.

If you want to say the churl was better off than a modern American or Englishman, that's a separate topic, and it will have to admit much more information than just class theory. I would agree only on some very narrow constructions. Such as I already mentioned, that on some measures of inequality the churl could have been closer to his lord than the modern analogues.To the extent that you reacted against any subtext that the modern American is 'declining' or 'degenerating' into churlhood, I was and am willing to accommodate that.


This ignores the point I referred to a while back, where the king owns all the land, so it's up to him if you're wealthy or not. This is true in early Anglo-Saxon society and later post-conquest. It's less true in late Anglo-Saxon society where landholding (as opposed to renting) has become much more prevalent but the central point stands. The only really practical way to get that wealthy that you have access by default is to get into the aristocracy because your ability to acquire land and wealth is dependent on the king or a powerful magnate.

The king owning all land is a legal fiction, not an intrinsic power dynamic. The land is not a magical organism that responds to divinely-vested authority. Kingship is not a unit of power.


A really good example of this in Early Modern times is Thomas Cromwell, a more enduring example is Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Brandon's father was a knight, Sir William, who was of sufficiently low standing that he was accused of raping a "gentlewoman" which isn't something that happens to genuinely noble people in late-medieval England as a rule. he got off. Cromwell, of course, was just a good lawyer who amassed fabulous wealth and titles under Henry VIII until he was offed by some actual aristocrats for basically being too common.

Without refreshing my memory I believe there were some other conflicts ongoing beyond umbrage at Cromwell being a commoner.

Speaking of rape, elites, and the South, here's a wonderful little story:

Wade Hampton II was one of the big names among the Southern elite of the antebellum period. Hampton had four daughters. I'm just going to post something from Wiki without further comment.


Hampton's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Hampton_II) sister-in-law Catherine Fitzsimmons, a shy girl, at age 17 married James Henry Hammond, making him a wealthy man with her large dowry. He eventually owned more than 20 square miles of property and hundreds of slaves through wealth gained by this marriage. The families saw each other socially because of this relationship.

In 1843 Hampton learned that Hammond had sexually abused his daughters (Hammond's nieces) as teenagers and accused him when he was still governor, although nothing was written publicly.[2][3] As rumors of Hammond's behavior spread, he was socially ostracized[4] and his political career was derailed for a decade.[3] But, he recovered sufficient political standing to be elected in 1856 by the South Carolina legislature as US senator from the state. The Hampton daughters' reputations were irrevocably tarnished. None of the daughters ever married.[3]

Hammond's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Henry_Hammond) Secret and Sacred Diaries (not published until 1989) reveal that his sexual appetites were varied. He described, without embarrassment, his "familiarities and dalliances"[1] over two years with four teenage nieces, daughters of his sister-in-law Ann Fitzsimmons and her husband Wade Hampton II.[1][11] He blamed his behavior on what he described as the seductiveness of the "extremely affectionate" young women.[1] The scandal "derailed his political career" for a decade to come after Wade Hampton III publicly accused him in 1843, when Hammond was governor.[12] He was "ostracized by polite society" for some time, but in the late 1850s, he was nonetheless elected by the state legislature as US senator.[13]

Hammond's damage to the girls was far-reaching. Their social prospects were destroyed. Considered to have tarnished social reputations by his behavior, none of the four ever married.[1]

Hammond was also known to have repeatedly raped two female slaves, one of whom may have been his own daughter. He raped the first slave, Sally Johnson, when she was 18 years old.[1] Such behavior was not uncommon among white men of power at the time; their mixed-race children were born into slavery and remained there unless the fathers took action to free them.[13] Later, Hammond raped Sally Johnson's daughter, Louisa, who was a year old baby when he bought her mother; the first rape apparently occurred when Louisa was 12; she also bore several of his children.

His wife left him for a few years, after he repeatedly raped the enslaved girl, taking their own children with her. She later returned to her husband.[1]



There is no meaningful comparison, that's the point.

If you think it's not insightful, that's fine. I offered you that. But it's not a false comparison.


We are not living in a post Anglo-Saxon society, we haven't been for centuries. We're living in a post-Roman society. Don't believe me, look up how votes for magistrates were conducted in the Roman Republic and compare it to the Primary process for selecting presidential candidates in the US, never mind the junk food (including pizza).

If there is a sense that Russia is "post-Soviet," that is not the sense in which any part of the world is "post-Roman." It's the height of banality to repeat the fact that Roman civilization has influenced subsequent civilizations.


Remember, this started because you asked for my opinion. My opinion is, and was, that the point being made by the blogger is banal and the comparison is misconstrued. Don't like that opinion? well, you'll remember not to ask in future, then, won't you?

:shame:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Elucidate, historian. Was the norman conquests not a substanstive enough societal change to consider a book mark in history to lable pre and post?

Oh, no it was, and it was catastrophic, the economy, the administration utterly collapsed under Norman incompetence. England's famed coinage which had been 95% pure silver (what became sterling silver) since probably the time of Offa of Mercia was debased.

However, when you describe it as "pre-feudal" you're perpetuating a post-medieval myth that before the Normans came we were living in some sort of Tolkienesque idyll. In reality, even before the Conquest every Englishman needed a liege lord and whilst it wasn't strict Norman feudalism it wasn't exactly "not feudal", though. It was terrible principally because the English became, to quote Robert Bartlett, a "subject people".

So, we should describe the period before the Normans as "pre-Norman" or "pre-Conquest" as opposed to "pre-feudal".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't like the application of the "1%" concept, which is just a slogan, but sure, whatever.

Well, thanes might have been a bit more than 1%, but the top, the people who might become earls, they were probably less than 1%. Probably less than 100 people.


There have been about two instances this year in which your thought process was so outrageously defective that I tried to unmistakably and compassionately impress on you the severity of your mistakes. I hoped you would take it to heart and check yourself. If from that you've learned only to double down and preemptively attack, well, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

There's been at least one instance where you've completely misconstrued my point to the extent you spent pages fighting me on a non-issue. You need to adjust your perspective on other people, generally.

I believe a wide range of things you consider insane and you likewise. You need to just accept that and stop worrying about it. If I worried about all the insane stuff you and Beskar said I'd actually go insane.


The way you speak makes it seems as though you think kings were the sole and unlimited sources of political power in pre-modern times. Who you knew and what you could do for each other has always been an organizing principle of complex societies.

The king was the exclusive font of power and law. This is still technically true in the UK (but not other modern European monarchies), hence all the recent contortions over the prorogation. I could go into all of the machinations of how this worked in practice but despite what you might call "political realities" it was also a reality that everything rested on one man, and it was exclusively a man in Anglo-Saxon England, from a royal family (not just a noble one).


I don't know about Mansa Musa sprinkling gold here and there, but there was a coherent monetary framework in place in the 18th century. It's not debatable that there were relatively few megamillionaires and billionaires, adjusted for inflation, before the world wars and globalization.

You mean when he destroyed the entire economy of Egypt (no mean feat) twice? we live in a highly monetised society, where wealth is very mobile. In the medieval world you had people with thousands of serfs, multiple massive castles, who controlled the lives of perhaps tens of thousands of people directly and through their vassals. Money's less of a thing when you have direct control of physical resources and people.


The important takeaway is that de facto hereditary class has been big throughout American history, it is cultivated and perpetuated through interrelationships among the elite as much as wealth per se, and wealth can always be obtained through mutual services and leveraging of prestige and privilege. As has been increasingly pointed out, even the entire American upper-middle-class looks ever more like a hereditary class in practice.

Ah, I see, you have confused "no upper class" with no class. I have s social class, I can't lose it, I inherited it from my father and I wear it all the time. It allows me to do things that perhaps someone of a lower class couldn't get away with - although that's probably less true today than ten years ago.


You always return to your understanding of modern English class. Without even engaging on those terms, you should realize that the world is bigger than England.

Though separately I would be interested if you can find any other examples of French "peasants" cheering Queen Elizabeth. She visits Normandy frequently enough, after all, usually to commemorate WW2 events. Come to think of it, I wonder if that has any relevance...

That anecdote was about French class - you know France - that place where all the wine is made by people living in castles? I mostly compare American class to English class because it is the closest point of contact for you.


A certain kind of modern American doesn't realize it because he has access to consumer choice, and to tribal opiates like god and guns.

You want to distance yourself from Marx you shouldn't use his language.


If you want to say the churl was better off than a modern American or Englishman, that's a separate topic, and it will have to admit much more information than just class theory. I would agree only on some very narrow constructions. Such as I already mentioned, that on some measures of inequality the churl could have been closer to his lord than the modern analogues.To the extent that you reacted against any subtext that the modern American is 'declining' or 'degenerating' into churlhood, I was and am willing to accommodate that.

That would have been a more interesting discussion, but instead you fixate on fixing the churl in an analogous position where he is "low class". In a slave-owning society slaves are low-class, free men tend to be an actual cut above.


The king owning all land is a legal fiction, not an intrinsic power dynamic. The land is not a magical organism that responds to divinely-vested authority. Kingship is not a unit of power.

There's very little evidence people saw it that way. Very few bad kings were openly defied or deposed - thing had to get really bad for that to happen. This is a society where the majority of people believe the King actually is anointed by God. I realsie that might be difficult to wrap your head around but there's really no evidence this was the upper class in cahoots to trick the poor people.

Indeed, the concept of a legal fiction isn't really a concept compaitible with the medieval worldview when the flawed "earthly" law is meant to be shaped by God's law.


Without refreshing my memory I believe there were some other conflicts ongoing beyond umbrage at Cromwell being a commoner.

There was a tug of war over reformist and traditionalist bishops and Cromwell was on the losing reformist side (it swung back the other way later) - there was also his failed marriage to Anne of Cleves. Overall, though, if Cromwell had been nobly born he probably would have been disgraced rather than executed.


Speaking of rape, elites, and the South, here's a wonderful little story:

Wade Hampton II was one of the big names among the Southern elite of the antebellum period. Hampton had four daughters. I'm just going to post something from Wiki without further comment.

Charming


If you think it's not insightful, that's fine. I offered you that. But it's not a false comparison.

I dissagree - I don't think there's a meaningful comparison here. Not beyond "some people are poor, some are rich."


If there is a sense that Russia is "post-Soviet," that is not the sense in which any part of the world is "post-Roman." It's the height of banality to repeat the fact that Roman civilization has influenced subsequent civilizations.

:shame:

Seriously, look up the way the Tribal Assembly worked - then come back.

[Montmorency]

I believe a wide range of things you consider insane and you likewise. You need to just accept that and stop worrying about it. If I worried about all the insane stuff you and Beskar said I'd actually go insane

In the most recent example of you attacking a source, it wasn't a matter of 'here's how we disagree and why', it was indefensible. It considered it disgusting in its own right, all the more so if meant to screw with me. Don't you perceive any variations in my approach to you? If it all seems monotonous then you've escaped the intended effect entirely.


That would have been a more interesting discussion, but instead you fixate on fixing the churl in an analogous position where he is "low class". In a slave-owning society slaves are low-class, free men tend to be an actual cut above.

Yes, low-class freemen. Above slaves. Below the rest. It's really straightforward semantics.


The king was the exclusive font of power and law. This is still technically true in the UK (but not other modern European monarchies), hence all the recent contortions over the prorogation. I could go into all of the machinations of how this worked in practice but despite what you might call "political realities" it was also a reality that everything rested on one man, and it was exclusively a man in Anglo-Saxon England, from a royal family (not just a noble one).

There's very little evidence people saw it that way. Very few bad kings were openly defied or deposed - thing had to get really bad for that to happen. This is a society where the majority of people believe the King actually is anointed by God. I realsie that might be difficult to wrap your head around but there's really no evidence this was the upper class in cahoots to trick the poor people.

Indeed, the concept of a legal fiction isn't really a concept compaitible with the medieval worldview when the flawed "earthly" law is meant to be shaped by God's law.

Now,


You mean when he destroyed the entire economy of Egypt (no mean feat) twice? we live in a highly monetised society, where wealth is very mobile. In the medieval world you had people with thousands of serfs, multiple massive castles, who controlled the lives of perhaps tens of thousands of people directly and through their vassals. Money's less of a thing when you have direct control of physical resources and people.

Exactly. No king can directly control the whole mass of the population. Prior to the civil bureaucracy he has intermediaries, some of whom are high nobility. These individuals have practical independent power as a byproduct of these resources and authorities, and through their dealings and intrigues with one another. No noble, no king, is either omnipotent or invincible. That a king isn't overthrown is no implication that he rules nothing but meek subordinates who have no concept of personal advantage.


Ah, I see, you have confused "no upper class" with no class. I have s social class, I can't lose it, I inherited it from my father and I wear it all the time. It allows me to do things that perhaps someone of a lower class couldn't get away with - although that's probably less true today than ten years ago.

?


That anecdote was about French class - you know France - that place where all the wine is made by people living in castles? I mostly compare American class to English class because it is the closest point of contact for you.

Expand on it. What were the peasants (who? how many?) doing when Elizabeth visited this year, or all the other years? Chinese tourists also cheer when they see the Queen.


You want to distance yourself from Marx you shouldn't use his language.

Is this like that Islamophobic meme where if you recite a certain phrase you become a Muslim against your will? If you say "opiate", "bourgeois", "dialectic" to a mirror in a dark room you become a Marxist?


Charming

Patriarchy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In the most recent example of you attacking a source, it wasn't a matter of 'here's how we disagree and why', it was indefensible. It considered it disgusting in its own right, all the more so if meant to screw with me. Don't you perceive any variations in my approach to you? If it all seems monotonous then you've escaped the intended effect entirely.

No, that was yet another example of you jumping all over me because you don't like my opinion.

"Source look dodgy, possibly dishonest" is an opinion on a source. I don't like shoddy historiography, you're reading too much into it.


Yes, low-class freemen. Above slaves. Below the rest. It's really straightforward semantics.

Who are "the rest"? They're a minority. In reality you have slaves, the Royal family, the Thanes, and the churls are "the rest".


Now,

Exactly. No king can directly control the whole mass of the population. Prior to the civil bureaucracy he has intermediaries, some of whom are high nobility. These individuals have practical independent power as a byproduct of these resources and authorities, and through their dealings and intrigues with one another. No noble, no king, is either omnipotent or invincible. That a king isn't overthrown is no implication that he rules nothing but meek subordinates who have no concept of personal advantage.

This is an anachronistic interpretation of medieval society, it grossly under-estimates the medieval reverence for monarchy. This is a society where good people burned other people alive for having the wrong beliefs.


?

I suppose you think I'm joking again, or trolling.


Expand on it. What were the peasants (who? how many?) doing when Elizabeth visited this year, or all the other years? Chinese tourists also cheer when they see the Queen.

I might go look it up, since you asked nicely.


Is this like that Islamophobic meme where if you recite a certain phrase you become a Muslim against your will? If you say "opiate", "bourgeois", "dialectic" to a mirror in a dark room you become a Marxist?

No, I just think it sounds silly. Seeing religion as the "opiate of the masses" and referring to historical wealthy, non noble, classes anachronistically as "bourgeois" makes you look like a Marxist. You claim not to be a Marxist, though, even though you look like one.

[Viking]

I think I've found a good comparison to illustrate: HP Lovecraft (colonial Anglo) and TE Lawrence (British Anglo).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/H._P._Lovecraft%2C_June_1934.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Te_lawrence.jpg

Tell me you don't see it? Now the next step if my notion has any validity would be to identify any systematic proportion among the general population of this facial model - maybe it's just a weird coincidence. (Well, the proper first step would be to parametrize the putative facial model but...)

The thing that stands out the most to me is that they both have quite long faces, which is not really a trait that I would particularly associate with the British Isles. The guy in the second photo looks almost German, though I suppose something could feel off about that assignment. But knowing their nationalities, my assessments are of course compromised.


Considering the great variation in appearance within the groups "Asian" and "Latin American" (of whom the latter comprise everything from overwhelmingly European-ancestry countries like Argentina and overwhelmingly Amerindian (and minimally-admixed mestizo) countries like Bolivia), that's too sweeping an assessment. At any rate, it isn't helpful to dignify sorting by appearance or color.

And that's how you are supposed to interpret it; don't think of Argentina, but maybe you can think of e.g. Honduras. It was a Mexican gang in this case, but I don't think that it is important.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh - on Ellipsis:

"It is not normally necessary to use an ellipsis at the beginning or end of a quotation; almost all quotations will be taken from a larger context and there is usually no need to indicate this obvious fact unless the sense of the passage quote is manifestly complete."

MHRA Style Guide, Second Edition, p.46.

So, ellipsis at the end of a quotation begs the question what is missing. But hey, it's not like I'm an expert on academic writing, is it?

[Montmorency]

No, that was yet another example of you jumping all over me because you don't like my opinion.

"Source look dodgy, possibly dishonest" is an opinion on a source. I don't like shoddy historiography, you're reading too much into it.

It's not a valid opinion. It's beyond the pale.


So, ellipsis at the end of a quotation begs the question what is missing.

The allegation of dishonesty is what begs the question, fallaciously.


But hey, it's not like I'm an expert on academic writing, is it?

Between you, after all said, and an academic work where content and context present no indication of misrepresentation, you shouldn't expect an appeal to your authority to carry any clout.

This flagrant malicious arrogance and self-righteous dishonesty is what totally tarnishes my esteem of you, which perhaps has been perniciously inflated all along. :(


Who are "the rest"? They're a minority. In reality you have slaves, the Royal family, the Thanes, and the churls are "the rest".

Yes. What are the logical entailments?


This is an anachronistic interpretation of medieval society, it grossly under-estimates the medieval reverence for monarchy. This is a society where good people burned other people alive for having the wrong beliefs.

Such a dramatic claim, that everyone below the King in medieval societies was essentially a willingly-servile wretch with no concept of self-worth beyond the wellbeing and prosperity of the King, would of course demand prodigious evidence, and at least a response to the counter-evidence. Every monarch has claimed divine legitimacy in some form, yet we know for a fact that there has been great variation in the strength of these regimes. We know for a fact that people at all levels of courtly society have always jockeyed for influence among each other. A king is just a man, with finite resources and transactable loyalties. He cannot grant, or retract, a prerogative without a price.


I suppose you think I'm joking again, or trolling.

I don't even understand what that section means.


No, I just think it sounds silly. Seeing religion as the "opiate of the masses" and referring to historical wealthy, non noble, classes anachronistically as "bourgeois" makes you look like a Marxist. You claim not to be a Marxist, though, even though you look like one.

I used "bourgeois" in reference only to modern (in the broad sense) groups.

Capital, class, and factors of production are terms used by Marx. They are also common to all other modes of economic analysis. I'm not doing anything special when invoking very diffused terminology. Opiate is a metaphor and not economic terminology, and a conservative or non-ideological writer would have no barrier to applying it where she deems appropriate in the sense of a distracting or neutralizing force. A common alternative in use is "soma."



The thing that stands out the most to me is that they both have quite long faces, which is not really a trait that I would particularly associate with the British Isles. The guy in the second photo looks almost German, though I suppose something could feel off about that assignment. But knowing their nationalities, my assessments are of course compromised.


One of the difficulties I would have is - since I'm a visually weak person - describing in detail what the similarities or differences are between their faces. It's not about the length per se. All I can tell you is that they look like basically the same face to me, with minor variation. Without examples (though IMO a greater number of instances in my perception) I would further add that Australians tend to have a certain highly-common facial type of archetypical character. The question remains whether there is some systematic prevalence here, or if it is just a coincidence. Half of Australians are first or second generation immigrants, so even if some archetypes could be characterized whether there would be any correlation to self-reported or genetic heritage is another question.

Now this (https://imgur.com/w4fXcXT), this is probably a coincidence (https://time.com/5254669/trump-lookalike-spain/).

[Montmorency]

everyone

Here is a fun thing (https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1196062708145311744). I believe we've seen the like (https://www.filmandmedia.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/madmax.jpg) in a movie or two before. Science-fiction prescience?

Wanna be entertained by an ethnic joke?

At an upcoming New Year's party:
"Did you hear Bibi has been indicted (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-israel-netanyahu/netanyahu-charged-in-corruption-cases-deepening-israeli-political-disarray-idUKKBN1XV26E) for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust?"
"A toast to that."
"Next year in DC!"

What does "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of" mean?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not a valid opinion. It's beyond the pale.

Why?

It's a source - doesn't matter what it's moral stance is if you're analysing it from an historical viewpoint. Falsification or manipulation of evidence for a perceived moral good is not acceptable.

To suggest the reverse is to engage in the sort of mental doublethink practised by modern politicians who lie to advance their political agenda.


The allegation of dishonesty is what begs the question, fallaciously.

Accusation of incompetence, actually, and its not fallacious. The source is presented in such a way as to undermine the credibility of the work it is presented in. This despite the utterly banal point it is trying to make, which is that white Americans were almost universally racist at the time - especially those who were "officers and gentlemen".

Really, everything you say here is just you attacking my character because I disagree with your assessment. People can get professorships and Full Chairs and still be utterly terrible historians.


Between you, after all said, and an academic work where content and context present no indication of misrepresentation, you shouldn't expect an appeal to your authority to carry any clout.

This flagrant malicious arrogance and self-righteous dishonesty is what totally tarnishes my esteem of you, which perhaps has been perniciously inflated all along. :(

The amount of negative moral weight you apply to "bad book, obvious point" here is what is really beyond the pale. I linked to and quoted a review from when the book was released which accuses the author of misrepresentation.

I have a low opinion of the man who wrote the book as an historian. That's it. The end. No further comment. No further interest. I still don't understand why you posted the link to begin with - surely none of this was news to you.

It's also worth noting that your supposed esteem was based on the belief that I was firstly a theologian and then, after I insisted I was an historian, that I was a critic of old English literature. Now that you're being forced to confront the fact I'm a serious historian you don't like me. You only liked me when you thought I was an academic of "soft", irrelevant, subjects like religion and lit crit.


Yes. What are the logical entailments?

Most people are churls - as a class churls exist between the two extremes in society - the warrior-elite and the disenfranchised slaves. They overlap with both in terms of their actual lives and how they are lived.


Such a dramatic claim, that everyone below the King in medieval societies was essentially a willingly-servile wretch with no concept of self-worth beyond the wellbeing and prosperity of the King, would of course demand prodigious evidence, and at least a response to the counter-evidence.

This is not at all what I said. You are completely missing the point I was making, which is that this is not a society you can just interpret through a modern lens - the people just don't think like you. There is a huge body of literature on the conduct of medieval "princes" of which Machiavelli was really the last word, and probably actually a bit of a satire.

In the peasant's revolt of 1382 the commons attacked the King's officers, they attacked the King's Palaces, they killed the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then they met with the King, negotiated, left, came back, negotiated some more, the King's party murdered Wat Tyler and the Rebels were ultimately dispersed. Richard II then went back on most of the grants he'd offered the Rebels and things went back to normal. About a decade and a half later Richard's nobles turned against him after years of excess and bad government, declaring him a Tyrant not a King, and Henry Bolingbroke deposed him. That only happened once Richard's behavious came to be seen as morally rupugnant and against God's Law, though.


Every monarch has claimed divine legitimacy in some form, yet we know for a fact that there has been great variation in the strength of these regimes. We know for a fact that people at all levels of courtly society have always jockeyed for influence among each other. A king is just a man, with finite resources and transactable loyalties. He cannot grant, or retract, a prerogative without a price.

I said "I could go into all of the machinations of how this worked in practice but despite what you might call "political realities" it was also a reality that everything rested on one man," so obviously I've already acknowledged that members of the court could jockey for position.

They could also try to use witchcraft to murder the king - but only evil people do that.

Nonetheless, a King is still a magical person ordained by God. For the ultimate example of this look at the Japanese Emperor, who has survived everything for the last 2.5 millennia.


I don't even understand what that section means.

Well, I've explained it multiple ways - you just don't believe me.


I used "bourgeois" in reference only to modern (in the broad sense) groups.

Capital, class, and factors of production are terms used by Marx. They are also common to all other modes of economic analysis. I'm not doing anything special when invoking very diffused terminology. Opiate is a metaphor and not economic terminology, and a conservative or non-ideological writer would have no barrier to applying it where she deems appropriate in the sense of a distracting or neutralizing force. A common alternative in use is "soma."

I'm critiquing your assertion that "God and Guns" are opiates in the first instance. All Americans have an unhealthy relationship with firearms, even the ones who don't like them, but they are not an "opiate" and neither is religion. Marx's assertion that religion was an opiate was based on his observation of the agnostic, deistic and atheistic Upper Class and their use of opiates. He concluded that the only reason the lower classes believed enthusiastically in God was because it was a substitute for economic or political access, or just opium they couldn't afford.

That's a specifically Marxist viewpoint, it was enumerated by Marx.

As far as I'm concerned it's also utter rubbish - it infantalises certain people for holding certain beliefs the observers doesn't share. Reductive and insulting.


One of the difficulties I would have is - since I'm a visually weak person - describing in detail what the similarities or differences are between their faces. It's not about the length per se. All I can tell you is that they look like basically the same face to me, with minor variation. Without examples (though IMO a greater number of instances in my perception) I would further add that Australians tend to have a certain highly-common facial type of archetypical character. The question remains whether there is some systematic prevalence here, or if it is just a coincidence. Half of Australians are first or second generation immigrants, so even if some archetypes could be characterized whether there would be any correlation to self-reported or genetic heritage is another question.

Now this (https://imgur.com/w4fXcXT), this is probably a coincidence (https://time.com/5254669/trump-lookalike-spain/).

They both have quite long, rectangular, faces. In the case of TE Lawrence the long nose in particular might be interpreted as a result of his Scottish ancestry. However, generally people in Britain have more oval shaped faces, if anything.

[Montmorency]

Hmmmm, another familiar face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGGqWwVb3sU

[Montmorency]

Hmm, I read a little about rifts between Lukashenko and Putin a year ago and apparently it's now gotten fairly serious.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/belarus-imports-oil-norway-russia-halts-supplies-68428223

And I wish Brenus were still here. I completely missed last month's general strike in France.
https://twitter.com/Pie2reLouis/status/1206981869155340294

[Montmorency]

Intermission: healthcare in China is mostly privatized, very expensive, very corrupt, and sucks ass. Even with government and private insurance, citizens pay up to 1/3 of costs out of pocket, 3 times that of US patients. USA! USA!

Oh wait, our current path is toward resembling China? Damn.


2015 data showed that 44 percent of poor families in China are impoverished by illness debts.

Someone send this shit (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/28/wuhan-virus-epidemic-china-chinese-health-care-needs-more-communism/) to the Sanders campaign.


In other news, women now make up the majority of the US workforce (https://www.npr.org/2020/01/10/795293539/women-now-outnumber-men-on-u-s-payrolls), having regained their numerical superiority in higher education (https://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html) decades ago (there used to be more women than men in college before WW2).

The female is future?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...The female is future?

Absent the development of a fully artificial womb, that has never been in question.

[Beskar]

Absent the development of a fully artificial womb, that has never been in question.

The King is dead, long live the Queen.

[Montmorency]

Pro-gun demonstrators occupy Kentucky Capitol building. Again.

Not sure if they're consciously aping certain other R/republican militants.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPoxOE_XUAM7pYF?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPoxOE9WkAUc9wH?format=jpg&name=large

[Beskar]

And here I was thinking it was another Russians in Donbass picture.

[Montmorency]

Furunculus will be pleased to see... this diagram (http://www.exitfromhegemony.net/2019/11/03/there-isnt-one-way-of-doing-liberal-international-order-and-that-might-be-cause-for-alarm/).

23281

ACIN will be pleased to learn that the US is losing the satellite race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgomWCO924Y) with China.


No one should be pleased to hear (https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/02/05/deported-danger/united-states-deportation-policies-expose-salvadorans-death-and):


Some deportees are killed following their return to El Salvador. In researching this report, we identified or investigated 138 cases of Salvadorans killed since 2013 after deportation from the US. We found these cases by combing through press accounts and court files, and by interviewing surviving family members, community members, and officials. There is no official tally, however, and our research suggests that the number of those killed is likely greater.

Though much harder to identify because they are almost never reported by the press or to authorities, we also identified or investigated over 70 instances in which deportees were subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm, usually at the hands of gangs, or who went missing following their return.

In many of these more than 200 cases, we found a clear link between the killing or harm to the deportee upon return and the reasons they had fled El Salvador in the first place. In other cases, we lacked sufficient evidence to establish such a link. Even the latter cases, however, show the risks to which Salvadorans can be exposed upon return and the importance of US authorities giving them a meaningful opportunity to explain why they need protection before they are deported.

Almost every single deportee either killed or assaulted. We must end our part in the horror.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN will be pleased to learn that the US is losing the satellite race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgomWCO924Y) with China.


And you doubted me when I said in the long run technological capability will be on parity?
Our only strengths are in the ability for our democratic institutions to reform and to maintain demographic advantages through immigration. conservatives want to hand china the world.

[Montmorency]

And you doubted me when I said in the long run technological capability will be on parity?
Our only strengths are in the ability for our democratic institutions to reform and to maintain demographic advantages through immigration. conservatives want to hand china the world.

I think the dispute was more on the timescale.

[Gilrandir]

Not sure that it fits here but starting a new thread seems not worth it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/uk/fox-parliament-gbr-intl-scli/index.html
I applaud the cops' decision. No checking if the animal has rabies (if a wild anilmal is not afraid of people the odds are that it is sick), no calling respective specialists to take care of it, no taking it out of the city. Just let it out of the crate right in front of the building and get done with the trouble!

[Gilrandir]

One more news:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/09/nato-seen-favorably-across-member-states/

A point of interst (to my mind) is near the end: Are there parts of neighboring countries that really belong to us?

[Gilrandir]

Putin has prolonged his presidency indefinitely.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russian-lawmaker-suggests-scrapping-presidential-term-limits-69500911

[Montmorency]

Can Queen Elizabeth II be charged with a crime?

https://i.imgur.com/xQJDpQP.jpg
Points for anyone who labels the green countries.



Doodles (https://twitter.com/Hankinstien/status/1237765800812937216) from Curtis Lemay's journals. He sure liked bombing stuff. Also a good doodler.

https://i.imgur.com/7Cagwqz.jpg



WW1 infantry attack plans (https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1237794253390123008) look like model maps of ancient battles.

https://i.imgur.com/7wckgwY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/i1fdCy9.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

LeMay was a piece of work.

[Montmorency]

My god.

23362

[Montmorency]

https://hushkit.net/2020/02/27/flying-fighting-in-the-f-14-tomcat-interview-with-an-iranian-fighter-ace/

Interview with an Iranian F-14 pilot, and his combat history in the Iran-Iraq war.

Choice bit:


Reza and I launched in an F-14A (serial No. 3-6078 BuNo 160376 callsign ‘Captain One‘) around 0530 AM local time and came under the control of Dezful air base’s Ground Control Radar in SW Iran. The area was calm and our radar scope clear. We would run to the vicinity of our border with Iraq under Dezful air base’s radar control and then would head back. This would go on a few times. One time we would turn right, and next we would turn left. In the middle of my last right turn, Reza my RIO strangely (and impatiently) asked me to halt my right bank and hold it. A second later, he called out a high velocity contact on radar fifty miles out. Radar calmly asked us to hang on a second, as it could be friendly aircraft. Seconds passed, and the radar operator calmly told us that there were no friendlies in the area and asked us to watch out. My senses were now in a state of heightened tension. I could tell something was up. Moments later Reza said “… don’t have whatever it was on my scope any more, but it was for real..” He had not finished his sentence when Dezful ground radar officer came back on and told us there were a pair of enemy aircraft 30 degrees to our left, low, with a heading of 180 probably on a bomb run against the Iranian towns of Ahwaz or Dezful. I pushed down low while talking to my trusted radar intercept Officer (the ‘back-seater’ or RIO).

The radar controller kept giving us the updated track, heading and speed of these ‘bandits’ closing on us. Reza was also urging me to keep a tight left turn as he warned me of the closure rate and distance. I reached out and flipped the switches for a heat-seeking AIM-9 missile launch. At first, I got a glimpse of the number 2 in trail, and moments later his number 1 came to view as well. It was hard to tell the type of the enemy aircraft but a guessing game ensued. Was it a MiG-21, or an Su-22 strike aircraft? Unsure, I pressed on, while Reza my good RIO kept an eye out for others. The Number 2 aircraft noticed us and banked so hard to the right I thought to myself that maybe its pilot had gone mad. Now the flight leader was mine. I was prepared to launch the Sidewinder (my guess is that we were about three miles out) but he noticed us either through his fleeing wingman or somehow managed to see us, dropped his ordnance plus fuel tanks as he dove down hard to the right. He entered into a valley and flew fast and furious over a riverbed towards Iraq. We gave chase about 200-300 feet above him and entered the valley. This pilot seemed to know the area quite well. He weaved and whirled so well it enraged me. It was really difficult for me to accept that a 1950s MiG-21 was giving me a run for my money in my modern F-14. A few instances he came close to within range of my heatseeking missile but each time he would turn so sharply and timely as though he could read my mind. This Iraqi pilot was for sure a miracle worker. I was in awe of his superior airmanship. In a nimble MiG-21 he flew brilliantly. I was chasing and admiring when my back-seater Reza called out our fuel level which made me come out of afterburner and give an audible sigh. I was like “Oh man we have come this far for a kill, and now we have to go back due to low fuel.” I wanted to kill this guy by then. Adrenaline was pumping through me, I was full of rage, disappointment and excitement. I thought if it comes to it, I am gonna have to ram this guy then. Maybe he read my mind. I don’t know.

At this point, for reasons I will never understand, this Iraqi pilot made a rookie mistake. Instead of climbing to clear a ridge, he turned and impacted the hillside at high speed as we flew over. Seconds ago, I wanted him dead. Now he was dead. But my heart broke for him. Maybe I even shed a tear. That pilot was incredible. An exceptional airman. Even though I was unable to shoot him down, the kill was later credited to us as a manoeuvre kill. 38 years after and I am still sad that a good pilot had to pass-on that way. He did not deserve to perish like that. Our fuel level was now critical and finding the airborne tanker was a challenge. However the tanker pilot had heard our plea over the radio and had decided to abandon its track to meet us for a much needed air-to-air fuel transfer. We made contact with them and got home safe.”

This is some kind of military aviation blog, and this interview is one of a series of interviews with Cold-War-era pilots.

[Crandar]

Thanks for sharing, Montmorency, that was indeed an interesting reading. If the subject of post-revolutionary Iran interests you, the Intercept recently published a captivating article about MEK.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/22/mek-mojahedin-e-khalq-iran/

[Montmorency]

I feel bad but :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

23470

Tell me your favorite link in the great chain. I have one in mind.


It's satire in case you found it too believable

[Beskar]

I feel bad but :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Trump is Polish?

[Montmorency]

Trump is Polish?

The femoid race is of Arabesque stock.

[Montmorency]

A properly Lovecraftian story (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/03/human-remains-found-at-former-home-of-kenneth-ward-yorkshire) out of Merrie Olde Englande.

Related to military history!


Human remains have been discovered at the former home of a military historian who was jailed for stalking and for possessing an arsenal of illegal weaponry.

For the past four days there has been a heavy police presence at the former home of Kenneth Ward. Ward, 72, was jailed in December 2011 for indecent exposure and weapons offences after police found a huge haul of weapons including a loaded Luger pistol under his pillow and the cockpit of a second world war fighter plane with working machine guns at his remote cottage.

On Tuesday up to six officers began digging up a plot at Appletree Cottage in Chop Gate on the edge of the North York Moors national park. Police said they were working with a forensic archaeologist, after the discovery of suspected human bones. It is understood the cottage is now in the hands of new owners, but was previously owned by Ward’s family for more than 300 years.

Advertisement
A spokesman for North Yorkshire police said: “Although it is too early to say precisely how old these bones are, current forensic investigations suggest they are not recent and are likely to be several decades old. Specialists are being used to recover and examine them.

“We’d ask people not to speculate online about the nature of the bones while this process is under way.”

Ward’s neighbour Mandy Dunford said police arrived three days ago and there had been a lot of activity ever since. “They are searching the property and people in the Dale have been told that human remains have been found,” she said. “It’s very concerning.”

Dunford, 59, suffered a nine-year campaign of intimidation from Ward, who would creep around her property naked, sometimes dressed only in military boots, shouldering a rifle.

She revealed her ordeal in 2015 after Ward was released from prison and tried to move back to his home – but was prevented from doing so after intervention from the current chancellor, Rishi Sunak, Dunford’s MP.

Dunford said of Ward: “That man put me through hell, and even though he was prevented from coming back here I can’t seem to shake off his memory.”

Ward, an eccentric military expert, was arrested after police discovered a huge cache of bombs and live weaponry at his cottage. RAF bomb squad officers were brought in to carry out controlled explosions on the moorland above his isolated home.

Ward was subsequently jailed at Teesside crown court after admitting 11 counts of exposure, three charges of possessing a prohibited firearm and seven other firearms offences.

At the time Dunford, a retired police officer, said Ward’s behaviour became increasingly erratic after the death of his brother, Brian, in 2002.

She said: “He first started exposing himself to me around 2002 and would peer in through my windows with his wild staring eyes. He would run around the house at night, shouting and tapping on the windows. When I was working during the day he would come right up to me and follow me around wearing nothing but boots and socks.

“Sometimes he would climb a ladder and expose himself over the wall of his cottage, and once he confronted me on the lane and aimed a rifle at me. I turned and ran and heard five shots go off behind me, I was terrified.

“He had a favourite stone on the lane next to my house where he used to stand to watch me with his pants down and shirt pulled up. He would stand there for hours and hours every day. Terrorising me became the only focus of his life. I went to the police to report him but their response was hopeless.”

Five North Yorkshire police officers were subsequently reprimanded after an internal disciplinary inquiry concluded they failed to meet “appropriate investigatory standards”.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXjfMzDXVv4

[Montmorency]

Gilrandir, do you have any thoughts about the Ukrainian IMF-alignment land/banking reform?

Original coronavirus testing joke: Clinicians have taken to carving ищи вирус сука (https://slovar.wikireading.ru/3315016) onto their testing kits.

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir, do you have any thoughts about the Ukrainian IMF-alignment land/banking reform?

Original coronavirus testing joke: Clinicians have taken to carving ищи вирус сука (https://slovar.wikireading.ru/3315016) onto their testing kits.

These are two different reforms that have only one thing in common: they are insisted upon by the IMF to give us a loan.

As for the land reform, I believe land should be for sale (and I'm sure it already is, only illegaly). The problem is with the conditions on which people will buy it. The most wide spread fear is that oligarchs and foreigners will buy it while Ukrainian farmers won't have money to do it. Or that Russians will buy it. I didn't get too deep into the said conditions stipulated by the law, but I know that at first (till 2024) one person can buy up to 100 hectars and no Russians are allowed to do it. Sounds fine, but as is always the case with Ukraine, map is not territory, so one can never tell wheter the law will function as it is supposed to and no infringements will be attempted.

The banking reform is not much of a reform. The essence of the bill is to forbid Kolomoisky from getting compensation for Privat bank (a huge sum) which was saved by the state form bankruptcy by nationalizing it a couple of years ago. Kolomoisky holds way over a large portion of the president's party and faction in the parliament so he puts up a prodigious resistence. The bill was adopted in the first reading and one more is needed for it to become a law, but Kolomoisky's minions offered about 13 000 amendments to postpone the final law adoption and many deputies complain of threats they get texted on their phones, so the fight is far from being over.

[Montmorency]

US Navy Fleet Size (WWII) - Visualization. (Like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M), but more visually engaging.)

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1946485/

Wowee (https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/sviashchennaia-vojna.htm).

[Greyblades]

You think the Duplex Drive equipped Shermans were counted among the AMPHIB?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You think the Duplex Drive equipped Shermans were counted among the AMPHIB?

They were rated to handle 0.5m waves....

So Amphibious, yes, for certain values of amphibious.

At Normandy, of course, seas were running 1-2m, hence the preponderance of late launches or sinkings.

[Crandar]

https://i1.prth.gr/images/963x541/files/2020-04-27/tourkia_ellada.jpg


This evil image managed to trigger the entirety of Greek media and twitter. Our local experts concluded that the persons depicted represent the countries, so they interpreted tiny, little Greece holding the hand of mom Turkey as a diplomatic insult.

[Montmorency]

Jesus :daisy: Christ, another irreparably damaged country.
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28715/in-israel-netanyahu-outplays-his-political-opponents-again


After three weeks of negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leading opposition figure Benny Gantz agreed to form a national unity government last week. While the idea of a unity government between Netanyau’s right-wing Likud party and Gantz’s centrist Blue and White bloc had been discussed on both sides over the past year, what finally broke the logjam after three inconclusive elections since April 2019 was the public health crisis and economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Gantz, facing the difficult choice of breaking his core campaign promise to not serve alongside Netanyahu or taking Israel to a costly fourth election amid a national emergency, chose the former.

Gantz’s explosively controversial move has rippled through the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat legislature, drastically altering the political landscape. First, the announcement of the unity government precipitated the breakup of Blue and White and its four-member leadership team, known in Israel as the “cockpit.” Gantz and co-chief Gabi Ashkenazi, both former heads of the Israel Defense Forces, pursued talks with Netanyahu, while the two other Blue and White leaders, former Finance Minister Yair Lapid and former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, established themselves as the largest opposition party by merging their previous parties, Yesh Atid and Telem.

Even within smaller factions, Gantz’s decision caused churn. The left-wing Labor-Meretz alliance has broken up, with Labor electing to join Gantz in the government and Meretz remaining in the opposition. But Labor’s remaining lawmakers in the Knesset—now only three—were split over the decision of whether or not to enter the government. Meanwhile, Ya’alon’s two Telem acolytes are leaving him to establish their own two-man party in order to break away from Gantz.

The unity government agreement may have ended Israel’s seemingly never-ending election cycle, but it puts Israel’s normal governing structures on hold. While Israeli governments have a default term of 48 months, the coalition agreement establishes a 36-month term, with Netanyahu staying on as prime minister for the first 18 months and Gantz taking over for the other half. It also creates a new position of alternate prime minister, which will be filled first by Gantz, then by Netanyahu. The purpose of this is ostensibly to avoid having to swear in a new government after the first 18 months, but the true purpose is to allow Netanyahu to maintain all of the trappings and privileges of the office after he steps down.

More importantly, Netanyahu is set to stand trial soon on multiple charges of corruption in three separate cases. Staying in power means he won’t be subject to the Israeli law that mandates the immediate resignation of any minister other than the prime minister upon being indicted. And even if convicted, he wouldn’t be required to step down until all pathways to appeal have been exhausted.

The Netanyahu-Gantz deal also establishes an emergency government for the first six months in order to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 200 Israelis and sickened over 15,000. No significant legislation other than that pertaining to COVID-19 can be introduced during that timeframe. There is, however, one glaring exception to this rule: Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank, a key campaign promise of Netanyahu. The coalition agreement sets a date of July 1 for the government to begin annexing the West Bank and applying Israeli sovereignty to settlements, subject to coordination with President Donald Trump’s administration and according to the parameters laid out in the American peace plan that Trump unveiled in January.

Gantz had previously demanded veto power over plans for annexation of the West Bank, and that it be conditioned on the assent of the Jordanian government and the international community. But the deal he signed with Netanyahu cedes both of those points, putting the decision solely in Netanyahu’s hands and prohibiting any delay tactics from ministers or legislators. Given the singular prominence granted to the issue in the agreement and the fact that the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that the political deadlock in Israel is hampering implementation of its “deal of the century,” the most significant and lasting aspect of the unity agreement may be that it enables annexation to be carried out.

For Netanyahu, the deal is an unquestionable win. He remains prime minister despite facing the stiffest electoral challenge to his leadership so far over the past year, and will reap the benefits of remaining in office while facing legal proceedings. His victory was made possible by the political opposition, which dropped its primary campaign issue of not serving under an indicted prime minister in order to join him, destroying its own internal cohesion and structure in the process. In addition, Netanyahu secured a high-profile policy victory on annexation, and also secured a veto over the appointment of officials who will have a say in his legal fate, including the next attorney general and state attorney.

Gantz also secured some clear accomplishments. He becomes defense minister with a clear path and timeframe to becoming prime minister, and secured parity for his party with Netanyahu’s camp in the number of Cabinet ministers and committee chairpersons. He also avoids a fourth election, which, after the schism that resulted from his decision to seek a government with Netanyahu, would have decimated his party and reduced his political relevance.

But Gantz has suffered in the Israeli public’s eyes by conceding every principle and red line that he had previously voiced—from refusing to serve under Netanyahu to safeguarding legal and judicial institutions to preventing annexation of the West Bank. There are also some trapdoors for Gantz built into the agreement. Under the terms of the deal, the government will collapse if he and his party vote against one of Netanyahu’s budgets or do not maintain coalition discipline on annexation.

Even if he complies with the deal to its last letter, Gantz’s political future is murky. Less than a third of the Israeli public believes that Netanyahu will honor the deal and hand over the premiership to Gantz in 18 months. While the agreement appears on its face to be a political exit plan for Netanyahu, it may turn out to be the foundation of his next act.

This is like the fable (https://worldstories.org.uk/reader/juha-stories/english/655) of the king and the donkey.


Once upon a time, there was a king who had a donkey. He wanted him to speak.

So, the king ordered Juha to teach the donkey to speak, and if Juha could not do that then the king would kill him.

Juha agreed to teach the donkey to speak on the condition that the king would give him 20 years to do that.

The king agreed.

Then Juha went home to his wife and told her what the king had ordered him to do.

His wife was worried about him and she said, ‘Have you ever seen a donkey that speaks? Do you want to be killed?’

Juha laughed and said, ‘Don’t worry. I have 20 years to do this. During these 20 years, either the donkey will die, or I will die, or the king will die!’





This evil image managed to trigger the entirety of Greek media and twitter. Our local experts concluded that the persons depicted represent the countries, so they interpreted tiny, little Greece holding the hand of mom Turkey as a diplomatic insult.

I can kind of see it. Greece as Turkey and China's child. Should have put Chinese in the kid's mouth instead.

[Montmorency]

General Electric Wants To Keep America's B-52s In The Air Until 2097 (At Least) (https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/general-electric-wants-to-keep-americas-b-52s-in-the-ai-1844107214)


General Electric is trying to convince the Air Force and congressional bean counters that its re-engining program could extend the lifespan of the B-52 platform more than seventy years into the future. The Air Force has already planned to keep the planes in the air through the 2040s even as the new B-21 Raider stealth bomber comes into service as well, but General Electric thinks the B-52 has a little more life left in it to give. Nearly sixty more years worth, to be exact.

https://i.imgur.com/WjCfrXI.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is nothing quite like the BUFF...

[Montmorency]

China forces through Hong Kong Patriot Act


Germany has a mixed record with fascist lustration, but this seems welcome.

Germany Disbands Special Forces Group Tainted by Far-Right Extremists (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/world/europe/german-special-forces-far-right.html)

Germany’s defense minister announced Wednesday that she would partially disband the most elite and highly trained special forces in the country, saying it had been infiltrated by far-right extremism. The defense minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, said one of four fighting companies inside the special forces had become so infested with far-right extremism that it would be dissolved. The rest of the special forces unit, known by its German acronym, KSK, has until the end of October to overhaul its recruitment, training and leadership practices before being allowed to rejoin any international military exercises or missions... The announcement came six weeks after investigators discovered a trove of Nazi memorabilia and an extensive arsenal of stolen ammunition and explosives on the property of a sergeant major who had served in the KSK since 2001.

A committee was formed to report back on far-right extremism in the special forces and to propose measures to combat it. New legislation was passed to make it easier to fire far-right soldiers. And, crucially, the KSK and the rest of the military has been ordered to account for missing weapons and ammunition. Some 48,000 rounds of ammunition and 62 kilograms worth of explosives have gone missing from the special forces, said Gen. Eberhard Zorn, inspector general of the armed forces and co-author of the report on the special forces that was presented on Wednesday. The missing weapons and ammunition have added to concerns that the recent raid was only the tip of the iceberg... “Do we have terrorist cells inside our military? I never thought I would ask that question, but we have to,” said Patrick Sensburg, a conservative lawmaker on the intelligence oversight committee and president of the reservist association. The commander of the KSK, Gen. Markus Kreitmayr, wrote a three-page letter to his troops after the recent raid, in which he addressed far-right soldiers directly: “You don’t deserve our camaraderie!” he wrote, urging them to leave the unit on their own. “If you don’t, you will realize that we will find you and get rid of you!”


A couple of studies (one just-published) on the concepts of electoral manipulation or interference. I have not read them but they sound interesting, the first one the most so as it is open-access and research-based.


When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results (https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/60/2/189/1750842)

What are the electoral consequences of attempts by great powers to intervene in a partisan manner in another country’s elections? Great powers frequently deploy partisan electoral interventions as a major foreign policy tool. For example, the U.S. and the USSR/Russia have intervened in one of every nine competitive national level executive elections between 1946 and 2000. However, scant scholarly research has been conducted about their effects on the election results in the target. I argue that such interventions usually significantly increase the electoral chances of the aided candidate and that overt interventions are more effective than covert interventions. I then test these hypotheses utilizing a new, original dataset of all U.S. and USSR/Russian partisan electoral interventions between 1946 and 2000. I find strong support for both arguments.

On the concept of political manipulation (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474885120932253)

Much liberal-democratic thought has concerned itself primarily – even exclusively – with coercive interference in citizens’ lives. But political actors do things – they engage in influential speech, they offer incentives, they mislead other actors, they disrupt the expected functioning of decision-making mechanisms etc. – that fall short of coercion, yet may nonetheless call for normative evaluation and public justification, precisely because they serve to purposively alter citizens’ beliefs, intentions and behaviour. With this article, I explicate a conception of political manipulation to capture this sort of interference, and to distinguish individual manipulation from the manipulation of nonindividual agents like committees, institutions and states. The account, beyond being necessary for further work on the ethics of political manipulation, should prove useful to both normative thinkers interested in power, justice and the ethics of democratic decision-making, and empirical scholars in search of a conceptual apparatus to sharpen their investigations into the exercise of subtle forms of political power.



There is nothing quite like the BUFF...

A weapon platform that will outlive everyone who ever crewed it in its prime. Maybe in celebration of 100 years of Major Kong, we can have a world war.

[Montmorency]

Another one of these (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8515535/Ohio-man-37-dies-coronavirus-claiming-pandemic-just-hype-Facebook-post.html):

A 37-year-old Ohio man who claimed the coronavirus pandemic was just 'hype' and repeatedly refused to wear a face mask has died from COVID-19.

Richard Rose, a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, wrote on Facebook on July 1 that he was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, and went to get tested.

The U.S. Army veteran, who served for nine years and did two tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, tested positive.

He died from the virus at his home in Port Clinton, Ohio, on July 4.

23883


Apparently Q-Anon is big everywhere these days. This scene from Germany is incredible stage design by the writing team (scan closely).

23882

[Papewaio]

Another one of these (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8515535/Ohio-man-37-dies-coronavirus-claiming-pandemic-just-hype-Facebook-post.html):


23883


Apparently Q-Anon is big everywhere these days. This scene from Germany is incredible stage design by the writing team (scan closely).

23882

Does that count as a Darwin Award?

[CrossLOPER]

Does that count as a Darwin Award?

Well maybe he didn't die from COVID-19. Maybe he died from something else. There should be an investigation into the statistics.

[Hooahguy]

Attempted murder on a judge in New Jersey. (https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-judges-son-shot-killed-husband-injured-attack/story?id=71871708&cid=social_twitter_abcn&fbclid=IwAR3GF1XRJoIYaTetOS4vVcl219eTXwK1bKtSeIDbE_ZU82-XPtlDYQ0N3HM)

The judge wasn't injured, but her husband was shot and her son was killed. Very tragic.

What makes this interesting is that Judge Salas was assigned to the case suing Deutsche Bank over relations to Jeffrey Epstein only four days ago. And the guy was in a Fedex uniform. Forgive me for being a bit conspiratorial, but this really seems to have been a hit.

Edit- apparently it was a mens rights activist: https://people.com/crime/anti-feminist-mens-right-attorney-suspect-judge-son-killing/

[Montmorency]

I didn't think this would prove so appropriate.

https://i.imgur.com/r6n87g1.gif


This one might have a deeper meaning.

https://i.imgur.com/fDtkgtb.png

[Pannonian]

I didn't think this would prove so appropriate.

https://i.imgur.com/r6n87g1.gif


This one might have a deeper meaning.

https://i.imgur.com/fDtkgtb.png

As a matter of interest, the lady in the Airplane clip was the lady who did this commercial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ4kCF22O2w), which was referenced by the film. And it was she who suggested that this scene, originally written with just Nielsen, be extended to include ever more ridiculous proponents of violence.

Another coffee scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH6KW6eMWJI) referenced by Airplane. One can't help but fill in the missing line.

[Montmorency]

23918

Map of 1945 incendiary attacks on Japanese cities, with estimated damage level, from a 1945 Army report. You'll hear about the numbers here and there, but I didn't know there was a map done.

[Pannonian]

23918

Map of 1945 incendiary attacks on Japanese cities, with estimated damage level, from a 1945 Army report. You'll hear about the numbers here and there, but I didn't know there was a map done.

Is there any truth to the story I've heard that a Japanophile in the US hierarchy specifically barred Kyoto from attack for its history?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Not taking any government crap here in Michigan:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/14/eagle-drone-attack-lake-michigan

....now if we could just train them to remove DHS agents....

~D

[Montmorency]

Is there any truth to the story I've heard that a Japanophile in the US hierarchy specifically barred Kyoto from attack for its history?

Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, honeymooned in Kyoto and liked it. He was one of the architects/overseers of the Manhattan Project, and a prominent advocate of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, as well as of MAD.

[Pannonian]

Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, honeymooned in Kyoto and liked it. He was one of the architects/overseers of the Manhattan Project, and a prominent advocate of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, as well as of MAD.

So I didn't misremember the story. According to this (http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/08/08/kyoto-misconception/), Stimson, who effectively had a veto whenever he chose to exercise it, wasn't a fan of mass bombing, and insistent on Kyoto being left alone.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So I didn't misremember the story. According to this (http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/08/08/kyoto-misconception/), Stimson, who effectively had a veto whenever he chose to exercise it, wasn't a fan of mass bombing, and insistent on Kyoto being left alone.

As I recall, there was some concern that firebombing Kyoto would end up killing the Emperor -- and they were NOT sure if that would help or hinder. After the island campaigns of 1942, 1943, and the first part of 1944, there was not a lot of "happy happy joy joy" about invading the home islands. We wanted a surrender.

[Montmorency]

Of course Nuclear Secrecy is the first stop on Hiroshima/Nagasaki historiography. I actually lifted the map above from one of the posts.

Wellerstein's collations are especially useful for the insights they offer on leadership psychology and epistemology. I wonder what Truman's awareness of the toll of the Korean War was.

[Strike For The South]

The Atomic bomb gets so much attention because it is not dozens of sorties with hundereds of planes dropping thousands of pounds of ordinance. It is one trip, one plane, and one bomb. It is much easier for the human mind to digest that kind of single snapshot of destruction rather than the logistical enormity that was the USAA in the final two years of the war.

The more depressing thing should be that the war machine kept rolling and that guys like LeMay and Macarthur advocated nukes in order to save lives.

[Hooahguy]

Something people often forget when discussing the atomic bombs is the fact that carpet bombing cities was the norm for the war and only much later did that sort of bombing raid become taboo. As my favorite history podcaster put it, it was logical insanity.

[Montmorency]

To be fair, carpet bombing was not a norm just like that, and strategic or terror bombing was pretty much universally condemned at the outset of the war. It developed over the course of the war in a series of accumulated escalations and path dependencies. The carpet bombing we know and love wasn't really mature until at least 1943. The systematic demolition of Japanese cities had hardly begun by the time Germany surrendered. The British and American air forces had some kind of unprecedented autonomy to sort things out for themselves during this war - and they had that institutional incentive to interpose their branch - and there may not have been much political oversight or understanding of what was actually happening, let alone popular consciousness of the issues.

[Pannonian]

To be fair, carpet bombing was not a norm just like that, and strategic or terror bombing was pretty much universally condemned at the outset of the war. It developed over the course of the war in a series of accumulated escalations and path dependencies. The carpet bombing we know and love wasn't really mature until at least 1943. The systematic demolition of Japanese cities had hardly begun by the time Germany surrendered. The British and American air forces had some kind of unprecedented autonomy to sort things out for themselves during this war - and they had that institutional incentive to interpose their branch - and there may not have been much political oversight or understanding of what was actually happening, let alone popular consciousness of the issues.

Strategic bombing was initially the only way of taking the war to Germany other than in peripheral theatres. You either left Germany alone to do whatever they liked. Or if you wanted to put a spoke in their wheels, then the only way was to use strategic bombers. Then Germany surrendered, and you had a huge strategic bomber force with nothing to do.

[Hooahguy]

To be fair, carpet bombing was not a norm just like that, and strategic or terror bombing was pretty much universally condemned at the outset of the war. It developed over the course of the war in a series of accumulated escalations and path dependencies. The carpet bombing we know and love wasn't really mature until at least 1943. The systematic demolition of Japanese cities had hardly begun by the time Germany surrendered. The British and American air forces had some kind of unprecedented autonomy to sort things out for themselves during this war - and they had that institutional incentive to interpose their branch - and there may not have been much political oversight or understanding of what was actually happening, let alone popular consciousness of the issues.
You're right, I should have clarified that it was the norm by the end of the war, and you are right that it was an escalating tit-for-tat game which ended in the firebombing of cities to the ground. I think there was some consciousness about it (see Churchill's alleged "are we beasts?" remark) but I honestly think people just didnt care all that much. I find it hard to believe that a population inundated with racist anti-Japanese propaganda is going to also care about firebombing their cities. I also admit I havent researched this specific topic all too much.

[Pannonian]

You're right, I should have clarified that it was the norm by the end of the war, and you are right that it was an escalating tit-for-tat game which ended in the firebombing of cities to the ground. I think there was some consciousness about it (see Churchill's alleged "are we beasts?" remark) but I honestly think people just didnt care all that much. I find it hard to believe that a population inundated with racist anti-Japanese propaganda is going to also care about firebombing their cities. I also admit I havent researched this specific topic all too much.

Racist anti-Japanese propaganda may have had some effect on attitudes on the ground, with a marked difference in approach between the European and Pacific theatres (but then, Japanese behaviour rather encouraged this too). However, I see little difference in attitudes towards Germany and Japan in the air war. The resources and strategies for the immensely destructive air war on Japan were developed for use on Germany.

[Montmorency]

Racist anti-Japanese propaganda may have had some effect on attitudes on the ground, with a marked difference in approach between the European and Pacific theatres (but then, Japanese behaviour rather encouraged this too). However, I see little difference in attitudes towards Germany and Japan in the air war. The resources and strategies for the immensely destructive air war on Japan were developed for use on Germany.

The impression I've gained over time is that:

1. Most military men and politicians didn't really consider ethical questions at a remove one way or another, or not more than idly
2. The civilian population couldn't hold their leaders to account because they couldn't realistically have been aware of the details of the campaign (such as they existed), and in principle would not have tended to disagree with the general idea of bombing enemy cities to further the war effort/exact retribution
3. Some influential (Anglo-American) interwar doctrine put a lot of stock on air supremacy and materiel/industrial destruction from the air, and during the war the actual effectiveness of this doctrine would have been a lesser consideration compared to inter-service competition and the commitment of fixed infrastructure

Some tidbits I learned from Wellerstein:

1. The A-bombs were an order of magnitude deadlier than firebombs relative to area affected. It's not surprising, since the explosive yield in kilotons was about an order of magnitude greater than what could be achieved by a even whole bomber command of B-29s.
2. Everyone knows there was an internal ethical debate over the use of the weapons brewing among the Manhattan Project scientists before fruition, but even the general American public got into, even before the surrender had been finalized. The Japanese themselves had some awareness of the debate already as the process of occupation began, but I gather (understandably) we don't have much of their perspective on the issue. Other than the standard postwar line, potentially propaganda, that the power of the atom presented an unanticipated Sword of Damocles that could not be countered short of honorable surrender, but that doesn't imply an ethical valence to the bombing itself.

We should always keep in mind that a retrospective student can achieve a better grasp of both the big picture and the nitty gritty facts than almost anyone at the time could hope for. When you think about it, it's existentially terrifying how irrational, ill-informed, and uncertain so much human action is in real time.

[Pannonian]

The impression I've gained over time is that:

1. Most military men and politicians didn't really consider ethical questions at a remove one way or another, or not more than idly
2. The civilian population couldn't hold their leaders to account because they couldn't realistically have been aware of the details of the campaign (such as they existed), and in principle would not have tended to disagree with the general idea of bombing enemy cities to further the war effort/exact retribution
3. Some influential (Anglo-American) interwar doctrine put a lot of stock on air supremacy and materiel/industrial destruction from the air, and during the war the actual effectiveness of this doctrine would have been a lesser consideration compared to inter-service competition and the commitment of fixed infrastructure

Some tidbits I learned from Wellerstein:

1. The A-bombs were an order of magnitude deadlier than firebombs relative to area affected. It's not surprising, since the explosive yield in kilotons was about an order of magnitude greater than what could be achieved by a even whole bomber command of B-29s.
2. Everyone knows there was an internal ethical debate over the use of the weapons brewing among the Manhattan Project scientists before fruition, but even the general American public got into, even before the surrender had been finalized. The Japanese themselves had some awareness of the debate already as the process of occupation began, but I gather (understandably) we don't have much of their perspective on the issue. Other than the standard postwar line, potentially propaganda, that the power of the atom presented an unanticipated Sword of Damocles that could not be countered short of honorable surrender, but that doesn't imply an ethical valence to the bombing itself.

We should always keep in mind that a retrospective student can achieve a better grasp of both the big picture and the nitty gritty facts than almost anyone at the time could hope for. When you think about it, it's existentially terrifying how irrational, ill-informed, and uncertain so much human action is in real time.

Post-event students may be better able to grasp objective facts and the bigger picture. But it does not mean they should ignore details in order to paint the bigger picture they favour. At the time, Japanese behaviour was known to be contrary to the accepted western practice of war, eg. the unwillingness to surrender and the targeting of personnel western norms viewed as off limits. And after the war, as in Europe, details came out that justified further a ruthless and efficient degradation of the Japanese capacity and willingness to fight, eg. their treatment of prisoners and subject populations, and unit 731.

At the time, firebombing and by extension the nuclear bombs were justified methods of subduing the Japanese. Given further information available after the war, they were even more justified methods of subduing the Japanese. It is only with the indulgence of the victors and the distance of generations that we start to question this. There is plenty of information and context to show that, with a reversal of the situation, Germany and Japan would have used these methods without hesitation, and to a greater extent.

Here's a thought to consider. The USSR, which we have customarily thought to be abusive of its prisoners, actually treated its Axis prisoners with far more care than we are accustomed to think. The worst and most inhumane of the Allied powers treated its prisoners far better than either of the main Axis powers treated theirs. The Japanese notoriously used its prisoners for bayonet practice and scientific experiments while the Germans actively planned to exterminate its subject populations. In contrast, the Soviets, suffering from shortages themselves, had a death rate of 10-15% among its Axis prisoners (Soviet POWs had a death rate of 60%+ in German hands, mostly in the early days when Germany had control of Europe). That was the worst of the Allied powers. Germany and Japan were far, far worse.

[Montmorency]

Post-event students may be better able to grasp objective facts and the bigger picture. But it does not mean they should ignore details in order to paint the bigger picture they favour. At the time, Japanese behaviour was known to be contrary to the accepted western practice of war, eg. the unwillingness to surrender and the targeting of personnel western norms viewed as off limits. And after the war, as in Europe, details came out that justified further a ruthless and efficient degradation of the Japanese capacity and willingness to fight, eg. their treatment of prisoners and subject populations, and unit 731.

At the time, firebombing and by extension the nuclear bombs were justified methods of subduing the Japanese. Given further information available after the war, they were even more justified methods of subduing the Japanese. It is only with the indulgence of the victors and the distance of generations that we start to question this. There is plenty of information and context to show that, with a reversal of the situation, Germany and Japan would have used these methods without hesitation, and to a greater extent.

Here's a thought to consider. The USSR, which we have customarily thought to be abusive of its prisoners, actually treated its Axis prisoners with far more care than we are accustomed to think. The worst and most inhumane of the Allied powers treated its prisoners far better than either of the main Axis powers treated theirs. The Japanese notoriously used its prisoners for bayonet practice and scientific experiments while the Germans actively planned to exterminate its subject populations. In contrast, the Soviets, suffering from shortages themselves, had a death rate of 10-15% among its Axis prisoners (Soviet POWs had a death rate of 60%+ in German hands, mostly in the early days when Germany had control of Europe). That was the worst of the Allied powers. Germany and Japan were far, far worse.

Whatever one thinks of a particular strategy, it is not philosophically available to argue that because someone else committed a crime, one's own actions therefore cannot be crimes. They might not be, or they might be. It depends on how much space for the targeting of civilians to (attempt to) degrade the enemy's resistance (in Japan's case the resistance to particular terms of capitulation) we deem legitimate. This applies to any theater of the war, or to other wars.

Some of the contemporaneous American proponents of firebombing and nuclear bombing against Japan admitted that it was available to judge their authorizations as criminal.

[Pannonian]

Whatever one thinks of a particular strategy, it is not philosophically available to argue that because someone else committed a crime, one's own actions therefore cannot be crimes. They might not be, or they might be. It depends on how much space for the targeting of civilians to (attempt to) degrade the enemy's resistance (in Japan's case the resistance to particular terms of capitulation) we deem legitimate. This applies to any theater of the war, or to other wars.

Some of the contemporaneous American proponents of firebombing and nuclear bombing against Japan admitted that it was available to judge their authorizations as criminal.

Considering that, as long as Japan were in possession of the territories they were in possession of, they were free to do whatever it was they were doing whilst in possession of these territories. And what they had planned to do on any invasion of the home territories. These are the defaults. If you don't act to stop them, that is what they do. The records are there. So do you act to stop them? How do you act to stop them? Or do you leave them be?

This ain't philosophy. This is decisionmaking.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Considering that, as long as Japan were in possession of the territories they were in possession of, they were free to do whatever it was they were doing whilst in possession of these territories. And what they had planned to do on any invasion of the home territories. These are the defaults. If you don't act to stop them, that is what they do. The records are there. So do you act to stop them? How do you act to stop them? Or do you leave them be?

This ain't philosophy. This is decisionmaking.

True enough. Yet attention to ethics is never entirely mis-spent effort. Even if you end up making a choice that is less than ideal, the effort to make sure it is the best choice left to you is a good one.

[Pannonian]

True enough. Yet attention to ethics is never entirely mis-spent effort. Even if you end up making a choice that is less than ideal, the effort to make sure it is the best choice left to you is a good one.

There is still the logic of making war and the logistics of making war though. Firstly, to make war on Japan, which is separated from the Allied forces by sea, you either invade, or you use your strategic bomber force. The cost of invasion was well known; the losses to frontline troops were staggering at every step. And there was the massive bomber force, developed for use on Germany, but with the German surrender, left with nothing to do if you didn't use it on Japan. Given that the Market component of Market Garden was to make use of an Airborne that was otherwise sitting idle since Normandy, a similarly idle (and far larger) bomber force would have been even more of an eyesore to the higher ups. Use it or lose it. Given the context of the time, what arguments were there against using it?

Everything pointed to using the bomber force. And once you decide to use the bomber force, quibbling about its tactics rather ignores the limited control individual bombers have, let alone formations. I've seen an assessment of the famed Norden bombsight that concluded that, in practice, it didn't do its job. Once you take operational conditions into account, bombing the right city was about the most accurate that you could get for a massed bomber force.

[Montmorency]

To my mind, whether a military or political course of action is justifiable or justified comes independent of how bad the opposition may be. Justification is consequentialist, and there may be a ledger for reparations but not for vengeance or cruelty. What does that mean? It means a level of coercion (which itself means human destruction on all sides) is justified insofar as it subdues an inescapable threat against you. Or to others, if you want to get advanced. A much lesser degree of coercion could be justifiable to extract concessions or recompense for past damages. A program of bloodlust is not justifiable, e.g. 'killing those people would make me feel better,' or even, 'killing those people would make enough people feel good as to be politically convenient, or vice versa' - though in the latter it is at least possible to conceive of a balanced trolley dilemma.

The general ethical schema can be captured by the question: What level of general human suffering - and perhaps in particular civilian damage - are we willing to tolerate/perpetrate in pursuit of what goals?

It was clear that by the time firebombing (i.e. terror bombing) against Japan commenced with the March raid against Tokyo, it had been subdued as a threat to the United States and its major allies. It still remained a threat to many civilians in China, Korea, and SE Asia, as well as POWs. This suggests that the United States, USSR, and their allies had a moral imperative to quickly secure peace not according to the maximal satisfaction of their strategic or geopolitical designs, but according to whatever would expeditiously resolve the humanitarian catastrophe in the Pacific.

By the time of the Potsdam Declaration in July the firebombing campaign had essentially been completed; by this time we can say that the Allies had probably not been fulfilling their moral responsibilities, given the awareness of all parties that the Japanese leadership were willing to tolerate hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to secure their own objectives. What should have gone into the Potsdam Declaration, or the timetable of operations in August, is a whole area of debate, but from the perspective of ending the fighting quickly the lack of clarification that the future position of the Emperor, or the kokutai, would be negotiable, was indefensible. I don't know how the Soviets felt about this messaging, but concealing the inevitability of their military intercession is another decision that could only serve to prolong conflict.

The atomic bombings, though an order of magnitude deadlier, were a continuation of the ethically-compromised bombing campaign already prosecuted. To sidestep the common debates of timing and so on, the most absolutely justifiable targets in Japan for any sort of incineration would have been the Emperor and his military elites. Not because they were bad men, but because decapitating the Japanese war machine would be the most obvious bridge to a cessation of fighting. (It's actually arguable that killing these individuals would not soften - alternatively even harden - Imperial resolve, but in principle it is low cost, most appropriate of target, and potentially decisive.)

In all the preceding the relevant considerations have not been the moral character of the enemy or their actions, you should note. Whatever your perspective is on Allied operations against Japan, it shouldn't come from that sort of place. The badness of an enemy in itself cannot be probative, or there would be a case for democide of conservatives in the style of Stalin or Pol Pot. Never say that we should do something to someone because of, purely in retaliation against, something they or some group associated with them did to us. Otherwise:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NewqTCakQ3Q

The only way I can think of to bring the bad behavior of the enemy into a consequentialist framework would be to argue that 'because they are such bad dudes, they will remain or reemerge as a threat unless we beat them into submission now beyond what is proximally proportionate.' Or in another very borderline sense, 'if they are such bad guys now, then maybe putting on the hurt will teach them a lesson and turn them into good guys, and this would eventually prove a greater benefit to everyone than to do otherwise.' This is a morally fraught and risky calculation to make any time - cf. historically-upcoming containment doctrine and "we had to destroy [them] to save them" - but at least it can be predicated on an admissible goal and argued on some merits.

[Pannonian]

To my mind, whether a military or political course of action is justifiable or justified comes independent of how bad the opposition may be. Justification is consequentialist, and there may be a ledger for reparations but not for vengeance or cruelty. What does that mean? It means a level of coercion (which itself means human destruction on all sides) is justified insofar as it subdues an inescapable threat against you. Or to others, if you want to get advanced. A much lesser degree of coercion could be justifiable to extract concessions or recompense for past damages. A program of bloodlust is not justifiable, e.g. 'killing those people would make me feel better,' or even, 'killing those people would make enough people feel good as to be politically convenient, or vice versa' - though in the latter it is at least possible to conceive of a balanced trolley dilemma.

The general ethical schema can be captured by the question: What level of general human suffering - and perhaps in particular civilian damage - are we willing to tolerate/perpetrate in pursuit of what goals?

It was clear that by the time firebombing (i.e. terror bombing) against Japan commenced with the March raid against Tokyo, it had been subdued as a threat to the United States and its major allies. It still remained a threat to many civilians in China, Korea, and SE Asia, as well as POWs. This suggests that the United States, USSR, and their allies had a moral imperative to quickly secure peace not according to the maximal satisfaction of their strategic or geopolitical designs, but according to whatever would expeditiously resolve the humanitarian catastrophe in the Pacific.

By the time of the Potsdam Declaration in July the firebombing campaign had essentially been completed; by this time we can say that the Allies had probably not been fulfilling their moral responsibilities, given the awareness of all parties that the Japanese leadership were willing to tolerate hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to secure their own objectives. What should have gone into the Potsdam Declaration, or the timetable of operations in August, is a whole area of debate, but from the perspective of ending the fighting quickly the lack of clarification that the future position of the Emperor, or the kokutai, would be negotiable, was indefensible. I don't know how the Soviets felt about this messaging, but concealing the inevitability of their military intercession is another decision that could only serve to prolong conflict.

The atomic bombings, though an order of magnitude deadlier, were a continuation of the ethically-compromised bombing campaign already prosecuted. To sidestep the common debates of timing and so on, the most absolutely justifiable targets in Japan for any sort of incineration would have been the Emperor and his military elites. Not because they were bad men, but because decapitating the Japanese war machine would be the most obvious bridge to a cessation of fighting. (It's actually arguable that killing these individuals would not soften - alternatively even harden - Imperial resolve, but in principle it is low cost, most appropriate of target, and potentially decisive.)

In all the preceding the relevant considerations have not been the moral character of the enemy or their actions, you should note. Whatever your perspective is on Allied operations against Japan, it shouldn't come from that sort of place. The badness of an enemy in itself cannot be probative, or there would be a case for democide of conservatives in the style of Stalin or Pol Pot. Never say that we should do something to someone because of, purely in retaliation against, something they or some group associated with them did to us. Otherwise:

The only way I can think of to bring the bad behavior of the enemy into a consequentialist framework would be to argue that 'because they are such bad dudes, they will remain or reemerge as a threat unless we beat them into submission now beyond what is proximally proportionate.' Or in another very borderline sense, 'if they are such bad guys now, then maybe putting on the hurt will teach them a lesson and turn them into good guys, and this would eventually prove a greater benefit to everyone than to do otherwise.' This is a morally fraught and risky calculation to make any time - cf. historically-upcoming containment doctrine and "we had to destroy [them] to save them" - but at least it can be predicated on an admissible goal and argued on some merits.

I'm not sure who to read the above meanderings, complete with video clips from irrelevant films, but I'll restate the position as simply and concisely as possible, with the salient points.

Default position: The Axis powers are in possession of territories and peoples they've conquered. In the absence of any action to rectify this, this is what the situation defaults to.

Basic question: What do you do?

I can elaborate on related points if required to, but I've tried to keep things simple.

[Montmorency]

I'm not sure who to read the above meanderings, complete with video clips from irrelevant films, but I'll restate the position as simply and concisely as possible, with the salient points.

Default position: The Axis powers are in possession of territories and peoples they've conquered. In the absence of any action to rectify this, this is what the situation defaults to.

Basic question: What do you do?

I can elaborate on related points if required to, but I've tried to keep things simple.

I'm not trying to mix myself into the perennial could've-would've-should've, I just marked some priors that could be useful in such a discussion. How simple these questions are depends on the level of analysis. The answer to your basic question should tend toward


quickly secure peace not according to the maximal satisfaction of their strategic or geopolitical designs, but according to whatever would expeditiously resolve the humanitarian catastrophe in the Pacific.

But the main thing I want to foreclose on is the idea you seemed to be referencing, that someone else's misdeeds are a license for one's own. Like - Unit 731, therefore bombing. Let's deprecate that sort of thinking.

[Pannonian]

I'm not trying to mix myself into the perennial could've-would've-should've, I just marked some priors that could be useful in such a discussion. How simple these questions are depends on the level of analysis. The answer to your basic question should tend toward



But the main thing I want to foreclose on is the idea you seemed to be referencing, that someone else's misdeeds are a license for one's own. Like - Unit 731, therefore bombing. Let's deprecate that sort of thinking.

Again, it's not a pure philosophical argument. Something is the default and is currently happening, and will continue happening until you put a stop to it. The humanitarian catastrophe is not some abstract natural disaster, but an occupying force currently in possession of territories where they are carrying out these acts. That's the default. By default, it means what is currently the case, and will continue to be the case until it is changed. Talking about geopolitics and whatnot matters little to those being occupied.

Do you effect change, or do you allow the default to persist?

As an American some generations removed, I'd imagine arguing about the situation in philosophical terms makes for an interesting debate. Things were different on the ground at the time though.