I have some experience with revolutions, partly because Portugal never believes a thing worth doing is worth doing only once. I get PTSD at the sound of Green Acres because Porto had one reel in its local broadcast station. Green Acres. When Lisbon got cut off, they played it back to back. This meant that someone had taken over the main broadcasting station in Lisbon.
(Okay, here I should explain that Portugal had two broadcast stations. Yes, I had a deprived childhood. [Yes. I spelled that right. I’m quite sure it’s an I.] Only one of them broadcast during the day at all, and that limited hours. So usually my experience was come home from school and watch something on lunch break and… ack… Green Acres. I wonder who is in now.)
For those who wonder why I’m “obsessive about my Portuguese background” – I’m not, but this kind of childhood experiences mark a person. I think this is why I’ve always been fascinated by revolutions. The ones that go right. The ones that go wrong. And the ones that go very wrong.
I read obsessively about the French revolution, the American revolution, the Russian revolution, and other, less obvious, revolutions. Like… The industrial revolution, or even the agricultural revolution.
Societies don’t change easily. People don’t change easily. Societies are worse than that. They’re slow to change like dinosaurs whose signal has to travel from head to tail and if it’s in full careen, it’s going to take a while to stop, let alone turn around.
One of the things I’ve noticed, in recent times, is that revolutions have another issue, particularly social revolutions of the non-bloody kind. Knowing you’ve won. Knowing it’s now, not thirty or fifty or seventy years ago.
Often when I’m talking to people, particularly people of an academic bend, I find myself wondering what world they’re talking about. It’s the silly little things, like “Oh, a woman would never dare say/do that,” when I saw women do it just that morning. Or “the neighborhood will get upset if there’s a non married couple” – what, like that one, that one and, oh, yeah, that one?
I will grant you that every once in a while, one comes across a person or persons who seem to be a blast from the stereotypical past, but my kids schools’ have more trouble with unwanted pregnancies than with girls being sent home to put on a longer skirt.
One of these effects of “delayed realization you won” keeps annoying me. Lately there have been any number of women writers complaining that they’re not proportionally represented as science fiction writers. They’re not being taken seriously and this is because they have vaginas. Etc. etc. etc.
Now, I’ve been this field for ten years as a published author. First of all let me get out of the way that there are some prejudices in this field, usually evinced by people you wouldn’t expect. For instance, I was pushed rather strongly fantasyward, in part because I had the v word. (Yes, verve.) And a friend of mine who is a physicist, was told that she should write fantasy, not science fiction, because she was a woman and therefore had the heart of a fantasy writer. (To which Rebecca Lickiss answered that yes, but it was in a locked drawer, and besides the statute of limitations had expired.)
There are other, more subtle prejudices. Some people told me they never read women writers, because they can’t write action. Weirdly, when they read me, they have no problems. I don’t worry about it. I just wait till they come around.
And btw, any male writing in romance or a romance-germane field, like certain forms of urban fantasy gets the opposite pressure, I’m sure. It’s all part of no one having a perfect life, and other people having certain expectations. My husband, for instance, had trouble placing his space opera (still hasn’t) because it’s character development oriented. (Yes, he actually got rejected by someone who told him it read too much like Bujold. No, I’m not joking.)
However, claims that women are discriminated against in fantasy always make me laugh. And claims that women as writers are discriminated against make me laugh even harder. And then there’s the post at MGC two days ago, and the comments – my Lord, the comments. Part of what got to me was seeing my friend Dave Freer getting attacked for making a perfectly reasonable and polite comment. Well, I was brought up to think part of my job was to give voice to those who didn’t have one, whether they be battered women in Portugal or silenced and demonized males in the US.
First let me establish there was a time I called myself a feminist. This is because I believed in the equality of women. I still do.
This doesn’t mean that women should be exactly the same as men. Or that they should behave exactly the same way. In fact, any such notions were pretty much dispelled by the time I came of age in the seventies. The average man and the average woman are very different creatures. And I strenuously object to such things as the fire fighters tests being rewritten so that you don’t need to do a fireman carry to pass. OTOH I heavily endorse any woman who is able to pass non “rewritten” tests being a fire fighter if she so wishes. And that’s because the median of anything is not the only person – there’s also the extremes. For instance, bad as I am at spacial reasoning (sad that) I am miles better than some males (okay, none that I’ve met, but I’m sure there are some. Maybe they were hit really hard on the head.) In fact I pretty much occupy the far outlier extremes of a bunch of categories (and I’m not saying which extreme.) As such, I am sympathetic with outliers. And I think letting people do what best suits them, without judgement, censure or barriers is best for everyone.
I believe in equality before the law not equality of results.
I still believe the same things, but I’m not calling myself a feminist, partly because the word has gotten corrupted. A lot of people seem to think the only way to elevate women is to degrade men. Others seem to be on a permanent hunt for offense, including attacking perfectly innocent words – no, history does NOT mean his-story. Please, study some linguistics.
This is many flavors of wrong, for many reasons, but the main reason is that it leads to a sort of permanent revolution. This reminds me of when the French revolution had got rid of every aristocrat either through beheading or immigration and had started attacking as aristos people who could read. Or people who dressed better than the others. Or people who used the word “roi.”
This is the sign of a revolution that has become its own reason to exist, and which will consume its own partisans, until it all ends in a sea of blood or until it’s stopped at last by a “strong man” of some sort, and suppressed for good. And at that point no one complains, because, frankly, it’s a relief.
Part of what disturbs me about this is that the justification for the “permanent revolution” is that we “could lose all the gains tomorrow.” You know, like if we don’t jump behind the latest harebrained “offense” campaign, next thing you know we’ll end woman suffrage (and good riddance, women have suffered enough! – Yes, yes, it’s a joke. And yes, I’m aware there is no joking in feminism. Another reason I no longer use that word.)
But the advances are fragile in another way. Much as I hate to say this, women’s gains rest on two things – one of them is safe contraceptives. The other is a stable western civilization. (No, I’m not even going to argue that. You want to live anywhere else in the world, be my guest. I wouldn’t, though.) And both of them can be lost more easily than you think.
Western civilization can be demoralized and subverted from within by a contingent of males who feel like women exist to punish them. Males who have been treated as criminals or morons or both from kindergarten on. Males whose education and employment figures, if reversed (i.e. if women had the same stats men have in the US today) would be a real offense and a call for investigations and remedies. Males who, btw, have never discriminated against anyone (most of them, at least) and whose fathers and, for that matter probably grandfathers, never discriminated against anyone.
These males can very easily see how women are treated in the rest of the world and, if pushed enough, form a concerted effort to subvert the current rules of behavior. (And no they haven’t done it yet. They haven’t even THOUGHT of doing it, yet. Again, don’t get me started. I lived in a country that is Western but only just. I know what discrimination is better than most people my age or even slightly older.)
I love the women who say it’s just the way the pendulum is swinging and that it’s right for it to go to far in the direction of privileging women. Let me enlighten you – if this is a pendulum, it’s one that has men as its favorites. Men are physically stronger and more aggressive. Any devolution from civilization to barbarism, or even any prolonged disruption in the economy that, oh, say, interrupts the production of contraceptives, and men will have to be very, very good not to be in charge. And if you’ve been pushing your little pendulum with glee and joy, don’t be surprised if they push it as far as they can the other way, till you’re in a world out of your worst nightmares.
You’ve won the revolution. Do you know what the mark of a GOOD revolutionary is? He knows when to put down his musket and go back to his farm. He knows when to shake hands with his neighbor who was on the other side. He knows when to make his rule so just, so fair that no one would contemplate returning to the former rule.
And he does not look for counter revolutionaries under ever bush and hallucinate that the war is still ongoing. Because then they just lock him up and beg the old regime to take over once more. Or start looking around for a Bonaparte.
Since I and my sons and my potential grandsons and maybe even granddaughters have to live in this world too, I beg you to come to your senses.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdT9oq7VBDA
According To Hoyt 
As a guy, one thing that really annoys me is the concept of “male privilige”. IE just by being male I have some sort of advantage over women. I’ve been known to ask “where do I get it as I’ve don’t seem to have it”. [Sad Smile]
LikeLike
Paul, when you find where to get this so-called “male privilege”, please let me know. I haven’t found it, either.
Sarah, another excellent post!
LikeLike
Great post Sarah,
His-story is bad enough, don’t get me started on the so-called ‘reporter’ we had on our college paper who was a black lesbian radical feminist. She tried to insist we write ‘women’ as ‘womyn’ so it wouldn’t be degrading to her — and kept turning in her stories written that way.
Then we could get into the current popular stereotypes of men as bumbling idiots whom only their wives could possibly love and then only because they keep bailing them out.
I think women today are dying for strong men. I think most women LIKE strong, capable men who ACT like men. It makes them feel like a woman. It makes them feel loved and safe. It’s what we as men were designed to do whether you believe God did it or evolution.
LikeLike
“I think women today are dying for strong men.”
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve recently started reading genre romance (to familiarize myself with the field as I have a story concept leaning in that direction), particularly “paranormal romance.”
So far, that’s exactly what I’ve seen–strong, capable women, pairing up with strong, capable men. Capable in different ways, generally, but no weaklings in the bunch. Vegas prosecutor and her hotel and casino owning boyfriend who is also president of the “vampire nation,” guardian of magical beings and things and her shape-changing “earth spirit” boyfriend, half faery hermit (hermitess?) and her time-traveling highland warrior boyfriend. Not a weakling in the lot.
(Thank you whoever it was who suggested checking out the short list for the “Rita” awards.)
LikeLike
Sometimes you wonder if human doesn’t equal idiot.
Men aren’t women and women aren’t men. Each is lesser without the other. And if things do break down, and some pack of feckless idiots decides to try and turn things back to the way things were, men will loose out as badly as women will.
Any man who thinks differently is an idiot, who needs to have a two by four applied to his noggin vigorously.
Wayne
LikeLike
David, one of my favorite strong woman-strong man couple’s is J D Robb’s Eve Dallas and Roarke. They are quite a team-up. [Grin]
LikeLike
Oh, how I agree! The problem I’ve seen with the feminist movement (which applies to just about any movement) is that a lot of women did put down their muskets, shook hands with the neighbors, and went out into the job world. The ones who didn’t are the ones who had nothing else in their lives but agitating, who are often seriously dysfunctional people who can’t bear to admit that their problems are themselves, so they turn it outward – it’s not my fault, it’s YOU (fill in gender, race, social class, whatever the hated YOU happens to be).
Thanks for these posts – I only discovered you recently, but I’m thoroughly enjoying reading.
LikeLike
I’ve scant problem with sexual equality, it’s the “some are more equal than others” coterie that bores me. That, and the fact that so few people seem to understand what a Bell Curve actually means about populations and inability of hectoring hags of whatever gender to comprehend the distinction between meaningful and meaningless qualifications (e.g., the ability to carry an unconscious person or hold a fire hose on target = meaningful; ability to extinguish a fire through urination = meaningless.)
Nor am I particularly fond of those who employ gender to disqualify arguments in lieu of rebutting, e.g., “you don’t have a womb so you don’t get an opinion on how they’re employed.”
But I think the worst problem of revolutionaries is the one you’ve cited: the inability to let go and accept victory. In part this is because organizations — such as revolutionary cells — tend to be stocked by their most fanatical members (everybody else having actual lives) who naturally push the extreme and, deriving much of their identity from their revolutionary stance, are least capable of lowering their voices.
As for the rather peculiar view that an author’s gender (actually, the proper term is “sex” but these days too many folk think “gender” is proper and I’m tired of butting heads with sheep over it) … ahem; an author’s gender affects the type of writing they (should) do. This is an obvious absurdity to anyone who has given the matter a moment’s reflection because it should be obvious that the far more significant factor affecting their writing is whether their dominant hand is the Right or the Left. Right-handed authors, among other things, tend to use fewer vowels in their writing, and those vowels they do use are predominantly “I” and “O” — and they use somewhat more adverbs because of the “L” and “Y” keys being placed to their dominant hand.
Sadly, I won’t be surprised if this eventually becomes viewed as a sensible argument, with learned papers debating the effects of “Left-brain” versus “Right-brain” in authors’ use of language and ability to communicate complex technical thought.
LikeLike
“actually, the proper term is ‘sex’ but these days too many folk think ‘gender is proper and I’m tired of butting heads with sheep over it”
_Thank_ you. “Gender” is a grammatical term. “Sex” is a biological one. Words have Gender. People and animals have sex.
LikeLike
Weirdly, what stops me on that is NOT the political correctness, but in this age, when even regency romances are sex soaked, sentences like “People and animals have sex” become unintentional double entendres. One way my mind went was “Well, yes. Otherwise there would be fewer of them.” The other one was “What? Together? WHERE are you from?” And that’s the main reason, I think, that I stopped doing it.
It’s like my husband whom I’m forcing to read Heyer (poor man. Toni told me to study Heyer for plotting. She was right, so I’m sharing. But I have less trouble with “time bound language” than he does, because I read a lot of archaic English and compared to that Heyer is easy. However, my husband) just about lost it when he hit the sentence in Sylvester “He wasn’t inclined to fondling his nephew.” Which, you know… nowadays would be a “thank heavens.”)
LikeLike
Amen, SH; the things people inflict on words these days! I just recently read a Brit column on a politician’s use of “fulsome” —
in a way which strongly suggests she doesn’t know the word’s actual meaning (in fairness, I might have made the same error even though I’ve acquired, through dint of much reading and crossword puzzling, an extraordinarily broad vocab and appreciation of precision in word choice.)
These days the world is full of words the use of which invites misunderstandings and giggling. In The Hobbit we learn that something “always made Bilbo feel a little queer”, every Christmas we sing about donning “our gay apparel.” In recent years a politician was hounded from office for the use of the word “niggardly” and I have had posted comment censored for using the word “snigger” (I learned it from My Fair Lady; how was I to suspect it would go down badly?)
Just as with revolutionaries must learn to accept victory, those of us manning the linguistic ramparts must eventually concede lost ground and abandon our Fort Zinderneufs.
LikeLike
Or in C. S. Lewis’s Narnia book “The Silver Chair” Jill, a pre-teen girl “made love to everybody.”
LikeLike
so does Mr. Whickam in Pride and Prejudice…
LikeLike
RES,
PLEASE warning when you’re going to go into Dave Freer funny — the right, left hand thing. I managed to swallow before spraying the monitor, though, so you’re in luck.
LikeLike
My apologies – at times my sense of humour is so dry even I don’t realise I’ve made a joke. As Beloved Spouse keeps reminding: in cyberspace nobody can see your eyes twinkle.
LikeLike
*I* would like to know when this Bujold-like thing might wind up being published — is self-publishing in the cards? For I do like a good space opera now and then.
LikeLike
well, now it’s been fifteen years and he refuses to let it out of his hands till he does a good rewrite. Which is scheduled for this winter, after he unwinds my labyrinthine taxes. Egging him on now and then wouldn’t be bad. He’s a way better writer than I, but he has a different full time job, because someone in this family has to have a regular paycheck.
LikeLike
*eggs Mr. Hoyt on in the rewrite, after the tax-untangling*
:)
LikeLike
You spoke of a “good revolutionary” and most of the examples you gave were of revolutions that went horribly wrong. Yet some revolutions like the American one went brilliantly right. Francis Schaeffer said this was because theists make better revolutionaries than atheists. As a bible thumping Baptist, I’m inclined to agree. But I think that even non-bible thumping non-Baptists can agree that something must transcend My Party and Your Party. When the movement is ultimate nothing can check the revolutionary’s passions, nothing can serve as the basis for shaking hands with his neighbor who was on the other side. Once upon a time, the US Constitution served as a Bigger Thing we all subordinated partisan interests to. If we’re going to preserve our civil society, we’ll need to find something larger than all our partisan interests.
LikeLike
This revolution goes all ways at once. But the part I’m writing now goes about like the American revolution. It’s a worldwide “revolution”. As it propagates it changes character. Um… rather like the American revolution sparked the horribly, horribly wrong French revolution. Oh, wait. You’re talking about the post, not what I’m writing. Yes, my head is in weird places. Yes, this revolution is starting to go horribly wrong. Yes, the better model is the American revolution. I DON’T think it has anything to do with religion. (And I am very seriously religious, though not Baptist and these days a little odd) I think it was a near-miraculous concatenation of events and men. I agree with the constitution serving bigger interests. I don’t agree with the need to get past partisan interests. Part of the way the system is designed is for groups to thwart each other. I do think it’s time to consider an elected body whose sole job is to repeal laws by simple majorty, though. And I thinkt he collectivist vampire needs to have a stake through the heart and be buried six feet deep. Alas, it won’t happen. It’s designed into us by our small-group past that those who have more must be taking more, not that they produced it. To the lizard brain, enforced equality makes sense. I wish we’d stop listening to the lizards.
(And I apologize for the foot in politics. I’m very tired, I’ve done a lot of revision/refocus work and it’s late. I shall post something nice in the morning. (No IDEA what. :) )
LikeLike
Steve, this may be getting into Politics but the main difference between the American Revolution and other revolutions is that the governmential systems of the Colonies didn’t change.
The American Colonies had basicly been ruling themselves with little input from the British Government.
We rebelled when the British government started to tell us that we had to pay more attention to what they wanted us to do than what we chose to do.
After we won, we had to figure out how the new States would work together.
LikeLike
Yes, the Amercian Revolution wasn’t really a revolution – no government was overthrown, the American government was well-established and just cut ties with the overseas one. In fact, it was the American government that declared independence in the first place.
All real revolutions fail – either the old regime is back, or the new regime evolves into something as bad or worse than the old regime (I’m only counting governmental revolutions here, not social ones). I was so disappointed as a kid when I discovered this, reading history.
LikeLike
That is NOT PRECISELY true, though it can be sold that way. The structure for self government existed in America, as it did in England, btw, but the revolution was real. (Some echoes of the English revolution, too, which, of course, failed… for a time at least.) I recommend reading books more than fifty years old. It seems there’s a lot of investment into making believe it wasn’t real, these days. The “world turned upside down” was quite real. I don’t have the space/time to discuss it now, sorry, though it will probably be revisited as a blog post.
LikeLike
Well, if you want to call the amazing idea that people could govern themselves, without a divine hereditary ruler, a revolution, I’m with you there. ^_^
LikeLike
Or even that the people do NOT need an aristocracy, nor an enlightened group or even any elite of any sort — that not only WAS a pretty radical idea, it still is.
LikeLike
I need a like button in this here blog.
LikeLike
Couple of points:
1) “The Constitution” is actually the second constitution the United States had, the first one being a miserable failure. Check out Articles of Confederation which is what the Tea Party seems to believe is still in effect.
2) The American Revolution succeeded because the British were distracted elsewhere, and because the French were willing to ship the Americans a lot of muskets. Without the French arms supply, the Americans would have lost.
3) A lot of Canadians wouldn’t call the American Revolution a good one, since a lot of us escaped over the border with only the clothes we were wearing. That’s why we fought so damned hard in the War of 1812, and why there were cheers when we burned Washington D.C.
It’s fun looking at definitions. Often what looks perfectly sane and rational is anything but when you change one minor factor.
Wayne
LikeLike
The Articles of Confederation were a “miserable failure”? Really? How can they have been when they united the thirteen colonies and allowed for the running of the newly formed nation during a time of war and afterwards? Sure there were problems with it that needed to be corrected. But to call them a miserable failure is painting with a very broad brush. Perhaps you should quit looking at things through your rose colored Canadian glasses and consider historical fact impartially. Just a thought.
As for what the tea party is or isn’t doing, I suggest you quit relying on what the media says and actually do some research. Since you don’t offer any specifics on what you believe the tea parties want that might be in the Articles but not in the Constitution, I can’t address that. However, state’s rights, the right to own guns, the right to taxation with representation, the right to limit the power of any of the three branches of government (we call it checks and balances, btw) are all in the constitution.
As for how the Revolution succeeded, yes and no. But add in the distance needed to be covered by the British and the logistical hardships that included. Did the factors you cited speed up the process, almost surely. But they were not, in and of themselves, deciding factors. Again, you paint with a very broad brush.
I wonder if you would feel the same way if the tables were turned and Quebec suddenly decided to break away and received help from another country in their fight for independence. Would your descendants like it when someone came up to them and talked about how their ancestors cheered when the Canadian capital was burned by the fighters for Quebec and its allies?
As for changing a factor to make something that otherwise looked sane insane isn’t an exercise in historical thinking. Nor does it address anything Sarah posted about, imo. Especially not when you make broad statements without proofs or supporting evidence. I could get more specific but I still haven’t had enough coffee and, frankly, I don’t want to get any deeper into politics than I already have on Sarah’s blog without permission.
LikeLike
It is always “amazing” to hear how non-Americans are so sure about American politics.
You really don’t know what the Tea Party movement is all about.
The Tea Party movement are people that believe that the current Federal government is spending too much money on things that are not the responsiblity of the Federal Government.
They (and I) believe that the Federal Government has expanded in ways that the writers of the US Constitution (not the Articles of Confederation) would not approve of.
The Liberals talk about a Living Constitution which really means that they can do anything they approve of and that there are no limits to the Power of the Federal Government as long as *they* want it.
LikeLike
Wayne, The Constitution is what we talk about because it’s The Constitution. The Articles of Confederation (duh!) weren’t a Constitution, they were a treaty between sovereign states. I studied the Articles and the Constitution all through grade school and high school. So have my kids. The Articles have *zero* to do with the country now, but they are a part of our country’s history. [Looks at clock. In MDT, in 12 minutes, it will actually be Constitution Day in the USA. Cool!]
The TEA Party wants to return to the Constitution. I don’t know where you get off thinking that a) nobody but Canuks know about the Articles of Confederation; and b) the TEA Party is ignorant of them but wants to return to them. I can tell you, flat out, that you are W.R.O.N.G. on both counts.
Those folk who scurried across the border with the clothes on their backs? They were *enemy* *sympathizers* and were lucky they weren’t tarred and feathered for helping lead the British to the families of “traitors”; and pointing out “traitors” property that could be stolen or destroyed. You’re welcome to them. I would suggest their blood breeds true, at least in the cities. I know a lot of rural Canadians ::waves to BigFootNeil:: who are very much kindred spirits.
The French helped the Americans by selling them armaments. The British hired mercenaries — Hessians — to fight for them because they couldn’t be bothered by the upstarts with straw in their clothes ::supercillious sniff::. I’d rather buy what I need from a friend than hire paid thugs to beat up on people for me. But that’s just me. You can find your heroes where you want to. (BTW, a goodly portion of those Hessians became American citizens after the war. Seems they found out that the Pennsylvania Dutch were actually *Deutsch* [English was a second language, and not all that common])
So, to recap:
1) Wayne has no understanding of what’s taught in American schools about the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Wayne has even less understanding of what the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is about.
2) Wayne thinks mercenaries are far superior to allies, and America should thank it’s lucky stars (and stripes?) that England was so “distracted” it hired the best mercenaries in the world and sent them here by the thousands. I have one word for you, Wayne: Treton.
3) Wayne thinks that our revolution was “bad” because a bunch of traitorous SOBs who were banking on England winning turned tail and ran for Canada when we won. Good. Riddance. See, Wayne, it’s like this. You want to purify metal, you heat it up and all the junk raises to the top. You skim that off and throw it out, and what’s left will make good steel (or pure gold, or whatever). The word is “dross”. Definitions *are* fun, aren’t they? Good metal down here, dross up there.
Oh, adn about all that hootin’ and hollerin’ when the White House was burned? Hope you had a good party. Cuz, what do you know, we beat Y’ALL *again*! Twice in twenty years. And I bet even more of that dross hit the border the second time :-)
LikeLike
I’m going by the Tea Party’s arguments. What they seem to want has nothing to do with the Constitution as written, and sounds more like the Articles of Confederation as written.
Mind I’m only going by what they say. They could be lying.
I think that we got the good metal, and you got stuck with the dross. I’m basing this on respective performances of our countries over the last 150 years (since Canada didn’t exist before that). Canada has always been relatively stable. The United States goes from one crisis to another. I’ll stick with stability.
Wayne
LikeLike
“I’m going by the Tea Party’s arguments. What they seem to want has nothing to do with the Constitution as written, and sounds more like the Articles of Confederation as written.”
Such as?
“I’ll stick with stability.”
There’s another word for stability: “stagnation.” But if that’s your standard of “performance” you are welcome to it.
LikeLike
Wayne, again, you make blanket statements without giving any substance. You’re only going “by what they say. They could be lying.” Examples? Until you decide to back your so-called arguments up with facts or cites, don’t get upset when people come back at you calling BS.
As for Canada getting the “good metal” and the U.S. getting the “dross”, gee, I am sooo glad you are proud of your country. But let’s look at these so-called crises. The Civil War I’ll give you. But you guys also have the issue of Quebec. If Canada is so wonderful and so fair, why hasn’t it been given its independence? Oh, wait, that’s like asking why Northern Ireland isn’t independent yet.
Then the Depression. Gee, that didn’t hit just the U.S. The ’60’s? Again, not just in the U.S. Civil Rights? All over and there are still parts of the world that are struggling for them.
I’ll give you stability for the innovation, advancement and — despite a few trips here and there — the growth of the U.S. As another poster said, I’ll take innovation and progress over stagnation any day of the week.
LikeLike
No Wayne, the Tea Party movement isn’t lying. You just don’t understand American Politics, the US Constitution or anything else about the US.
As for our “crisises”, we’ve survived them when people like you said that the US was doomed.
Of course, we also are able to defend ourselves against any enemy. You’ve depended on “Big Brother” to defend you (either Britain or the US).
LikeLike
Just curious, who and when?
Wayne
LikeLike
Hey, Wayne, it’s a little odd seeing you asking for proof when you fail to give any basis for the comments you through out as proof. Just saying.
LikeLike
I heard it first in the 1990’s and I sure there may have been people saying it earlier.
LikeLike
David,
The Tea Party (or certain segments of it) have been arguing the the United States is a Christian nation, and that the Constitution says that it is. There is nothing in the Constitution that refers to Christ. The Articles of Confederation are loose enough that you could try to bend them in that way.
Canada has combined stability and innovation. We didn’t have a bank crisis that wiped out most of our home owners value. At the same time we’ve had companies producing a wide range of new technologies. Canada’s High Tech sector is one of the best in the world per capita. For back up on my statements I’ll refer you to the CIA World Fact Book entry on Canada.
Paul,
Not from anyone who you’d take seriously. I’ll admit that I have my concerns about your country at the present time. It appears to be politically unstable. Any country with only two parties is going to be unstable. For stability you need at least three legs on a device. American politics only has two legs.
And it is designed that way. Did you know that there have been laws passed which make it nearly impossible for a third party to get onto the ballot in many states? There is no benefit to the voters if the system blocks democracy from working.
Amanda,
Why do you think that Quebec is an issue in Canada. Have you ever visited Quebec, and tasted the vibrant culture?
I write a lot of political columns. I’m one of the few people who called for the New Democratic Party to get over a hundred seats in the House of Commons (I may be the only person, I don’t know, I don’t count coup).
What we are seeing in Canada is a huge demographics shift. Come the next election in 2015, the Conservative Party of Canada will be unable to sustain a majority government, even with our antiquated “First Past the Post” system. Too many of their core voters will be dead.
Your Republicans are facing a similar problem. As the oldsters die off, they loose their base, and their electability. At which point they have to reinvent themselves.
It should be interesting comparing the paths that the two parties take to try to remain alive.
Wayne
LikeLike
Wayne,
“Christian Nation” has many possible meanings. One, quite simply is that the majority of the culture is and/or has been Christian and values derived from Christianity permeate it. Another meaning is one where Christian theology is encoded into law. Most of the “tea party” folk to whom I have spoken (I am not one–they are entirely too naive for my tastes) use the expression in the former sense which, quite frankly, is pretty unequivocally true. They are generally portrayed by the media, however, as meaning it in the latter sense. This is the fallacy of equivocation being used to create a straw man argument.
I will admit that there are some who believe the latter sense of the expression I simply cite Niven’s Law and point out that the media is _going_ to focus on the fuggheads since they are largely opposed to everything the Tea Party folk stand for. Much easier to tar the entire movement with the blatherings of a few crackpots than deal with the reality.
As for that “per capita” if you can show me how the quality of the “high tech sector” is something that should scale linearly with population then that will be meaningful.
LikeLike
On the “Christian Nation” thing. What we have is the lack of a “National Religion” (the last I heard, you still have one).
Plenty of Christians in the US are sick and tired of hearing the “Not A Christian Nation” thing because the morons who said it want religious people to “shut the F* up”.
Again, you show your ignorance of US politics.
As for the “two parties”, why should I trust any thing you say on the subject?
You’ve shown your ignorance time and time again.
As the “nobody you should take seriously”, I don’t take anything you say seriously.
LikeLike
Wayne, OMG, where are you getting your facts? I repeat “FACTS”?
First of all, check your facts about the Republican party. Or better yet, look at the makeup of most of the Republican conventions on local, state and national levels. You will not see only gray heads, bent by age. There are a very large number of younger members — men and women, gay and straight — who make up the party. So, fallacy number one.
Fallacy number two, I write about Quebec because I have friends and family there. I know at least a little about the sentiments there. A vibrant culture does not mean they don’t want to be independent.
Fallacy number three: the banking crisis didn’t wipe out the value of most of our homes. Where do you come up with these ideas? Also, gee, look around. The U. S. isn’t the only country facing economic problems. This is a global economy and no country in immune, whether you want to believe it or not. Frankly, some of economic issues wouldn’t be as great as they are if we weren’t sending so much money overseas to help other countries. Should we stop doing so? How loudly would we be condemned if we did?
Fallacy number four: it isn’t nearly impossible to get onto the ballot if you are a third party candidate. Yes, you do have to get some initial support, but that’s all. It is up to the candidate to meet the requirements. And, guess what, there are requirements for any candidate to get listed on a ballot.
I could continue to try to discuss this with you, but you refuse to offer facts to back up your comments and, no, one link to the CIA Fact Book doesn’t do it. Nor is this blog the place to debate politics. I’ll just grant you the title of grand poobah of Canadian patriotism and suggest you quit trying to show your patriotic balls are bigger and better than the our poor Yankee ones. It’s not a battle you’ll win and I promise you do NOT want Sarah weighing in on this. She can and very probably would demolish each of your statements with so many facts your eyes would bleed.
LikeLike
Amanda, I’ve just decided that Wayne isn’t worth responding to. In fact, I should have stopped responding to him earlier. [Frown]
LikeLike
Paul, you’re right. This week seems to be the week of certain posters getting under my skin. I think I’ll spend the rest of the day trying to finish Nocturnal Serenade. That’s certainly more fun and fulfilling ;-)
LikeLike
Well, guys, I think that “Canadian nationalists” are in the endangered species, or perhaps just the rare bird list. I’ve also decided long ago Wayne just wants attention in the worst way. And I mean that literally. I raised toddlers. I can resist this. Hence, I’ve stayed out of it. Now, Wayne, please stop it and be your age. (Which I PRESUME from other things is NOT twelve, which is what you’re coming across as, when you’re coming across as more than two.) If you make me stop writing A Few Good Men to research and refute you thoroughly with citations which I don’t have at my fingertips right now, I WILL BE MOST SINCERELY DISPLEASED because each day out of the novel is two weeks getting back into it. I don’t know how my readers feel about that, but I personally don’t like it. So stop. If you make me pay attention to you, I will make double d*mn sure you won’t enjoy it.
LikeLike
Amanda, especially for your readers. [Smile]
Of course, you’ll like the sound money makes in your “piggy bank” when we buy your books. [Wink]
LikeLike
So true!
LikeLike
It is amusing how people get upset when their opponent refuses to lie down and get stamped on. As a side note, the United States Embassy in Ottawa was following me on Twitter, so someone thinks my opinions are worth listening too.
Sarah didn’t mention a few other things about Portugal. I know a lot of people who retired their in the Eighties. A lot of Upper Middle class Brits considered Portugal a relatively safe place for retirement. Also a relatively cheap place. The cost of living in Portugal was far lower than in England. England was responsible for the Portugese dictatorship lasting as long as it did, and England owes the Portugese people an apology.
Portugal also was one of the most successful colonizers per capita. If you think I’m joking, compare the size of Portugese colonial interests to the size of Portugal, and then do the same with the other Colonial empires. The empire may have made the King and the nobility rich, however the people who were “colonized” didn’t enjoy the experience so much.
LikeLike
Wayne, you are trolling, whether intentionally or not. Please stop. This is not a venue for political discussions. On a side note, the US Embassies worldwide tracks a wide variety of dangerous nutcases on Twitter and on discussion boards; such following does not make the nutcases any more worth listening to than the barking of dogs in the night. Nor does such monitoring mean all who are followed are nutcases — thus it is a mere random data point meaning nothing in itself.
Unless, of course, the persons tracked get some sick form of validation from such monitoring.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if Embassies and other facilities tracked a very broad selection of tweets and discussion boards in order to get a “statistical sampling” of opinions and what not.
I would.
LikeLike
You might want to look at the list of folk that people at the US Embassy follow.
And again with the “per capita.” That is _only_ a meaningful statistic for things that scale linearly with population. Using it for things that do not is fallacious.
LikeLike
Wayne.
You have put forward no citation, no fact, nothing but your (very limited) imagination to your claims. You have upset Her Hoytness. If her books come out more slowly because of you, I hope you realize the CALIBER of her colleagues. Don’t listen for the noise, though. I have it on pretty good authority that, “you never hear the one that gets you.”
And, just to refute your little whoopdedoo about 3rd parties — I *have* *been* a 3rd party candidate. I have been in charge of a 3rd party presidential campaign. First it was for my state, then I was sent to get the candidate on the ballot in other states. Each state has different rules, but it’s not insurmountable. As a matter of fact, my candidate’s name and party affiliation was on the ballot in all 50 states (don’t believe everything you hear from the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We only have 50 *states*).
Which just proves that you not only don’t know squat about the US, you seem to get the tiny fraction of information you think you understand from God in His Mercy only knows what questionable source. BBC-1? Pravda? Goosey Goosey Gander’s Galloping Gazette? Certainly nothing that has given you usable information. It’s obvious you, yourself, realize the shallowness of your sources, because you don’t even have the cajones to share them.
Buzz off, little gnat. Because you will not like what happens if the fans become aware that you are bothering Ms Hoyt.
LikeLike
Everyone has my apologies. I’ve been having issues with pain over the last couple of weeks (I did something stupid) and while I thought I had it under control, I obviously don’t. I get to put up with two more weeks of this until my next epidural, at which point hopefully I’ll get back to something that approaches rationality.
Note that I don’t mention normal. I don’t know what normal is any more.
Wayne
LikeLike
As someone who grew up in Canada and has chosen to live in the US, let me rebut a couple things Wayne said, and in particular, “Why do you think that Quebec is an issue in Canada. Have you ever visited Quebec, and tasted the vibrant culture?”
Without going into boring detail — google if you’re interested — a few counter points: FLQ Crisis. “Apprehended insurrection”. War Measures Act. I was in the reserves and living in Ottawa at the time. When you get called up yourself, and see soldiers in combat fatigues and armed with submachine guns on the front lawns of senior bureaucrats and government buildings, it’s a pretty good bet that there’s an “issue”.
As for visiting Quebec and tasting the vibrant culture: I lived in Montreal for several years — during which the Quebec government was making it illegal to post English-language signs in private storefronts and generally refusing to provide service in one of Canada’s official languages. When I left I felt a bit like — well, in retrospect it would be overstating to say I felt like a Jew leaving 1930s Germany, but I did feel like I was escaping.
(Things would have been if a lot simpler if when Wolfe took Quebec City the British had re-implemented the Acadian solution and just shipped the lot of them to Louisiana.)
LikeLike
Urk … “vibrant culture” is a parlous phrase, ennit? As portrayed in Cabaret Weimar Germany was a “vibrant culture”. I dast say we could all think of other cultures whose vibrancy was a prelude to explosion.
As to what Wolfe might ought’ve done, from a purely pragmatic point of view there’s a great deal to be said for ethnic cleansing & genocide but I think there’re good reasons to eschew the topics. (Y’ever notice that anytime you feel compelled to add such qualifiers to statements it is a good sign you should drop the subject forthwith? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
LikeLike
YES!
LikeLike
I’ve heard lots of people complain about Quebec. I myself have had a great time when I’ve visited the province, and look forward to going there whenever I can.
Sure there are a few Quebecers who are jerks. It’s the same everywhere.
Wayne
LikeLike