Ken Loach wins Palme d'Or

[Donna Ferentes]

As for your remark about "relevance", I'll ignore that. Though it is interesting how you deliberately ignored my point about Edward I (aka "Hammer of the Scots").

You'll note that I was talking about cultural destruction, not invasion.

Incidentally would Edward I have considered himself as English?

I raised "relevance" for the obvious reason that I didn't see what the date of the formal creation of the Empire had to do with it. If you would elaborate?

 

[nino_savatte]

You'll note that I was talking about cultural destruction, not invasion.

Incidentally would Edward I have considered himself as English?

Why don't you ask him that question? He sat on the English throne, what does that tell you?

As for the clearance of the 1690's: these were obviously not the large scale evictions of the 1750's, but they happened nonetheless.

 

[nino_savatte]

We were talking about British imperialism afaik. The British Empire did not exist before 1745.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Why don't you ask him that question? He sat on the English throne, what does that tell you?

It tells me that England was successfully invaded in 1066 by the Normans, Nino. Over time the rulers ceased to regard themselves as Norman and began to consider themselves English (and to speak English instead of Norman French) but I'm not sure whether or not that process was complete by Edward's time. (I think it was, as it goes, but I'm not entirely sure.)

As for the clearance of the 1690's: these were obviously not the large scale evictions of the 1750's, but they happened nonetheless.

I'm going to need some evidence here, both of the "clearances of the 1690s" and the "large-scale evictions of the 1750s". I'm afraid I think you're winging it here.

 

[nino_savatte]

It tells me that England was successfully invaded in 1066 by the Normans, Nino. Over time the rulers ceased to regard themselves as Norman and began to consider themselves English (and to speak English instead of Norman French) but I'm not sure whether or not that process was complete by Edward's time. (I think it was, as it goes, but I'm not entirely sure.)

I'm going to need some evidence here, both of the "clearances of the 1690s" and the "large-scale evictions of the 1750s". I'm afraid I think you're winging it here.

My how patronising, but true to form nonetheless. I'm "winging" nothing. In fact you may just as well calll me a "liar" for what it's worth. I intend to find the information btw but I am not here to give up my day for your benefit.

I think you're being unnecessarily pedantic (for the sake of it) in your first paragraph. Regardless of what he saw himself as, Edward I ruled a country called "England" and it was this country that invaded both Wales and Scotland.

 

[nino_savatte]

You missed my point about British imperialism, Donna...pourquoi?

 

[siarc]

after a few posts these digressions lose any relevance they may have had and degenerate into oneupmanship

henry the 2nd and all that
fenian bastards
fuck off
william of orange

aaablaecgh

 

[siarc]

surely english imperialism is inherent in british imperialism, it's just semantics

(now i get digressed)

 

[nino_savatte]

surely english imperialism is inherent in british imperialism, it's just semantics

(now i get digressed)

Not really. The concept of Britishness was constructed in the late 18th/early 19th century, once the Act of Union had been 'agreed' between Britain and Ireland.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

My how patronising, but true to form nonetheless. I'm "winging" nothing. In fact you may just as well calll me a "liar" for what it's worth. I intend to find the information btw but I am not here to give up my day for your benefit.

Well, like I say, I think you're winging it. I think you're unsure of your facts but don't want to admit it. I do, as it happens, know a little about this subject and I'm not really in a position to accept that you know more unless you can demonstrate it rather more clearly that you have done.

I think you're being unnecessarily pedantic (for the sake of it) in your first paragraph. Regardless of what he saw himself as, Edward I ruled a country called "England" and it was this country that invaded both Wales and Scotland.

And so it was: and you'll note that it's not something I considered fuundamental because I mentioned that he may very well have thought himself English. It was something of a digression, but one that might be helpful in establishing historical accuracy, which is a point at issue here.

It remains true though, that despite defeating Scotland militarily and causing much destruction en route, he did not try to destroy a people culturally. I think that this is a process not seen in the British Isles - certainly not systematically - until the penal laws against Irish Catholics which I believe predate the similar processes in Scotland. (Indeed, it is possible that the Scottish process was modelled in some senses on the Irish experience.)

 

[Donna Ferentes]

surely english imperialism is inherent in british imperialism, it's just semantics

Not entirely, but it's true to say that it's a continuation thereof rather than something different.

 

[siarc]

this is just historiographical reification

if america formally annexed prince edward island and declared the combined entity to be 'shitfuck' would this create a new discrete 'shitfuckian' empire

the only difference is probably that scottish 'british' people as well as english people colonised ireland

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Indeed so.

 

[siarc]

this should be bigger news in the UK
the palme d'or has been awarded to some awful films in the past but it's still a very notable award, and for any other european country it would be far more of an event if one of their filmmakers won it, whatever their political affiliations

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, like I say, the Spanish news was full of Almodovar for days because they thought he was going to win it!

Compare Loach's profile with all the crap you get when some Brit gets nominated for an Oscar.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, like I say, I think you're winging it. I think you're unsure of your facts but don't want to admit it. I do, as it happens, know a little about this subject and I'm not really in a position to accept that you know more unless you can demonstrate it rather more clearly that you have done.

And so it was: and you'll note that it's not something I considered fuundamental because I mentioned that he may very well have thought himself English. It was something of a digression, but one that might be helpful in establishing historical accuracy, which is a point at issue here.

It remains true though, that despite defeating Scotland militarily and causing much destruction en route, he did not try to destroy a people culturally. I think that this is a process not seen in the British Isles - certainly not systematically - until the penal laws against Irish Catholics which I believe predate the similar processes in Scotland. (Indeed, it is possible that the Scottish process was modelled in some senses on the Irish experience.)

Ah, you would accuse me of being "unsure of my facts" but that's hardly surprising given that you regard yourself as my intellectual superior.

I will return with the information and then let's see how you deal with it. Will you patronise me or will you try and split hairs in typical pednatic fashion as you have here?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

My response is likely to be determined by the nature and quality of the information with which I am presented.

Do, however, try not to invoke "pedantry" over matters of historical accuracy. It was you yourself who made an issue of which events preceded which: if you are asked to justify it then to claim this is pedantry is really a little unfortunate.

 

[nino_savatte]

My response is likely to be determined by the nature and quality of the information with which I am presented.

Do, however, try not to invoke "pedantry" over matters of historical accuracy. It was you yourself who made an issue of which events preceded which: if you are asked to justify it then to claim this is pedantry is really a little unfortunate.

PMSL!!!! You may not like the charge of pedantry but it is accurate in your case.

Don't worry, I will return but I expect you to treat to more of your condescension.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I shall try to oblige you, sir.

 

[phildwyer]

Not really. The concept of Britishness was constructed in the late 18th/early 19th century, once the Act of Union had been 'agreed' between Britain and Ireland.

I think you'll find that the concept of 'Britishness was invented to rationalize the Act of Union between England and *Scotland* (1707) rather than between England and Ireland (1800). As a Scot yourself, Nino, I am surprised that you do not seem prepared to acknowledge this.

 

[siarc]

this is exactly what the thread needs
(the contribution is valid and pertinent, but the ensuing shitstorm won't be)

 

[phildwyer]

this is exactly what the thread needs
(the contribution is valid and pertinent, but the ensuing shitstorm won't be)

I predict that there will be no 'shitstorm.' Nino will of course politely and humbly admit his error. As he usually does.

 

[nino_savatte]

I predict that there will be no 'shitstorm.' Nino will of course politely and humbly admit his error. As he usually does.

Trust you to stick your oar in...but you never admit to your errors, do you phil? In fact, according to you, you're always right.

Pot-kettle-black, dwyer.

 

[phildwyer]

Trust you to stick your oar in...but you never admit to your errors, do you phil? In fact, according to you, you're always right.

OK, I must now admit that I erred in imagining that Nino would admit that he had erred.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Errare humanum est

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you'll find that the concept of 'Britishness was invented to rationalize the Act of Union between England and *Scotland* (1707) rather than between England and Ireland (1800). As a Scot yourself, Nino, I am surprised that you do not seem prepared to acknowledge this.

Hardly, the concept of Britishness couldn't be fully realised until Ireland was brought into the fold.

For someone who likes to present himself as everyone's intellectual superior, I'm surprised that you overlooked that.

 

[nino_savatte]

OK, I must now admit that I erred in imagining that Nino would admit that he had erred.

You're riding on Donna's coattails, phil. Have you no shame?

 

[Groucho]

"Accessible"-a loaded word.People are more sophisticated than they are given credit for.Take Surrealism.This is supposed to be high brow and only understood by intellectuals.However surrealism has been coopted by advertising in a big way.Look at the B&H and Silk Cut ads for example.Companies wouldnt spend millions on ads if they werent "accessible".

This deserves its own thread. Surrealist imagery and surrealist tricks have been co-opted by the advertising industry. But the Surrealist method and the various Surrealist aims have not. These adverts work on a somewhat different level to that intended by the Surrealists (as do a number of Dali paintings).

Surrealism has been criticised as how brow and only understood by intellectuals. Surrealism did not aim to be so. They co-opted popular culture, such as the Fantomas novels, into the Surrealist universe, and rejected the idea of the high brow. Surrealism today is looked at by Art Historians in the context of the surrealist influence on such things as adverts. The (complex and often somewhat contradictory) politics of Surrealism are neglected. Yet Surrealism was from the beginning a revolutionary movement and its history and relevence needs to be understood not just by reference to Freud but also to Marx.

I am not saying that Surrealism can only be enjoyed on an intellectual and knowledge based level. That would defeat the object. But the revolutionary edge is somewhat robbed from Surrealism almost before it gets into the gallery.

 

[nino_savatte]

Oh, Donna, I haven't forgotten...just in case you thought I was lying or trying to escape...and Prebble...

 

[Sid's Snake]

It sounds like a minor Loach...

Marie Antoniette should have won it, its fucking brilliant