![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 72. Go back in thread:
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 15:34:49
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 12:36:40
The stuff on India was fascinating and news to me.
I had no idea of the numbers of tribal people or the scale of it all.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28
Anglosaxon? An interesting concept.
https://www.msu.edu/~stumpdan/hs/anglo.htm
How do you see Anglosaxon politics differing from the Roman imperial politics that preceded it, or the Norman French politics that followed it, at least in England? Did they bring the political system from their native lands, or did they take up prevailing European fashions in government?
I found this quote interesting:
http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2051%20anglo%20saxons%20ii.htm
"The country had been devastated by Vikings and everybody complained about government inefficiency and failure to act and implement policy. Things could not really get much worse. It was at this point that Archbishop Wulfstan of York preached a sermon to the highest people in the land.
'The devil has led this people too far astray... the people have betrayed their own country [literally their "earth"]. And the harm will become common to this entire people.
'There was a historian in the time of the Britons called Gildas who wrote about their misdeeds; how their sins angered God so much that finally He allowed the army of the English to conquer their land. Let us take warning from this... we all know there are worse things going on now than we have heard of among the ancients. Let us turn to the right and leave wrongdoing... Let us love God and follow God's laws.' "
I always enjoy reading the ancients complaining about the good old days.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:56:36
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:20:08
> Here it is the cynical positioning to find a (relatively) blame free position from which to cast blame on the other side, and this can get subtle and devious.
On Babble, you mean? Well, I don't think I do that.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 17:27:42
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:56:36
No no no, Dinah, I meant in our political process here.
I was thinking about the way the major parties have been handling refugees/illegal immigrants/people smuggling.
But not just that.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 17:37:16
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32
Well, I guess I meant English speaking. I read a book once about Harold, though it would not have been much help in answering your questions. I am guessing they relate to a period much before 1066, about which I know nothing.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 18:03:49
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32
>http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2051%20anglo%20saxons%20ii.htm
This is a fun site. I'm going to look at it more thoroughly later. The idea of the Norman/Anglosaxon influence on the US is also interesting. First, there is the subject of language. English Is such an amalgam. Then thinking of how much the drafters of the constitutuion, in their rebellion against England (being all English I assume) were influenced by the ideals of French liberty. And Greek democracy.
I will think about this in my slow cook way.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 20:09:07
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 13, 2011, at 14:49:49
It's interesting that you bring up charisma. I realize I am very swayed by charisma. I have to plant both feet on the ground and think my way out of my emotional impressions. I adored Clinton from his inauguration ball as he played the saxophone. However cheesy that may seem to some or myself now. He had a way of always seeming comfortable and having something intelligent to say.
This thread has had me thinking back over my own likes and dislikes, and I see how reactive and subjective they appear now to myself. I was unhappy with the outcome of the 2000
election and the controversy surrounding Gore's defeat. I had come to endorse Gore, feeling he had somehow been eclipsed by the flash of the Clinton presidency. When the eight years of the Bush presidency were ended by Obama, I was estatic. Absolutely. And I was very affected by Obama's quiet charisma. But it's almost like it's deferred, if that is the right word. I would have preferred or had hoped for what Gore might have brought. Perhaps less war. More practical focus on our environment. And human rights.I had said quizzically that maybe I was a socialist. This series of threads has made me think, and perhaps I am more a socialist in the European practical sense. Even the Canadian sense with their working health care system. The healthcare bill that has recently passed has been heavily privatized, with citizens who do not purchase health care having to pay a penalty. I believe this will not come to pass as it is already being challenged in court.
Will there be a candidate I will be pleased to vote for in 2012? Originally I had written that I can not imagine not voting for Obama. Now after reflection and reading, I am not sure at all if it is a matter of who will do the most good or who will do the least harm. I am not sure that is good enough. But what can I do?
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:45:39
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 17:37:16
Where you are, does English speaking generally mean Anglo-Saxon? That's not something that springs instantly to mind where I live. I think I may be slightly over 1/2 English, but I'm in the minority. Even our state law is based on the Napoleonic code rather than English common law.
The English language has proved to be very tenacious, hasn't it? I wonder why it wasn't superceded by Norman French? It incorporated it I guess. I started reading "The Mother Tongue" years ago and found it fascinating, though I never seem to manage to finish it.
It's funny, and perhaps unique to me. When I think of Anglo Saxons, I don't think power. I think of my serf ancestors. Of William the Conqueror (or B*stard, as I'm sure they preferred) and the Harrying of the North. Of Aethelred the Unready, and Harold Godwinson. Of the scorn the Norman nobility felt towards the Saxons. Though to be fair, my Saxon ancestors weren't overly nice to my Briton Celtic ancestors - as I remind myself whenever I start to feel too sorry for them.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 21:06:54
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 15:34:49
I need to see it on a map. I didn't understand the scope either.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 21:23:44
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 18:03:49
Definitely Greek ideals. And while they were rebelling against England and in some ways also rejected the forms of government as it was at the time, I guess it makes sense that in the everyday forms of government they looked to their mother England. Hmmm... Probably the local forms of government were already in place with the states?
I wonder if the strong nobles of the Anglo Saxons, and the Witenagemot, had any influence on Norman nobles to eventually demand the Magna Carta. They weren't the same nobles, of course, or even descendents of the same nobles. But I wonder if the knowledge gave them the feeling that they had rights that should be acknowledged. And of course the Magna Carta influenced the founding fathers.
Definitely Greek democracy. I'm not sure, but I think the French were inspired by the American revolution, based on the timing. Although... Didn't they give us financial help during the Revolution?
(I vaguely remember this because my son was studying it last year. I encourage him to share what he learns with me, because after all this time I've forgotten.)
I rather like medieval English history, but for the most part I stick to 1066 through Henry III or the early years of Edward I. Stephen/Mathilda makes a fertile ground for stories. And my hero William Marshall lived from the time of Stephen, through Henry II, his two sons, and his grandson. He was co-regent for young Henry III at age 70!
For some reason, the periods before 1066 make me feel a bit anxious. Ok, they make me feel very anxious. I'm not sure why.
Posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 21:33:10
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:45:39
> Where you are, does English speaking generally mean Anglo-Saxon? That's not something that springs instantly to mind where I live. I think I may be slightly over 1/2 English, but I'm in the minority. Even our state law is based on the Napoleonic code rather than English common law.
>For what its worth I read Anglo Saxon in that post as referring to English speaking countries - specifically those that are English speaking due a heavy migration from England ie US, Canada, Australia. I'm not sure I agree with the assertion but I did read it as referring to a modern cluster of countries with some shared legal traditions.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:11:33
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 21:33:10
Lots of Murdoch media.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:12:09
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 21:33:10
I suppose my concept of Anglo Saxon is just a bit odd. Or perhaps it isn't in general usage in that sense here. Probably it's me. I generally take it literally.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:17:04
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 20:09:07
I don't know what else we can do. I rarely find myself excited about a presidential election. It's not as if we have the world to pick from. All we have to choose from is those who choose to run, and who gain enough momentum to make it to the polls. I've often wondered at the way the election process is structured, what it requires in someone to want to be part of it.
It's physically grueling. It's tough on families. Every word you say is scrutinized. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run.
Would the British system be better? I sometimes think it might.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:25:58
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » jane d, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:12:09
I tend to be very literal in general. But I wonder if it's because Angles and Saxons are real people to me? Not a concept. So Anglo Saxon means related to those peoples. (And me for that matter. - Well, Saxon anyway. Not sure about Angles. Where did they settle? And why are the Jutes always left out?)
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:26:39
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 21:06:54
I have heard of these big areas that have coal mines and are subject to civil war.
The Maoists are the main party in Nepal. I made a point of asking anyone I chatted with who they liked, but I am afraid I didn't learn much.
Thirty years ago my wife and I were walking along a dry river bed in Nepal, quite a way from Kathmandu and a man and a woman were walking toward us. The woman carried a bundle, and the man had an umbrella, but who the shade was for I do not recall. We said hello to each other, the man said they needed western medicines, the woman opened her bundle of rags, and in it was a baby who had crawled into a fire, quite charred and black. Their question to us was did we have any (Western!) drugs to cure(!) the baby. (Apart from morphine, is what came to mind). I asked them about their journey....where were they going? They said they were going to a medical station but they knew beforehand that there would be no drugs there; the drugs would have been entirely sold off. The journey was one of several days, and it was the saddest sight, (in particular the umbrella) and might go some way to explain the sympathy for the Maoists in that country
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:28:35
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:25:58
Anglosphere normally covers it.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:31:29
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 21:23:44
>For some reason, the periods before 1066 make me feel a bit anxious. Ok, they make me feel very anxious. I'm not sure why
Because the good guys lost?
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:33:03
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:28:35
Hey! What about us Saxons? Are we chopped liver? Hmmph.
:)
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:45:19
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:31:29
No... That's definitely not it. The Angles and Saxons and Danes had run out the people before them, you know. Or scattered them to the corners of the islands. Then there were the Vikings and the Danes.
Not that the Normans were the good guys either. I still shudder when I read what happened around York. I've still got a lot of anger towards William for that.
There's not always the good guys and the bad guys.
I like a quote from Young Indiana Jones. Something along the line of "No matter who is in charge, they take my chickens."
My Saxon ancestors drove out the peoples before them (some of whom were also my ancestors) and were in turn subjugated by the Normans (a very very few of whom were my ancestors). I come from a long line of serfs and defeated peoples. And rapining and pillaging conquerors. And they were not necessarily different ancestors.
But... We're getting better. We really are. We hardly every burn out villages any more, or stack dead serfs like cordwood, or consider other people to be no more human than the dogs or horses we own. Or take the family out to a public hanging and picnic. At least not a literal hanging. I sometimes wonder how much better our figurative lynchings are.
I've been trying to decide whether to buy this book. My nonfiction to read pile is so large now.
"The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined"
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 23:04:55
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:33:03
Maybe after 1066, I no longer feel even kinship responsibility for what happens?
No, that's silly...
I don't know.
Posted by sigismund on November 17, 2011, at 0:20:01
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:45:19
>We hardly every burn out villages any more, or stack dead serfs like cordwood, or consider other people to be no more human than the dogs or horses we own.
Yeah I heard some writer saying some time ago that this was one of the most peaceful times, (though you'd have to be careful with your history and geography), and that only 20 0r was it 10 million had been killed since WWII.
Foreign policy since WWII has been a bit dodgy. There's the long list.
I tell you one thing that would enrage me and it happened near here. Some young man was killed in Afghanistan and the leaders of the political parties went to the funeral. They talk about freedom, terrorism and staying the course, but every man and his dog knows we will leave as soon as the Americans do. And that may not even be a bad thing. But I would prefer straight talk and that they stayed away with their lies and half truths and left me alone.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 8:17:04
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:28:35
> Anglosphere normally covers it.
To clarify, I was just kidding. I think I prefer Anglosphere as it sounds quite a bit like English sphere, without being specific to England. It doesn't bring to mind the historical Anglo Saxons (or specifically the rulers of England from somewhere between the withdrawal of the Romans to the Norman conquest, with of course the exception of Sweyn and Cnut, who might object to the classification).
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 8:39:19
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 17, 2011, at 0:20:01
> >We hardly every burn out villages any more, or stack dead serfs like cordwood, or consider other people to be no more human than the dogs or horses we own.
>
> Yeah I heard some writer saying some time ago that this was one of the most peaceful times, (though you'd have to be careful with your history and geography), and that only 20 0r was it 10 million had been killed since WWII.
>
> Foreign policy since WWII has been a bit dodgy. There's the long list.
>
> I tell you one thing that would enrage me and it happened near here. Some young man was killed in Afghanistan and the leaders of the political parties went to the funeral. They talk about freedom, terrorism and staying the course, but every man and his dog knows we will leave as soon as the Americans do. And that may not even be a bad thing. But I would prefer straight talk and that they stayed away with their lies and half truths and left me alone.I wouldn't have thought it was even that many, since the end of WW2. But a quick google search on genocide in the 20th century shows that even since WW2, that number may be way too small. I can't provide the link, as it may be considered uncivil.
I guess I'm thinking in part about how the attitude towards wife beating and child abuse has changed even since I was young. When I was young there was still paddling in schools, and while I'm not sure I'd call it abuse for fear of minimizing the definition, it was certainly violence. When I was young, there were members of my family - mostly older - who couldn't understand why I would bring a dog to the vet.
The cynic in me says that when times are good people have the time and resources to develop their better natures, while our ancestors may have had to devote much of their attention to bare subsistence. And that the best way to reduce violence in the world is to bring people to the point where they aren't worried about survival. Yet that view also fails on closer examination, since the economic hardships of 1930's Germany doesn't really equate to the hardship our ancestors faced.
Violence frightens me, even nonphysical violence. I'm not a very visceral person.
I do believe that funerals are for families and loved ones, not for exploitation by anyone from politicians to clergy. I remember being upset once when the presiding minister used the opportunity to ask the mourners to honor the deceased by contributing to the church fund as the deceased did.
I've been reading (or listening to really) "Crossing Stones", and it really is managing to convey the pain of the loss of war to me so that it feels raw right now. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd be as caught up in it if the narrators weren't so very good. I'm shallow that way.
To tell the truth, I'm not that familiar with what happened lately in Afghanistan. I remember when my brother was there, we were happy he wasn't sent to Baghdad. And he said the people were very positive to the American military at that time. He came back feeling fairly positive towards the Afghan people. I don't know what happened since then. It makes me sad to think of it.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 9:37:27
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:45:19
>I like a quote from Young Indiana Jones. Something along the line of "No matter who is in charge, they take my chickens."
That's pretty good.
I have seen that book, the Better Angels. It seems persuasive. Then, just yesterday, someone was showing me footage of disabled planes landing on aircraft carriers (from WWII) and bursting into flames on impact. There were so many of them. Is it a trick film or technology that war now seems such a spectacle that it over shadows past histories of other wars, of deaths from plagues and more ordinary ailments, slaves, women in childbirth, etc? I don't know.
I googled early middle ages (pre-1066) and read a reference to the dark ages cold period and found this brief scientific speculation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040204000254.htm
Apparently it really was not a very good time.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.