Prince Harry turns 21

[NJS 4386]

Don't get me wrong, I do realise that the middle classes benefitted from slavery/empire but the upper classes (aka the 'landed gentry') basically only profit from the privilige of owning land. Empire was the biggest land expansion since....well I'd say the Romans n'est-ce pas?

34244[/snapback]

 

 

The landed gentry of the 19th and 20th century were the slave owners of the 17th and 18th century.

[Guest alex]

No. But to take you back to the original point I do think that it would be marginally less 'crass!'

34238[/snapback]

 

You really think the state of one's bank balance should affect one's sensitivity?

34240[/snapback]

 

No...to explain, these people are the descendants of the founding fathers of empire. And empire was bad...mkay. For the spearchuckers etc etc that they were portraying.

 

Thats where a heightened sensitivity to such things might be desirable.

34247[/snapback]

...But unlikely, given the gene pool.

[Rob W 0]

Its crass for several reasons. Most of all because these people are the descendants of the empire builders and owners who directly benefited from slavery. Or do you think all of that wealth quietly diappeared?

 

Then you have the racism angle - as I said "natives" to me in that context would bring to mind stereotypical images of africans with spears. You can argue the semantics of "colonials and natives" to include America etc as you did but I don't believe thats how these people thought of it for one second.

 

Yes I have got a problem with class and privilege and I make no apologies for it. The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me.

34242[/snapback]

 

 

that is the point of course

 

THROUGH BIRTHRIGHT

 

 

I don't think the Dook in Alnwick has done much to justify owning all that land and his dinkie castle

[NJS 4386]

I'm not a Catholic, I don't believe in original sin.  You're making some massive assumptions and I think you've got a chip on your shoulder.

34245[/snapback]

 

So they enjoy the fruits of slavery and exploitation but can't be held responsible for it?

[manc-mag 1]

No. But to take you back to the original point I do think that it would be marginally less 'crass!'

34238[/snapback]

 

You really think the state of one's bank balance should affect one's sensitivity?

34240[/snapback]

 

No...to explain, these people are the descendants of the founding fathers of empire. And empire was bad...mkay. For the spearchuckers etc etc that they were portraying.

 

Thats where a heightened sensitivity to such things might be desirable.

34247[/snapback]

...But unlikely, given the gene pool.

34250[/snapback]

 

 

Precisely my point!

[adios 717]

No. But to take you back to the original point I do think that it would be marginally less 'crass!'

34238[/snapback]

 

You really think the state of one's bank balance should affect one's sensitivity?

34240[/snapback]

 

No...to explain, these people are the descendants of the founding fathers of empire. And empire was bad...mkay. For the spearchuckers etc etc that they were portraying.

 

Thats where a heightened sensitivity to such things might be desirable.

34247[/snapback]

 

We live in a democracy, most or all of us on this board in the 'Occident', we run this world, and how we do it sickens me. I don't tend to blame the great grand children of imperialists. I tend to look a little closer to home.

[manc-mag 1]

Don't get me wrong, I do realise that the middle classes benefitted from slavery/empire but the upper classes (aka the 'landed gentry') basically only profit from the privilige of owning land. Empire was the biggest land expansion since....well I'd say the Romans n'est-ce pas?

34244[/snapback]

 

 

The landed gentry of the 19th and 20th century were the slave owners of the 17th and 18th century.

34248[/snapback]

 

We are agreeing here, right?

[Guest alex]

There seems to be general agreement with a large degree of disagreement over the minutiae of the argument. Which is just about par for the course on here

Edited September 16, 2005 by alex

[80-2 0]

Hmmmmm......so much so that we still have an upper class in the 21st century?

 

Don't get me wrong, I do realise that the middle classes benefitted from slavery/empire but the upper classes (aka the 'landed gentry') basically only profit from the privilige of owning land. Empire was the biggest land expansion since....well I'd say the Romans n'est-ce pas?

34244[/snapback]

 

Its around, but half of it is bankrupt and they don't hold anything like the sway they once did/would've. By death knell, I meant in the longer term. A revolution took place and ambitious sorts from the lower classes seized power, imposing what they saw as logic and rationale upon their surroundings.

 

The thing about the landed-gentry is that the vast majority of their land remained in our scepted isle, whether it was in Northumberland, Perthshire or Shropshire. The only upper classes that remained, prospered and expanded were the ones who started playing the middle classes' game.

 

Also, I don't really like this term being bandied about in quite the way it is being. Its as though its a Hindu-based cast system, as opposed to the reletively fluid entity it actually is. Is anyone here (or anywhere else) going to dare say that the USA doesn't have a class system, including a fully-fledged upper class?

[manc-mag 1]

No. But to take you back to the original point I do think that it would be marginally less 'crass!'

34238[/snapback]

 

You really think the state of one's bank balance should affect one's sensitivity?

34240[/snapback]

 

No...to explain, these people are the descendants of the founding fathers of empire. And empire was bad...mkay. For the spearchuckers etc etc that they were portraying.

 

Thats where a heightened sensitivity to such things might be desirable.

34247[/snapback]

 

We live in a democracy, most or all of us on this board in the 'Occident', we run this world, and how we do it sickens me. I don't tend to blame the great grand children of imperialists. I tend to look a little closer to home.

34255[/snapback]

 

You won't find me disagreeing with the first bit. However I wasn't blaming the great grand children of imperialsts for that. I was saying that it would be marginally more crass that they should have a spearchucking party than say for a group of working class kids. Which, just to clarify, wouldn't be acceptable either.

 

I think you're deliberately misconstruing me here tbh.

[NJS 4386]

Don't get me wrong, I do realise that the middle classes benefitted from slavery/empire but the upper classes (aka the 'landed gentry') basically only profit from the privilige of owning land. Empire was the biggest land expansion since....well I'd say the Romans n'est-ce pas?

34244[/snapback]

 

 

The landed gentry of the 19th and 20th century were the slave owners of the 17th and 18th century.

34248[/snapback]

 

We are agreeing here, right?

34256[/snapback]

 

Yeah you seemed there to be separating the "older" upper classes from slave owners so I was just making the point there was some class mobility over time.

 

The rich were able to buy titles and lands and over time become "respectable"

[Guest alex]

So Harry's a twat? Right?

 

[adios 717]

You won't find me disagreeing with the first bit. However I wasn't blaming the great grand children of imperialsts for that. I was saying that it would be marginally more crass that they should have a spearchucking party than say for a group of working class kids. Which, just to clarify, wouldn't be acceptable either.

 

I think you're deliberately misconstruing me here tbh.

34259[/snapback]

 

I'm really not mate. I just don't think we should expect more money to mean more sensitivity, plus you've taken up a point I was argiung with NJS.

 

And my problem there is I feel he's having a go, with vitriol, at the upper classes in general. Which I find offensive and ironic.

 

misconstruist!

[manc-mag 1]

Hmmmmm......so much so that we still have an upper class in the 21st century?

 

Don't get me wrong, I do realise that the middle classes benefitted from slavery/empire but the upper classes (aka the 'landed gentry') basically only profit from the privilige of owning land. Empire was the biggest land expansion since....well I'd say the Romans n'est-ce pas?

34244[/snapback]

 

Its around, but half of it is bankrupt and they don't hold anything like the sway they once did/would've. By death knell, I meant in the longer term. A revolution took place and ambitious sorts from the lower classes seized power, imposing what they saw as logic and rationale upon their surroundings.

 

The thing about the landed-gentry is that the vast majority of their land remained in our scepted isle, whether it was in Northumberland, Perthshire or Shropshire. The only upper classes that remained, prospered and expanded were the ones who started playing the middle classes' game.

 

Also, I don't really like this term being bandied about in quite the way it is being. Its as though its a Hindu-based cast system, as opposed to the reletively fluid entity it actually is. Is anyone here (or anywhere else) going to dare say that the USA doesn't have a class system, including a fully-fledged upper class?

34258[/snapback]

 

Your point isnt entirely lost on me, but if you're suggesting that Britain is as meritocratic as the States then I'll laugh in your face. That's the basic difference.

[NJS 4386]

You won't find me disagreeing with the first bit. However I wasn't blaming the great grand children of imperialsts for that. I was saying that it would be marginally more crass that they should have a spearchucking party than say for a group of working class kids. Which, just to clarify, wouldn't be acceptable either.

 

Thats also my view to clarify.

 

I also stand by the point that their wonderful education seems to lack some common sense.

[adios 717]

I have to say 80, to say the upper class is dying in the long term is madness.

[NJS 4386]

And my problem there is I feel he's having a go, with vitriol, at the upper classes in general.  Which I find offensive and ironic.

 

Offensive I don't mind - as I said I make no apology for it given their treatment of the north east in particular but why ironic?

[Guest alex]

You won't find me disagreeing with the first bit. However I wasn't blaming the great grand children of imperialsts for that. I was saying that it would be marginally more crass that they should have a spearchucking party than say for a group of working class kids. Which, just to clarify, wouldn't be acceptable either.

 

Thats also my view to clarify.

 

I also stand by the point that their wonderful education seems to lack some common sense.

34266[/snapback]

You see a similar thing with many politicians I suppose: 'well'-educated, intelligent (sometimes anyway) and completely out of touch with reality.

[adios 717]

Mancy - the US is meritocratic? I'm in shock, I would think the UK is more that way but is certainly not enough so.

 

Too many points!

[manc-mag 1]

You won't find me disagreeing with the first bit. However I wasn't blaming the great grand children of imperialsts for that. I was saying that it would be marginally more crass that they should have a spearchucking party than say for a group of working class kids. Which, just to clarify, wouldn't be acceptable either.

 

I think you're deliberately misconstruing me here tbh.

34259[/snapback]

 

I'm really not mate. I just don't think we should expect more money to mean more sensitivity, plus you've taken up a point I was argiung with NJS.

 

And my problem there is I feel he's having a go, with vitriol, at the upper classes in general. Which I find offensive and ironic.

 

misconstruist!

34263[/snapback]

 

You've said that a second time now so you must be deliberately misconstruing me.

 

When have I ever mentioned money=same thing as class? I actually take 80-2's point that many of today's upper class are on the bones of their arses and have nothing like the wealth of many of the middle class.

 

I don't see it as a money thing at all. I see it as a privilige thing-and understanding why you are in that priviliged position in the first place.

[NJS 4386]

You won't find me disagreeing with the first bit. However I wasn't blaming the great grand children of imperialsts for that. I was saying that it would be marginally more crass that they should have a spearchucking party than say for a group of working class kids. Which, just to clarify, wouldn't be acceptable either.

 

Thats also my view to clarify.

 

I also stand by the point that their wonderful education seems to lack some common sense.

34266[/snapback]

You see a similar thing with many politicians I suppose: 'well'-educated, intelligent (sometimes anyway) and completely out of touch with reality.

34271[/snapback]

 

Thats because they're mainly middle/upper class twats

[adios 717]

You see a similar thing with many politicians I suppose: 'well'-educated, intelligent (sometimes anyway) and completely out of touch with reality.

34271[/snapback]

As opposed to the masses - poorly educated, unintelligent and completely out of touch with reality.

 

Just how the system wants us.

[Guest alex]

You see a similar thing with many politicians I suppose: 'well'-educated, intelligent (sometimes anyway) and completely out of touch with reality.

34271[/snapback]

As opposed to the masses - poorly educated, unintelligent and completely out of touch with reality.

 

Just how the system wants us.

34277[/snapback]

Speak for yourself

[adios 717]

Speak for yourself

34278[/snapback]

 

with difficulty...

[80-2 0]

Its crass for several reasons. Most of all because these people are the descendants of the empire builders and owners who directly benefited from slavery. Or do you think all of that wealth quietly diappeared?

 

Then you have the racism angle - as I said "natives" to me in that context would bring to mind stereotypical images of africans with spears. You can argue the semantics of "colonials and natives" to include America etc as you did but I don't believe thats how these people thought of it for one second.

 

Yes I have got a problem with class and privilege and I make no apologies for it. The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me.

34242[/snapback]

 

 

that is the point of course

 

THROUGH BIRTHRIGHT

 

 

I don't think the Dook in Alnwick has done much to justify owning all that land and his dinkie castle

34251[/snapback]

 

Perhaps, but I can't help thinking that all people who say property should revert to the state upon death are arch mentalists.

 

I'm not a Catholic, I don't believe in original sin.  You're making some massive assumptions and I think you've got a chip on your shoulder.

34245[/snapback]

 

So they enjoy the fruits of slavery and exploitation but can't be held responsible for it?

34252[/snapback]

 

You live in the prosperous West because your ancestors sailed off to the Muslim world and sodomised it several times over, helping to wreck the technological/philisophical/etc. lead it had over us at the time. Are you offering reparations?

 

---

 

Preview page shows breaking news...

 

---

 

Your point isnt entirely lost on me, but if you're suggesting that Britain is as meritocratic as the States then I'll laugh in your face. That's the basic difference.

34265[/snapback]

 

In many ways, I'd actually say Britain is more meritocratic. And in other ways, less meritocratic. For my money, its probably too mixed a bag to try and gauge. It also would probably involve a far longer discussion in another thread to try and pin down Are you laughing?

 

I have to say 80, to say the upper class is dying in the long term is madness.

34268[/snapback]

 

Rule #1 in the reading of the past, present and future - Never use absolutes. "Death Knell" was probably the wrong term to use. For general chat its alright, but if we're gonna be more accurate, "given a good kicking" would be a better way to put it. You can get back up from a good kicking. I think one problem we're all having here (or at least, I am) is just what the definition of the Upper Class is. As a result, we may be arguing at cross points. Some (to a large extent, me included) are thinking of the people and culture that does remain, but has been ground down under assaults of varying magnitude for around 300 years, now. Others seem to be thinking of rich people with public school accents - there is a large difference between these two groups.

 

To go back to the "Upper Classes dying" bit, it would be stupidity itself to say such a thing, simply because whenever an upper class does disappear, it is always replaced - nature abhors a vacuum and all that.

 

Edit: This bloody thread isn't easy to keep up with when you're trying to do other things at the same time... Stop posting and wait for me, you bastards.

 

2nd Edit: Fucking deleted my post with that previous fucking edit...

Edited September 16, 2005 by 80-2