Ribh's D'Coopage

[Aussie-Chookmum]

Shadrach thinks this is an academic style paper that puts foreward an arguement for discussion. It's about culture more than a set in stone version of history. I don't know much about history and I haven't read the references sited.
I got sent the paper because we are having a discussion about the independence movement in Scotland. I'm against the seperation of Scotland from the UK. My objection has nothing to do with liking the way Scotland has been treated by the British Government.
My main objections are these.
Without the Scottish socialists the UK is destined to be run by the privilidged right wing of the Tory party for the forseeable future. The only way this can be changed is with the Scottish and Welsh socialist vote.
I'm not a fan of Nationalism. It seems to me to be divisive rather than inclusive. It usually ends up as not we are different but we are better than the other lot. I haven't seen any evidence to support this.
So, while I'm happy to have cultural roots, I favour a society that permits the expression of such roots in a boader system of government.
The paper goes some way to help support my view.

Sounds eminently sensible to me Shad.

 

[Ribh]

Shadrach thinks this is an academic style paper that puts foreward an arguement for discussion. It's about culture more than a set in stone version of history. I don't know much about history and I haven't read the references sited.
I got sent the paper because we are having a discussion about the independence movement in Scotland. I'm against the seperation of Scotland from the UK. My objection has nothing to do with liking the way Scotland has been treated by the British Government.
My main objections are these.
Without the Scottish socialists the UK is destined to be run by the privilidged right wing of the Tory party for the forseeable future. The only way this can be changed is with the Scottish and Welsh socialist vote.
I'm not a fan of Nationalism. It seems to me to be divisive rather than inclusive. It usually ends up as not we are different but we are better than the other lot. I haven't seen any evidence to support this.
So, while I'm happy to have cultural roots, I favour a society that permits the expression of such roots in a boader system of government.
The paper goes some way to help support my view.

I think we have another idealist for MJ!

 

[Ribh]

Is that our Desdemona? She is sounding so grown up and looks so relaxed on your lap! Adorable.

Yes! She really doesn't seem to mind being handled & made no attempt to escape even though she was perched on my arm & not restrained @ all. She is a quite lovely little hen!

 

[Shadrach]

I think we have another idealist for MJ!

I think I can live with that. After all, it's been the idealists that have brought about some of the better changes in society. The more traditional determinists would still have us tugging our forelocks at a bunch of thieves and murderers.

 

[Shadrach]

I'm so glad you read it. I now feel no need to do so. Thanks for saving me the time!

You're not missing much.

 

[RoyalChick]

Oh goody! Someone who understands why I might find Herodotus questionable.

Well I won't position myself as an expert (trust me on pus and abscesses over Herodotus any day!), but my understanding is he was considered a bit of a 'fabulist' even in his own day, although paradoxically he is also regarded as the first person to take the study of history as a serious thing.
I believe the current view of him is like the curates egg - good in parts - much of his stuff is now considered sound and some of it considered pure myth.
I guess that just gives scholars more to do to confirm or refute what he wrote using other sources. We have now exhausted my knowledge of the topic so I am keen to read the article!

 

[RoyalChick]

She's getting close to being a lap chicken.

Not sure how much more lap-chicken you could imagine! She is gorgeous and very chatty!

 

[Ribh]

Well I won't position myself as an expert (trust me on pus and abscesses over Herodotus any day!), but my understanding is he was considered a bit of a 'fabulist' even in his own day, although paradoxically he is also regarded as the first person to take the study of history as a serious thing.
I believe the current view of him is like the curates egg - good in parts - much of his stuff is now considered sound and some of it considered pure myth.
I guess that just gives scholars more to do to confirm or refute what he wrote using other sources. We have now exhausted my knowledge of the topic so I am keen to read the article!

The author only references Herodotus without qualifying him, which made me leery despite what MJ says about his readership being knowledgeable ~& to quote him without substantiation !!!~ unless I missed something. I had kiddies underfoot & was reading fast. I'm not an expert either but the area I read in is pre~Christian Europe ~ mainly Britain & Herodotus comes up a lot as he's one of the few early sources but to say he's overly accurate would be misleading.

 

[RoyalChick]

I think I can live with that. After all, it's been the idealists that have brought about some of the better changes in society. The more traditional determinists would still have us tugging our forelocks at a bunch of thieves and murderers.

I don't think I can afford the chicken tax that might come with engaging in this debate. And I might end up being thrown off BYC which would make me sad.
That said, I have never understood what a forelock actually is and why tugging it would be 'a thing'.
To quote @featherhead007: I will show myself out now.

 

[rjohns39]

Good evening folks