What's that Jefferson quote again? You, know the one about the necessity of revolutions from time to time in order to keep government honest. . . I think a multi-party system would be enough to do just that, but it would probably take some bloodshed at this point to get there.
What's that Jefferson quote again? You, know the one about the necessity of revolutions from time to time in order to keep government honest. . . I think a multi-party system would be enough to do just that, but it would probably take some bloodshed at this point to get there.
Haven't seen the film yet - but it's now on DVD (I think) so it's on my to do list.
Quote:
It may just be that given the age of the British democratic social experiment, and its obviously tenuous nature given their history,
Not quite sure what the tenuous nature bit means - as I think the social experiment has proved to be hugely stable as in true British tradition our democracy is something of a mongrel, Welsh (Briton?) and Roman society, taken over by the Saxons - supplanted by the Normans. Then the Magna Carta etc etc - all different ruling classes but a surprising amount of continunity provided by the people they ruled. It could be argued that the people perhaps changed the rulers?. With the exception of the Civil War British Society seems to have met challenges by adapting and changing painfully slowly!
I think it's left something of a fear of sudden change in the British and this is reflected in our science fiction. We're generally not optimistic about the future. Dysfunctional futures certainly aren't a new thing here - the TV greats of my youth were pretty much all about things falling apart (Quatermass, Day of the Triffids, Survivors, Threads etc etc) Generally they featured a plucky band of survivors trying to recreate an ordered society again.
I think this fear is misplaced and I agree with Outsider that things are better now than ever (apart from climate change) - but being English I think should just say it's all going to the dogs and any future changes are bound to be negative - the future, like the past, is a foreign country and you know how receptive we are in our little Island about that sort of thing!
With the exception of the Civil War British Society seems to have met challenges by adapting and changing painfully slowly!
Well, the CW was a pretty big deal, and my sense is that it remained in the back of folks' minds for the next century at least.
Quote:
I think it's left something of a fear of sudden change in the British and this is reflected in our science fiction.
I suspect that a part of it is that British history is full of sudden (or sudden-ish) changes that scared the hell out of everyone. A history of being invaded and conquered and abandoned, a history of swapping religions, of plagues, of epidemics, then the civil war, then kings with heads lopped off, then restorations, then the '15 and the '45, and a century of WOULD EVERYONE JUST CHILL during which everyone did NOT chill and they kept with all those bloody scientific advancements, then the 19th century which rightly scared the shit out of everyone, then WWI, which scared them even worse, and then, and then....
Did I mention that it's probably not so much a prediction as it is P.D. James' take on modern selfishness, and the 'you are the things you own' mentality?
Although the Tolkien quote on allegory may apply here, that 'people sometimes confuse applicability with allegory.' Maybe vice versa?
Did I mention that it's probably not so much a prediction as it is P.D. James' take on modern selfishness, and the 'you are the things you own' mentality?
Although the Tolkien quote on allegory may apply here, that 'people sometimes confuse applicability with allegory.' Maybe vice versa?
I had no idea James was a Marxist. Isn't she an aristocrat?
Marx makes the same kind of critique of identity being conflated with possessions and labor.
Oh.
(I don't think the caffine in on duty this morning.)
Actually, she is Christian, that Mars Hill podcast I linked to brushes on that. She isn't very public about it at all -- apparently likes to illustrate ideas, textures of good/evil rather than do the ' Jeezus-as-a-nifty/goofy-abstraction' thing.
Well, the CW was a pretty big deal, and my sense is that it remained in the back of folks' minds for the next century at least.
Yes, you're right, I wasn't trying to downplay the English Civil War - but what's interesting is that it was one of the few times social change happened here through a revolution or a coup.
Also unlike other nations - the republic was very shortlived. After Cromwells death the monachy was re-instated.
Perhaps it has left us with a huge distrust of utopian futures!
Actually, she is Christian, that Mars Hill podcast I linked to brushes on that. She isn't very public about it at all -- apparently likes to illustrate ideas, textures of good/evil rather than do the ' Jeezus-as-a-nifty/goofy-abstraction' thing.
Well, being a Christian isn't incompatible with Marxism; his comments about religion are often pretty practical in nature.
I haven't read any of here titles, so I'll have to give that a great big shrug. The analysis seems more towards a moral critique, from a Christian stance; it is a subtle one, though.
In this case though they may be unnecessary. Although she is a conservative and somewhat reactionary - she is also a liberal Christian. This is what makes her interesting (or at least tolerable); an awareness of her contradictions - something fundies never have by definition.
Having said that though, one has to agree with the reviewer (Mark Lawson) who said: "when reading James, you do find yourself nostalgic for crack cocaine, anal sex and people calling each other "mutha"'.
Such a funny guy.
High-church Anglican from what I'm copying and pasting. Watch the sharp edges on that Christ thing!
Worth reading in any case -- and before I comment any further.
Comments
I'm not sure a restart would be such a bad thing.
What's that Jefferson quote again? You, know the one about the necessity of revolutions from time to time in order to keep government honest. . . I think a multi-party system would be enough to do just that, but it would probably take some bloodshed at this point to get there.
What's that Jefferson quote again? You, know the one about the necessity of revolutions from time to time in order to keep government honest. . . I think a multi-party system would be enough to do just that, but it would probably take some bloodshed at this point to get there.
Do the ends justify the means?
It may just be that given the age of the British democratic social experiment, and its obviously tenuous nature given their history,
Not quite sure what the tenuous nature bit means - as I think the social experiment has proved to be hugely stable as in true British tradition our democracy is something of a mongrel, Welsh (Briton?) and Roman society, taken over by the Saxons - supplanted by the Normans. Then the Magna Carta etc etc - all different ruling classes but a surprising amount of continunity provided by the people they ruled. It could be argued that the people perhaps changed the rulers?. With the exception of the Civil War British Society seems to have met challenges by adapting and changing painfully slowly!
I think it's left something of a fear of sudden change in the British and this is reflected in our science fiction. We're generally not optimistic about the future. Dysfunctional futures certainly aren't a new thing here - the TV greats of my youth were pretty much all about things falling apart (Quatermass, Day of the Triffids, Survivors, Threads etc etc) Generally they featured a plucky band of survivors trying to recreate an ordered society again.
I think this fear is misplaced and I agree with Outsider that things are better now than ever (apart from climate change) - but being English I think should just say it's all going to the dogs and any future changes are bound to be negative - the future, like the past, is a foreign country and you know how receptive we are in our little Island about that sort of thing!
With the exception of the Civil War British Society seems to have met challenges by adapting and changing painfully slowly!
Well, the CW was a pretty big deal, and my sense is that it remained in the back of folks' minds for the next century at least.
I think it's left something of a fear of sudden change in the British and this is reflected in our science fiction.
I suspect that a part of it is that British history is full of sudden (or sudden-ish) changes that scared the hell out of everyone. A history of being invaded and conquered and abandoned, a history of swapping religions, of plagues, of epidemics, then the civil war, then kings with heads lopped off, then restorations, then the '15 and the '45, and a century of WOULD EVERYONE JUST CHILL during which everyone did NOT chill and they kept with all those bloody scientific advancements, then the 19th century which rightly scared the shit out of everyone, then WWI, which scared them even worse, and then, and then....
Although the Tolkien quote on allegory may apply here, that 'people sometimes confuse applicability with allegory.' Maybe vice versa?
Did I mention that it's probably not so much a prediction as it is P.D. James' take on modern selfishness, and the 'you are the things you own' mentality?
Although the Tolkien quote on allegory may apply here, that 'people sometimes confuse applicability with allegory.' Maybe vice versa?
I had no idea James was a Marxist. Isn't she an aristocrat?
I had no idea James was a Marxist. Isn't she an aristocrat?
Are you being funny? (My sarcasm sensors are on the blink.)
Are you being funny? My sarcasm sensors are on the blink.
Marx makes the same kind of critique of identity being conflated with possessions and labor.
Marx makes the same kind of critique of identity being conflated with possessions and labor.
Oh.
(I don't think the caffine in on duty this morning.)
Actually, she is Christian, that Mars Hill podcast I linked to brushes on that. She isn't very public about it at all -- apparently likes to illustrate ideas, textures of good/evil rather than do the ' Jeezus-as-a-nifty/goofy-abstraction' thing.
Think 'Dorthy Sayers meets Flannery O'Connor.' Sort of.
Well, the CW was a pretty big deal, and my sense is that it remained in the back of folks' minds for the next century at least.
Yes, you're right, I wasn't trying to downplay the English Civil War - but what's interesting is that it was one of the few times social change happened here through a revolution or a coup.
Also unlike other nations - the republic was very shortlived. After Cromwells death the monachy was re-instated.
Perhaps it has left us with a huge distrust of utopian futures!
Actually, she is Christian, that Mars Hill podcast I linked to brushes on that. She isn't very public about it at all -- apparently likes to illustrate ideas, textures of good/evil rather than do the ' Jeezus-as-a-nifty/goofy-abstraction' thing.
Think 'Dorthy Sayers meets Flannery O'Connor.' Sort of.
Well, being a Christian isn't incompatible with Marxism; his comments about religion are often pretty practical in nature.
If you think that the death of billions is desirable, I'll have to disagree.
Billions die all the time. They just do it slowly. You must be thinking there will be some kind of Apocalypse... It ain't necessarily so.
Well, being a Christian isn't incompatible with Marxism; his comments about religion are often pretty practical in nature.
I haven't read any of here titles, so I'll have to give that a great big shrug. The analysis seems more towards a moral critique, from a Christian stance; it is a subtle one, though.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...iews/wood.html
(I need to stop Judge Jonesing this issue.)
Except that she is not a fundie but a member of that highly endangered and dwindling species: the true Christian.
Which is why she sounds like a Marxist.
Except that she is not a fundie but a member of that highly endangered and dwindling species: the true Christian.
How could she possibly be a 'true Christian' with all that moralizing and the literal interpretation that Christ is the son of God?
Get your pinchers and the dispersion machine warmed up.
They are permanently heated have no fear.
In this case though they may be unnecessary. Although she is a conservative and somewhat reactionary - she is also a liberal Christian. This is what makes her interesting (or at least tolerable); an awareness of her contradictions - something fundies never have by definition.
Having said that though, one has to agree with the reviewer (Mark Lawson) who said: "when reading James, you do find yourself nostalgic for crack cocaine, anal sex and people calling each other "mutha"'.
Such a funny guy.
High-church Anglican from what I'm copying and pasting. Watch the sharp edges on that Christ thing!
Worth reading in any case -- and before I comment any further.
High-church Anglican from what I'm copying and pasting.
Ah, so she's a Catholic.
/me runs for cover.
Ah, so she's a Catholic.
/me runs for cover.
Heretic! The same stripe as the ones that hung & imprisoned the Puritans!
(When they weren't heading up James' bible translation committee.)