|
Post by xxx on Jun 23, 2004 16:48:52 GMT -5
Nothing, really. The only time in history where Spaniards and Swedes have met was in the Battle of Nördlingen (1634), and the Swedish army suffered a heavy defeat.
By the way, there is also 'going Dutch' to say pay 50/50.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 25, 2004 7:31:00 GMT -5
What about a Dutch wife, a bed separator, a bolster? Very odd that one.
|
|
|
Post by geirr on Jun 25, 2004 7:36:25 GMT -5
What about a Dutch wife, a bed separator, a bolster? Very odd that one. I haven't heard that before.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Jun 26, 2004 15:50:44 GMT -5
;D Neither had I. Brilliant!
The war was so long ago, the antagonism has faded and the terms are merely funny. I wonder what terms the Dutch have about the English. I bet the Iberians have a few, although the French stock is quite small : filer a l'anglaise, capote anglaise, various other stuff to do with venereal disease, rossbif (refers to complexion), nothing really serious and amazingly there is very close correspondence with English terms about the French: French leave, letter, stuff about VD and Froggies. I think it's the English who have a problem about the French rather than vice-versa these days, the French have moved on a bit.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Jun 28, 2004 1:15:50 GMT -5
Well, I didn't know that. But the point remains, the insulting term for the abused is bound to be more painful that the retaliatory term for the abuser.
On the more general double standards thing, I think I agree that the fact that it is now difficult to celebrate the dominant culture as a dominant culture in public is a problem which causes a lot of resentment.
One has to accept, though, that a minority demanding a right isn't necessarily the same thing as the majority or most powerful group demanding the same right.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jun 28, 2004 18:40:39 GMT -5
One has to accept, though, that a minority demanding a right isn't necessarily the same thing as the majority or most powerful group demanding the same right. Why should this be acceptable? There should be equal treatment of the majority and the minority. Double standards usually lead to resentment. There should be one standard for both groups in order to have a healthy society.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Jun 28, 2004 19:55:53 GMT -5
No Cap'n I think in a sane society a majority and a minority can often have different rights. For instance I believe the majority have the right to insist that the minority teach their children the majority language, and the history of the majority culture. Not vice-versa.
Conversly, I believe that a minority may under certain circumstances be exempt from certain moral interdicts - prohibitions which the majority has chosen to impose upon all its members, but which run counter to the culture of the minority, for instance. The right of Rastas to f*ck up their brains with Skunk is a good example. Kosher and Halal slaughter is another, an exception to majority rules for humane killing of cattle.
Generally speaking I'm not happy about Governments prohibiting things anyway, but hey, if a whole majority is desperate to do that, who am I to say it can't. However if that restriction denies the minority something fundamental to their identity, that's wrong too. Justice is mainly about restricting the abuse of power - iunless you're going to be boringly objecivist.
It gets very complicated if what is forbidden is believed to be a restricting the rights of individuals - the ban on Muslim and Mormon polygamy, for instance. The rights of individuals (in this case eg Mormon girls) as members of the overall community should have precedence over their rights as a member of the minority, I think.
A general flexibility is called for. As Isiah Berlin teaches us, rights and justice do not necessarily have to be a logically coherent system. Sometimes it's not principle but just what feels fair that should govern how we do things, simply because there is no solution that is not the lesser of two evils.
Generally speaking, I do not believe in multiculturalism. I agree with the French, who had a standard curriculum in all schools and who thus had classrooms of little Senegalese opening their history books on p1 - "Nos ancestres les Gaulois", and the story of Clovis and the Soissons Vase.
I also relish the French conception that state financed education must be strictly secular. These are priviliges of the majority, since everybody contributes to education by taxation. If I want my child to be taught religion, I have to pay for it seperately, and off school premises.
But I do think a minority ought to be allowed to open a minority only establishment, for instance, a right that should not be extended to the majority. (Say that minority is blind people?) The apparent identity between these two processes is false. Justice is not always logical. Common sense is a better guide.
Rejecting state multiculturalism does not mean denying the right of a minority to maintain an identity, and is not incompatible with insisting that the minority be protected from the majority in certain case.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jun 29, 2004 0:59:18 GMT -5
Sandwich, I was referring to legal and moral matters. One example is hate crime laws. Another example is behavior. I have no problem with minorities maintaining their cultural practices, and I have no problem with refusing to change a country's official language.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Jun 29, 2004 2:41:02 GMT -5
I can't address as broad a category as behaviour. What do you mean by hate crime laws.? Laws preventing people advocating murder? Laws preventing people accusing other people of murder with no evidence?
Ordinary personal slander laws vary so much from country to country anyway. Myself, I think someone who publishes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with anti-semitic intent should be liable for a quick little slander suit, and that the compensation allocated should be a reasonable disincentive from doing it again, however rich they are. You see something wrong with that? You've got freedom of speech - but not freedom to hurt someone by lying about them.
Of course, one could try to get round this by offering such a text up as an example of absurdity - or in an academic context - but I think judges are not fools and could make up their own minds about whether there was a case to answer.
What I certainly do not believe in is blasphemy laws, or any form of protection from the honest truth. One can take these things to absurdities - I wouldn't want to be taken to court for some infantile joke about people with ginger pubes - but as I said, common sense can prevail.
Oh and if you meant should blacks and Muslims get way with advocating violence against whites or demonizing them beyond reasonable comment - certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jun 29, 2004 18:23:52 GMT -5
I can't address as broad a category as behaviour. What do you mean by hate crime laws.? Laws preventing people advocating murder? Laws preventing people accusing other people of murder with no evidence? Ordinary personal slander laws vary so much from country to country anyway. Myself, I think someone who publishes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with anti-semitic intent should be liable for a quick little slander suit, and that the compensation allocated should be a reasonable disincentive from doing it again, however rich they are. You see something wrong with that? You've got freedom of speech - but not freedom to hurt someone by lying about them. Of course, one could try to get round this by offering such a text up as an example of absurdity - or in an academic context - but I think judges are not fools and could make up their own minds about whether there was a case to answer. What I certainly do not believe in is blasphemy laws, or any form of protection from the honest truth. One can take these things to absurdities - I wouldn't want to be taken to court for some infantile joke about people with ginger pubes - but as I said, common sense can prevail. Oh and if you meant should blacks and Muslims get way with advocating violence against whites or demonizing them beyond reasonable comment - certainly not. A hate crime law increases the penalties for crimes if they are motivated by bigotry. I think that your country has similar laws. The application of these laws is often selective and subjective. I think that the action, rather than the motive, should be punished. I think that people should be able to publish anti-Semitic or anti-White literature in a free society. I find such material to be onerous, but I think that it should be allowed to exist. Our First Amendment guarantees it. You fight bad ideas with better ideas, not censorship.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Jun 29, 2004 19:08:31 GMT -5
I see, yes there’s what we call racially aggravated offences. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/guidrao.htmlAnd I agree with you that they’re a bit absurd. Of course assessing motive is a fundamental feature of our penal system – affecting sentencing for everything from crime passionel to degree of premeditation in armed defence against rape. I’m not sure why we cannot decide that somebody is even more responsible for their action if they did it out of racial hatred – unless stupidity becomes an extenuating circumstance. I’m all for free speech, but I do think it’s right that we have slander laws too. The argument that you won’t be able to trounce these lies if they aren’t allowed out into the open is a good one, however.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jun 29, 2004 19:29:35 GMT -5
I see, yes there’s what we call racially aggravated offences. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/guidrao.htmlAnd I agree with you that they’re a bit absurd. Of course assessing motive is a fundamental feature of our penal system – affecting sentencing for everything from crime passionel to degree of premeditation in armed defence against rape. I’m not sure why we cannot decide that somebody is even more responsible for their action if they did it out of racial hatred – unless stupidity becomes an extenuating circumstance. I’m all for free speech, but I do think it’s right that we have slander laws too. The argument that you won’t be able to trounce these lies if they aren’t allowed out into the open is a good one, however. That's a good point. The courts do consider aggravating and mitigating factors. I actually thought about the differences between classfications of homicide when I mentioned motivation. However, I consider bigotry to be an emotion like greed rather than a factor like planning a murder. Your second point is valid too. We definitely need libel and slander laws to protect citizens against personal defamation. People's lives can be ruined by false accusations. I think that we can agree that there's a difference between some crank saying that Dodona posters sound like bank robbers and some newspaper erroneously printing that you and I (using our real names) rob banks on a regular basis.
|
|