Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta history. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta history. Mostrar todas las entradas

viernes, 15 de julio de 2022

Observing Online order...


Sorry for the lack of posting but the Substack warriors (Steve Kirsch, Igor Chudov, The Naked Emporer and the bad cat amongst others) are saying everything I could possibly say: the fact that almost no politicians or the MSM are still not catching on is very sinsiter indeed...

Anyhoo, just popped in to reblog this posted on Samizdata: Sic transit gloria mundi...

Observing Online order...


Sorry for the lack of posting but the Substack warriors (Steve Kirsch, Igor Chudov, The Naked Emporer and the bad cat amongst others) are saying everything I could possibly say: the fact that almost no politicians or the MSM are still not catching on is very sinsiter indeed... Anyhoo, just popped in to reblog this posted on Samizdata: Sic transit gloria mundi...

sábado, 20 de junio de 2020

Oriel Oxford opus...







‘The Rhodes Colossus striding from Cape Town to Cairo’

Punch Magazine, 1892

"This letter is a response to Black Students attending Oxford as Rhodes Scholars wanting to remove the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes."  It was from the 2015/16 round of similar idiocy (Oriel Oxford outrage..) but frankly does the job this month too, with all the current BLM fuckwittery, then "I hope[d] this racist arsehole is on a police watch list" (named below) and remind the anti-Rhodes protestors that Cecil himself said "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." Anyhoo, the letter:



"Dear Scrotty Students,



Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.

This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeures.* If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”



Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.


And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.

You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #‎blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.



Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind.

We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations.



We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.

That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!” No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.



This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution?Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”


"Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history."

"And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your #‎rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!

Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.



And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university"


"Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you." 

Yours,

Oriel College, Oxford



*Autres temps, autres moeurs – Other times, other customs: in other eras people behaved differently.



[edited] Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University [mentioned on BBC Radio] commented on The Daily Telegraph 'Oxford will not rewrite history', "Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice."

Oriel Oxford opus...


‘The Rhodes Colossus striding from Cape Town to Cairo’
Punch Magazine, 1892
"This letter is a response to Black Students attending Oxford as Rhodes Scholars wanting to remove the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes."  It was from the 2015/16 round of similar idiocy (Oriel Oxford outrage..) but frankly does the job this month too, with all the current BLM fuckwittery, then "I hope[d] this racist arsehole is on a police watch list" (named below) and remind the anti-Rhodes protestors that Cecil himself said "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." Anyhoo, the letter:

"Dear Scrotty Students,

Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you. This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeures.* If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.
And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.
You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #‎blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind. We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations.

We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect. That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!” No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.

This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution?Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”
"Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history."
"And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your #‎rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively! Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.

And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university"
"Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you." 
Yours, Oriel College, Oxford

*Autres temps, autres moeurs – Other times, other customs: in other eras people behaved differently.

[edited] Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University [mentioned on BBC Radio] commented on The Daily Telegraph 'Oxford will not rewrite history', "Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice."

miércoles, 28 de agosto de 2019

Obvious oblectation; ominous obloquy






Prorogation of parliament is entirely NORMAL!


"Prorogation... marks the end of a
parliamentary session. It is the formal name given to the period between the end of a session of Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved."

[Added] Also, back in May 2019, well over a 100 days ago, "the current parliamentary session reached a striking landmark. It
became the longest session by sitting days since the English Civil War
(1642-51)"
[House of Commons Library] !!



Obvious oblectation: 'She’s not "just a figurehead''. "Her Majesty The Queen is Britain’s final constitutional backstop... 



...Such authority is historically sound.

  

"A.V. Dicey wrote in 'The Law of the Constitution' (1885): "The House can in accordance with the constitution be deprived of power [when] there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors."" 



"Edmund Burke noted: "The virtue, spirit, and essence of an House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the feelings of the nation. It was not instituted to be a controul upon the people, as of late it has been taught, by a doctrine of the most pernicious tendency. It was designed as a controul for the people."" [Raheem Kassam]



It stuns me how ignorant and thick many of the UK's MPs are. You can understand the waily, shrieky, undemocratic, pathetic, sinister Remain shouty tossers not understanding, but our duly elected officials you would think understood. Nope. Dumb fucks of ALL parties shouldn't be anywhere near power.



Ominous obloquy: Intersetingly, on Raheem's own website, I found out for the first time that the recent G7 summit agreed a "hate speech charter" as if the current draconian thought crimes aren't enough. Was this reported in the UK?

Obvious oblectation; ominous obloquy


Prorogation of parliament is entirely NORMAL!
"Prorogation... marks the end of a parliamentary session. It is the formal name given to the period between the end of a session of Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved."
[Added] Also, back in May 2019, well over a 100 days ago, "the current parliamentary session reached a striking landmark. It became the longest session by sitting days since the English Civil War (1642-51)" [House of Commons Library] !!

Obvious oblectation: 'She’s not "just a figurehead''. "Her Majesty The Queen is Britain’s final constitutional backstop... 

...Such authority is historically sound.
  
"A.V. Dicey wrote in 'The Law of the Constitution' (1885): "The House can in accordance with the constitution be deprived of power [when] there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors."" 

"Edmund Burke noted: "The virtue, spirit, and essence of an House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the feelings of the nation. It was not instituted to be a controul upon the people, as of late it has been taught, by a doctrine of the most pernicious tendency. It was designed as a controul for the people."" [Raheem Kassam]

It stuns me how ignorant and thick many of the UK's MPs are. You can understand the waily, shrieky, undemocratic, pathetic, sinister Remain shouty tossers not understanding, but our duly elected officials you would think understood. Nope. Dumb fucks of ALL parties shouldn't be anywhere near power.

Ominous obloquy: Intersetingly, on Raheem's own website, I found out for the first time that the recent G7 summit agreed a "hate speech charter" as if the current draconian thought crimes aren't enough. Was this reported in the UK?

domingo, 13 de agosto de 2017

Online oblivescence...




A changing landscape, increased 'link rot' (digital decay, careful: article is titled Error 404): "The internet is stitched together by an incalculable number of hyperlinks, but much like cells in an organism, the sources and destinations have a finite lifespan. Essentially, links can and do die." (Nick Routley on Visual Capitalist; John Bowers, Harvard LIL)



"The Million Dollar Homepage lives on as a perfect record of that wacky time in internet history – or so it seems. However, the reality is that many of the hyperlinks on the canvas are now redirects that send incoming users to other sites, while over 20% of them are simply dead."




This is more worrying than you may think, e.g. 49% of the hyperlinks in US Supreme Court decisions are now broken [Yale study, pdf], or - worse still - many of the links in blog-posts from the 12 year Owsblog archive are now unreachable too :-(

Online oblivescence...


A changing landscape, increased 'link rot' (digital decay, careful: article is titled Error 404): "The internet is stitched together by an incalculable number of hyperlinks, but much like cells in an organism, the sources and destinations have a finite lifespan. Essentially, links can and do die." (Nick Routley on Visual Capitalist; John Bowers, Harvard LIL)

"The Million Dollar Homepage lives on as a perfect record of that wacky time in internet history – or so it seems. However, the reality is that many of the hyperlinks on the canvas are now redirects that send incoming users to other sites, while over 20% of them are simply dead."

This is more worrying than you may think, e.g. 49% of the hyperlinks in US Supreme Court decisions are now broken [Yale study, pdf], or - worse still - many of the links in blog-posts from the 12 year Owsblog archive are now unreachable too :-(

sábado, 29 de julio de 2017

Overly opulent...






Interesting info graphic from Jeff Desjardins over at the Money Project: The Richest People in Human History (Part 1) [Link]. Obviously visit the site and zoom the image to get all the detail. I'll look forward to subsequent parts.



Obviously (as the write-up states) this is very difficult to get equivalence with more modern or present times and depends who you ask and what conversions etc are used but it does throw up some good bits: right place, right time backing the winner was Alan Rufus who William I made the 1st Lord of Richmond - a large chunk of northern England who - by "1086 he had become one of the richest and most powerful men of England" [Wiki]; or Solomon's wealth measured in trillions. And who had heard of Jakob Fugger, the Rockefeller of the 15th & 16th centuries; the "most influential businessman of all time"?

Overly opulent...


Interesting info graphic from Jeff Desjardins over at the Money Project: The Richest People in Human History (Part 1) [Link]. Obviously visit the site and zoom the image to get all the detail. I'll look forward to subsequent parts.

Obviously (as the write-up states) this is very difficult to get equivalence with more modern or present times and depends who you ask and what conversions etc are used but it does throw up some good bits: right place, right time backing the winner was Alan Rufus who William I made the 1st Lord of Richmond - a large chunk of northern England who - by "1086 he had become one of the richest and most powerful men of England" [Wiki]; or Solomon's wealth measured in trillions. And who had heard of Jakob Fugger, the Rockefeller of the 15th & 16th centuries; the "most influential businessman of all time"?

miércoles, 29 de marzo de 2017

Obvious onomatomania; others' onomatophobia...






A bidet: the chamber pot, the bourdaloue, the 'anal douche': used for washing and cleaning oneself, especially ones sensitive private parts, after a shitty experience. Bidet, B Day, Brexit Day... today ...BI Day: Britain's Independence Day. Some people hate the word, I love it: Brexit, Brexit, BREXIT!



Dates for history books: 23-06-16, 29-03-17 and whenever FfEU (Eff You) Day is.



The 'phoney war' is over, now the "countdown to Brexit has officially begun." [Link"As the British Prime Minister left for parliament to officially brief MPs on the triggering of Article 50, her envoy in Brussels handed over the official notification letter to the EU Council President Donald Tusk."

Obvious onomatomania; others' onomatophobia...


A bidet: the chamber pot, the bourdaloue, the 'anal douche': used for washing and cleaning oneself, especially ones sensitive private parts, after a shitty experience. Bidet, B Day, Brexit Day... today ...BI Day: Britain's Independence Day. Some people hate the word, I love it: Brexit, Brexit, BREXIT!

Dates for history books: 23-06-16, 29-03-17 and whenever FfEU (Eff You) Day is.

The 'phoney war' is over, now the "countdown to Brexit has officially begun." [Link"As the British Prime Minister left for parliament to officially brief MPs on the triggering of Article 50, her envoy in Brussels handed over the official notification letter to the EU Council President Donald Tusk."

miércoles, 23 de diciembre de 2015

Oriel Oxford outrage...







‘The Rhodes Colossus striding from Cape Town to Cairo’

Punch Magazine, 1892

Lefty liberal bullying bullshit continues apace and other spine-less cringing apologists cave in immediately: James Delingpole [Breitbart] on the social justice warriors* trying to change/erase history: the latest kerfuffle being at Oriel College, Oxford University by having the statue of Cecil Rhodes there taken down. The college themselves have proved to have a spine of wet toilet paper.



 * more like black power, racists and hypocrites: "There is absolutely nothing more fulfilling than seeing socially conscious black students dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!": I hope this racist arsehole is on a police watch list.





Not all at Oxford agree with these tossers (thank God): R W Johnson, emeritus fellow at Oxford University: "I am comparing what the [Rhodes Must Fall] movement are doing with what Al Qaeda and Isis are doing in places like Mali when destroying statues." ['Rhodesgate' DT]



Speaking of racists,  Rhodes himself was one, literally (not even in the new warped sense): "I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race...", hahahaaa. To be honest, we may not be perfect, not by a long way, but looking today at the 'Anglosphere' you have to think he may have had a point. However, Rhodes was not always so simple to pigeonhole: "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." But, oh yes - the very famous "Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."



More history and quotes - warts and all - at SAHO



Late update worth a read: 28th Dec: Robin Mitchinson at The Commentator"The kind of anti-intellectual rubbish being thrown at the colonial legacy of Cecil Rhodes raises the question of whether his detractors know anything at all about southern Africa, then and now."

Oriel Oxford outrage...


‘The Rhodes Colossus striding from Cape Town to Cairo’
Punch Magazine, 1892
Lefty liberal bullying bullshit continues apace and other spine-less cringing apologists cave in immediately: James Delingpole [Breitbart] on the social justice warriors* trying to change/erase history: the latest kerfuffle being at Oriel College, Oxford University by having the statue of Cecil Rhodes there taken down. The college themselves have proved to have a spine of wet toilet paper.

 * more like black power, racists and hypocrites: "There is absolutely nothing more fulfilling than seeing socially conscious black students dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!": I hope this racist arsehole is on a police watch list.

Not all at Oxford agree with these tossers (thank God): R W Johnson, emeritus fellow at Oxford University: "I am comparing what the [Rhodes Must Fall] movement are doing with what Al Qaeda and Isis are doing in places like Mali when destroying statues." ['Rhodesgate' DT]

Speaking of racists,  Rhodes himself was one, literally (not even in the new warped sense): "I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race...", hahahaaa. To be honest, we may not be perfect, not by a long way, but looking today at the 'Anglosphere' you have to think he may have had a point. However, Rhodes was not always so simple to pigeonhole: "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." But, oh yes - the very famous "Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."

More history and quotes - warts and all - at SAHO

Late update worth a read: 28th Dec: Robin Mitchinson at The Commentator"The kind of anti-intellectual rubbish being thrown at the colonial legacy of Cecil Rhodes raises the question of whether his detractors know anything at all about southern Africa, then and now."

martes, 6 de agosto de 2013

Obvious ownership...







Treaty of Utrecht, 1713.

Just as we know the sun rises in the East, so we know that Spain is in political difficulty whenever we hear 'sabre-rattling' over Gibraltar. Interesting article in The Spectator in July: "But the very possession of Gibraltar means a hostile Spain, and the weight of that hostility is limited only by her military strength. That strength may at any time assert itself to an extent which has not been suspected, and the recovery of Gibraltar, or the neutralisation of its value to England, is to such a nation precisely the kind of object to arouse enthusiasm, and to create a new point of military departure. More- over, even if the power of Spain were to remain as weak as it is sometimes assumed to be, nothing short of an unquestioned military advantage of primary importance should determine us to accept her certain hostility, in the event of war with a Mediterranean Power. Oh, I forgot to mention, it was July 1883, from their archive.

Another interesting article is ARTICLE X of the 1713 Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain (a.k.a. Treaty Of Utrecht): "The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."...for ever, get it?! All this was reconfirmed in later treaties. That said, in ARTICLE X1 of the same treaty Britain took possession of Minorca, which changed hands 3 times during the 18th Century but was finally and permanently repossessed by Spain under the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, so they know we could hand it back but the Minorca episode took three battles during three different wars...

Obvious ownership...


Treaty of Utrecht, 1713.
Just as we know the sun rises in the East, so we know that Spain is in political difficulty whenever we hear 'sabre-rattling' over Gibraltar. Interesting article in The Spectator in July: "But the very possession of Gibraltar means a hostile Spain, and the weight of that hostility is limited only by her military strength. That strength may at any time assert itself to an extent which has not been suspected, and the recovery of Gibraltar, or the neutralisation of its value to England, is to such a nation precisely the kind of object to arouse enthusiasm, and to create a new point of military departure. More- over, even if the power of Spain were to remain as weak as it is sometimes assumed to be, nothing short of an unquestioned military advantage of primary importance should determine us to accept her certain hostility, in the event of war with a Mediterranean Power. Oh, I forgot to mention, it was July 1883, from their archive. Another interesting article is ARTICLE X of the 1713 Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain (a.k.a. Treaty Of Utrecht): "The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."...for ever, get it?! All this was reconfirmed in later treaties. That said, in ARTICLE X1 of the same treaty Britain took possession of Minorca, which changed hands 3 times during the 18th Century but was finally and permanently repossessed by Spain under the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, so they know we could hand it back but the Minorca episode took three battles during three different wars...

jueves, 3 de enero de 2013

Oligodontous odorivector...







image credit from HERE.

It seems CFK is getting uppity, I...wonder...why, and need further distraction to hide the coming economic disaster (another!) from the Argentine population: she has published a letter/ad to David Cameron in today's Guardian (hat-tip Guido) and other newspapers and 'seems to have been prepared in absolute secrecy to ensure maximum impact'. This article in the Guardian has a link [PDF] to the letter/ad, a letter which begins:


"One hundred and eighty years ago on this same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercise of 19th-century colonialism, Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000 km (8700 miles) away from London."

Stop right there! Argentina, as it is now known, didn't exist 180 years ago. Take a look at the diagram below which shows de facto control over the Falkland Islands since 1760 (records have British presence - but not officially established - some 70 years prior to this. This diagram and a very clear de facto timeline HERE (Wiki). Important: please note the (i) orange and (ii) single black line 'Argentina' sections prior to continuous UK control:







(i) this refers to the two and one third years of control by the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, which constituted at various stages all of modern day Paraguay and Uruguay, most of Bolivia and parts of Brazil and Chile: the only fly in the ointment is that the UK officially recognized independence of United Provinces in 1825 (along with a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, signed by the marvellously named Woodbine Parish), but "like the US did not recognise the full extent of the territory claimed by the new state." Throughout the entire the war of independence period (1810-1831) there were constant serious conflicts between various ever-changing factions about how the state should be organised and what political aims the revolutionary governments should have; this ceased to exist in 1831. (ii) this ONE MONTH period refers to the Argentine Confederation, a loose Confederation of Provinces with no head of state; for much of which time Buenos Aires considered itself an independent state.



OK, all the above can easily be rubbished as both the above are considered former names of what is the modern Argentina, well according to their 1853 constitution anyway (Article 35, page 6 [PDF]), and I imagine eighty to ninety percent of countries in the world would have to hand something back to someone using the same principles. However, there is the 1850 Convention of Settlement, signed in 1849 that seems to make clear the re-establishment of 'perfect Relations of Friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation'; to settle "the existing differences" between the two countries and in fact the Convention is understood to concede Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands.** Off on a tangent: we won't mention their genocide of the Mapuches during the Argentine annexation of Patagonia in 1870.



**References (Wiki):

Roger Lawton LLB(Hons), M.Phil. "The Falkland Islands History & Timeline". [Link] Superb info!

The Falklands / Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine by Roberto C. Laver, page 123

Humbert F. Burzio: “Rozas, el empréstito inglés de 1824 y las Islas Malvinas”, in Boletín del Centro Naval, Buenos Aires, January/February 1944, p. 647ff.



Update 4th Jan: Two good pieces to read: Ben Macintyre in today's The Times (£) and Azeem Ibrahim in HuffPost (from April 2010).

Oligodontous odorivector...


image credit from HERE.
It seems CFK is getting uppity, I...wonder...why, and need further distraction to hide the coming economic disaster (another!) from the Argentine population: she has published a letter/ad to David Cameron in today's Guardian (hat-tip Guido) and other newspapers and 'seems to have been prepared in absolute secrecy to ensure maximum impact'. This article in the Guardian has a link [PDF] to the letter/ad, a letter which begins:
"One hundred and eighty years ago on this same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercise of 19th-century colonialism, Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000 km (8700 miles) away from London."
Stop right there! Argentina, as it is now known, didn't exist 180 years ago. Take a look at the diagram below which shows de facto control over the Falkland Islands since 1760 (records have British presence - but not officially established - some 70 years prior to this. This diagram and a very clear de facto timeline HERE (Wiki). Important: please note the (i) orange and (ii) single black line 'Argentina' sections prior to continuous UK control:


(i) this refers to the two and one third years of control by the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, which constituted at various stages all of modern day Paraguay and Uruguay, most of Bolivia and parts of Brazil and Chile: the only fly in the ointment is that the UK officially recognized independence of United Provinces in 1825 (along with a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, signed by the marvellously named Woodbine Parish), but "like the US did not recognise the full extent of the territory claimed by the new state." Throughout the entire the war of independence period (1810-1831) there were constant serious conflicts between various ever-changing factions about how the state should be organised and what political aims the revolutionary governments should have; this ceased to exist in 1831. (ii) this ONE MONTH period refers to the Argentine Confederation, a loose Confederation of Provinces with no head of state; for much of which time Buenos Aires considered itself an independent state.

OK, all the above can easily be rubbished as both the above are considered former names of what is the modern Argentina, well according to their 1853 constitution anyway (Article 35, page 6 [PDF]), and I imagine eighty to ninety percent of countries in the world would have to hand something back to someone using the same principles. However, there is the 1850 Convention of Settlement, signed in 1849 that seems to make clear the re-establishment of 'perfect Relations of Friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation'; to settle "the existing differences" between the two countries and in fact the Convention is understood to concede Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands.** Off on a tangent: we won't mention their genocide of the Mapuches during the Argentine annexation of Patagonia in 1870.

**References (Wiki):
Roger Lawton LLB(Hons), M.Phil. "The Falkland Islands History & Timeline". [Link] Superb info!
The Falklands / Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine by Roberto C. Laver, page 123
Humbert F. Burzio: “Rozas, el empréstito inglés de 1824 y las Islas Malvinas”, in Boletín del Centro Naval, Buenos Aires, January/February 1944, p. 647ff.

Update 4th Jan: Two good pieces to read: Ben Macintyre in today's The Times (£) and Azeem Ibrahim in HuffPost (from April 2010).

viernes, 21 de diciembre de 2012

Oxyopia orthosis...






Well it's here, the end of the 13th Baktun...from that link (along with all the date calculations): "The Maya were a very advanced civilization: outstanding architects "they built the tallest pyramid in the world, La Danta at El Mirador, ['prepare to be amazed'] not surpassed in height until the first skyscraper was erected in 1885...."They were excellent astronomers -their calculations of the solar year have been the most precise of all human history until the invention of very modern instruments of space exploration. They were stunning mathematicians - invented the combined use of the positional numeral system and the zero, centuries before any other civilization."

And they predicted 'it will be the end' this 13 Baktun (December 21, 2012).

The news already is "the end" is a myth but - presuming our 24 hour/day units are compatible - we don't know yet: the Maya were in Central America so at least 6 hours time difference and we'll have to wait until the end of their day before we really know...so by 6 a.m. on 22/12/12 in the UK well know...if we wake up. Then again, maybe that Maya guy just meant 'it will be the end...of this calendar, make a new one*'!



* They're cyclic anyway so don't end...d'oh.

Oxyopia orthosis...


Well it's here, the end of the 13th Baktun...from that link (along with all the date calculations): "The Maya were a very advanced civilization: outstanding architects "they built the tallest pyramid in the world, La Danta at El Mirador, ['prepare to be amazed'] not surpassed in height until the first skyscraper was erected in 1885...."They were excellent astronomers -their calculations of the solar year have been the most precise of all human history until the invention of very modern instruments of space exploration. They were stunning mathematicians - invented the combined use of the positional numeral system and the zero, centuries before any other civilization." And they predicted 'it will be the end' this 13 Baktun (December 21, 2012). The news already is "the end" is a myth but - presuming our 24 hour/day units are compatible - we don't know yet: the Maya were in Central America so at least 6 hours time difference and we'll have to wait until the end of their day before we really know...so by 6 a.m. on 22/12/12 in the UK well know...if we wake up. Then again, maybe that Maya guy just meant 'it will be the end...of this calendar, make a new one*'!

* They're cyclic anyway so don't end...d'oh.