Thread: Boycott £2 coins? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026662
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Royal Mint's new £2 coins, by way of 'celebrating' the outbreak of World War one, have Lord Kitchener on the front (of whom it was said that he was better on a poster than in real life.)
Why not a coin than commemorates all who lost their lives.
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Should we boycott these new coins?
[ 04. January 2014, 14:10: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh FFS. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If you get one and don't like it send it to me. In fact send me as many as you like. Of course, out of respect for your tender conscience, I won't stoop to validating these objectionable coins by sending you anything in return.
[ 04. January 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So you'll what... give a lecture to any cashier or bank teller that gives you change you don't want?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you get one and don't like it send it to me. In fact send me as many as you like. Of course, out of respect for your tender conscience, I won't stoop to validating these objectionable coins by sending you anything in return.
I'm happy to receive these too. Also, now that a second-class stamp is fifty pence, please feel free to send me any unused stamps that you can't bear to place on an envelope. Living as we do in an overwhelmingly Christian society, I've no objection to Christmas-themed stamps. Since I don't have a lot of spare cash at the moment, I'm happy to use a Christmas-themed stamp at any time of the year rather than buy a fresh book.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Why?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
What an unbelievable OP! Money's money. Spare the lectures and ask for pound coins instead.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Given how over-exposed, parodied and generally drained of meaning it has become, I'm surprised at the choice - I suspect they were going with 'iconic'.
I don't really think anyone proffering me change is in a position to influence design decisions in The Royal Mint. I can think of ways of generating a campaign against it, but introducing that little bit more hassle into the lives of shop assistants wouldn't be one of them.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Or you could take each £2 coin with Kitchener's face on as a Sign that you should be more charitable, and give it away to the next beggar you see. They won't care whose face is on it as long as it's legal tender.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Money has usually had nationalistic or jingoistic symbols on it. Roman coins might have the emperor with his foot on the neck of a foreign prisoner. Old British money often had Britannia. You generally see the monarch or the president. There might be a national flower, but that's about as mild as it gets. The face of Kitchener is, I agree, an unpleasant choice, but not surprising.
It's interesting that the person who campaigned for a woman to be depicted on a British bank note received death and rape threats on Twitter. There is some powerful symbolism here.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Why?
My post says why.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's interesting that the person who campaigned for a woman to be depicted on a British bank note received death and rape threats on Twitter. There is some powerful symbolism here.
But our (I say 'our' because i had some minor involvement) campaign worked, didn't it?
That's why I am getting involved in a similar campaign on this issue.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Hang on, leo old boy, shouldn't you be boycotting all coins? Look what it says on them- 'Fid. def.'- not very appropriate in a multi-faith society, is it?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh FFS.
If you get one and don't like it send it to me. In fact send me as many as you like. Of course, out of respect for your tender conscience, I won't stoop to validating these objectionable coins by sending you anything in return.
Nothing to do with a 'tender conscience' but much to do about 'witness' and conscientizing - given the upsurge in protest against war, e.g. the Gulf War, I reckon as campaign here could make some important difference in what people take for granted.
The Church has much to say on this - remember how thatcher got annoyed when Archbishop Runcie didn't go along with the notion of a victory service after the Falklands War?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Old British money often had Britannia. You generally see the monarch or the president.
It does irk me that the female figure on British banknotes doesn't look like the Queen (I don't think so, anyway). The Canadians and Australians seem to do this much better. If we can't get it right I'd rather we reverted to Britannia. But of course this doesn't irk me so much that I refuse to accept banknotes.
Regarding stamps, I wonder whether Leo would refuse to use a stamp with a Buddhist or Moslem symbol on it?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh hang on, yes of course, there's the whole Queen's head thing, isn't there? I'm assuming leo isn't a republican, or he'd be in a real pickle- no stamps, no coins, only Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Old British money often had Britannia. You generally see the monarch or the president.
It does irk me that the female figure on British banknotes doesn't look like the Queen (I don't think so, anyway). The Canadians and Australians seem to do this much better. If we can't get it right I'd rather we reverted to Britannia. But of course this doesn't irk me so much that I refuse to accept banknotes.
Which is right, though? The queen is now eighty seven and looks nothing like the face on our banknotes, but the stylised symbol is more real, I think.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh hang on, yes of course, there's the whole Queen's head thing, isn't there? I'm assuming leo isn't a republican, or he'd be in a real pickle- no stamps, no coins, only Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes.
Or a socialist. He can't receive post from the Royal Mail but presumably can't receive post from any of its private sector rivals?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh hang on, yes of course, there's the whole Queen's head thing, isn't there? I'm assuming leo isn't a republican, or he'd be in a real pickle- no stamps, no coins, only Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes.
Or a socialist. He can't receive post from the Royal Mail but presumably can't receive post from any of its private sector rivals?
Oi. Some of us are perfectly sane.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Which is right, though? The queen is now eighty seven and looks nothing like the face on our banknotes, but the stylised symbol is more real, I think.
When you say 'our' banknotes do you mean England? I'm afraid I don't think the portrait on British banknotes looks like the Queen at any point during her reign. I might well be in a minority here.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh hang on, yes of course, there's the whole Queen's head thing, isn't there? I'm assuming leo isn't a republican, or he'd be in a real pickle- no stamps, no coins, only Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes.
Or a socialist. He can't receive post from the Royal Mail but presumably can't receive post from any of its private sector rivals?
Oi. Some of us are perfectly sane.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I am willing to receive coins, banknotes etc from any republicans troubled by the Queen's image.
I'm also willing to accept Clydesdale Bank £20 notes from arachnophobes.
On a practical note, leo, how do you suggest this boycott should work? I signed the petition to have a woman on a banknote, but doing so didn't inconvenience anyone. It's easy to ask for ordinary stamps when buying stamps, and doesn't inconvenience the seller. Ask cashiers etc to sort through your change before handing it over is a whole different matter.
[ 04. January 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
Save them up and donate to an appropriate charity?
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
This thread made me go look at our Canadian coins and I found this page that shows quite a lovely progression of the monarchs over the years and shows how Queen Elizabeth's image has aged.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I thought the point of a boycott was to lower demand for a product to the point of economic damage to the producer.
Can't see that happening with money.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
I don't think one is forced to be consistent in boycotting. One can think coins are worth making a statement about, even if one also disagrees about the Queen's head on stamps but takes no action.
The mechanics of a coin boycott are quite easy: refuse to accept change which contains that coin. I regularly do this anyway - to avoid holding onto fake pound coins, of which there are a large number in circulation.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Leo: conscientizing WTF?
Of course, as a retired teacher you can perhaps afford to boycott perfectly good money: those of us still working on till 66 + in the real world maybe can't afford such hyper-sensitive scruples.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I do like the current Canadian one. Perhaps when we get polymer banknotes the Bank of England might find a way of incorporating Rob Munday's rather wonderful holographic portrait.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I thought the point of a boycott was to lower demand for a product to the point of economic damage to the producer.
Can't see that happening with money.
There are many different ways to run a boycott. Simply refusing to co-operate with something you think is immoral to raise public awareness of your feelings is as much a valid aim as economic damage.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leo: conscientizing WTF?
Of course, as a retired teacher you can perhaps afford to boycott perfectly good money: those of us still working on till 66 + in the real world maybe can't afford such hyper-sensitive scruples.
I don't understand why anyone thinks Leo will have less money (and/or be throwing away 'perfectly good money'). Surely he/she only needs to refuse to accept change that contains the coin..
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh hang on, yes of course, there's the whole Queen's head thing, isn't there? I'm assuming leo isn't a republican, or he'd be in a real pickle- no stamps, no coins, only Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes.
Yes I am! Bugger - I hadn't thought of that!!!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leo: conscientizing WTF?
Liberation theology-speak for 'raising awareness'.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
pydseybare
I think you'll find the average salesperson less than delighted if asked to exchange perfectly good coin(s) for other(s) of the same denomination.
And what about automated tills???
And Leo: if you're really so republican presumably you refuse to be a member of anything with a royal patron or with royal in the title?
So no National Trust, RSPCA, RSPB, etc...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think this must go down as the number 1 stupidist OP this year!
You don't buy Christmas stamps because we're in a multi-faith society? No we're not! We're in a Christian society with a small minority of adherents of other religions that are more or less conspicuous depending on the city you're in.
You don't want a £2 if it has Kitchener on it? Oh My Goodness how ridiculous.
These token gestures of mild outrage are utterly meaningless, entirely impotent and reveal the holder of such scruples to be just a little bit 'whiney' if you ask me.
Oh, and please give any evil £2 coins to The Salvation Army, we'll take money off any fool who wants to give it away!
[ 04. January 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
It makes no difference if they're 'less than delighted'. Anyone can refuse coins from anyone if they are not happy with them. In a similar way, a shop can refuse coins which they are not happy with (for example if they think they're fake).
You're right that it might not be possible to do this with automated machines.
[ 04. January 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
pydseybare: In a similar way, a shop can refuse coins which they are not happy with (for example if they think they're fake).
I'm not sure about that. I had the impression that in most countries accepting the national currency is an obligation, not a choice. After all, the guarantee that people will accept it is where the value of a coin or note comes from.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leo: conscientizing WTF?
Liberation theology-speak for 'raising awareness'.
'fraid you haven't raised mine.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh hang on, yes of course, there's the whole Queen's head thing, isn't there? I'm assuming leo isn't a republican, or he'd be in a real pickle- no stamps, no coins, only Scottish and Northern Irish* banknotes.
Yes I am! Bugger - I hadn't thought of that!!!
Oh well, you obviously need to be conscientized, don't you?
*And of course those are no good if you object to Partition. I reckon cowrie shells or salt might be the way to go - so long, of course, as you can access them sustainably.
[ 04. January 2014, 16:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think this must go down as the number 1 stupidist OP this year!
You don't buy Christmas stamps because we're in a multi-faith society? No we're not! We're in a Christian society with a small minority of adherents of other religions that are more or less conspicuous depending on the city you're in.
Most people are not Christians by any serious measure. Hence we cannot be a Christian society (and such a thing cannot logically exist anyway, given that a society cannot convert to Jesus).
quote:
You don't want a £2 if it has Kitchener on it? Oh My Goodness how ridiculous.
These token gestures of mild outrage are utterly meaningless, entirely impotent and reveal the holder of such scruples to be just a little bit 'whiney' if you ask me.
All boycotts can be claimed to be stupid and utterly meaningless. I dare say that the bus boycott was as easily dismissed by people who thought that it was fine for black women to be pushed around on buses. That's the thing with a boycott, you don't have to have a general poll to decide if it is the right thing to do, it is a conscience position.
quote:
Oh, and please give any evil £2 coins to The Salvation Army, we'll take money off any fool who wants to give it away!
There are no spare coins. There is nothing complicated with this idea.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not sure about that. I had the impression that in most countries accepting the national currency is an obligation, not a choice. After all, the guarantee that people will accept it is where the value of a coin or note comes from.
I don't know about other countries, but legal tender in the UK has a very specific meaning.
from the Royal Mint:
quote:
It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes.
Nobody can force either party to accept the coins offered. Change is part of the transaction.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Contrary to the OP, I assume Lord Kitchener's picture will be on the back, with the Queen's on the front in the normal way. So one will continue to render the things that are Her Majesty's unto her, rather than be rendering them unto Lord Kitchener.
Noting our sigs, Leo if you want to get rid of any offending £2
coins, I can offer a facility to enable you to do so without even having to offend your republican sensibilities by using a stamp with the Queen's head on it to do so. If there are enough, I'll even come round and collect them.
As a Christian, in years where there has been a choice between proper Christmas stamps and ones with Santas, toys or other secular tat on them, I have deliberately bought the nativity ones. There are enough multi-faith and no-faith people around as it is. Being a Christian pips any commitment the government or any other secular body might want us to take on every time. The alternative would be like saying one supported the ordination of women because of the sex-discrimination legislation rather than because one believed it was the right thing for the Church of Jesus Christ to do.
[ 04. January 2014, 16:16: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Contrary to the OP, I assume Lord Kitchener's picture will be on the back, with the Queen's on the front in the normal way.
I hope that Her Majesty is well guarded. AIUI country house guests of both sexes- admittedly rather younger ones than HM is now- used to be warned of the possible consequences of allowing His Lordship to get behind them.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Leo:
quote:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Lol, how is boycotting images of faith (regardless of what faith they happen to be) being a multi-faith society. It's like an inverted bigotry, utter crap.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
What's convenient about this mission is that it gives you something to feel smug about without actually requiring any changes in your lifestyle.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
And I boycott people who wear red clothes, otherwise I would be discriminating against those who wear blue*.
In other words...
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
* I'm not a Man City fan for nothing, ya know!
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Why?
My post says why.
Um, your post contains a massive non-sequitur?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I don't have an oar in this dogfight, but it seems to me that ALL coins are defective. In my view all coins should have holes in them so we can string them on chains and wear them around our neck, ankles and wrists. Those who jingle loudly will convenience robbers and muggers, and cause increased safety for the rest of the population who are less weighted down.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
How does one boycott coins?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Who carries cash at all these days?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think you'll find the average salesperson less than delighted if asked to exchange perfectly good coin(s) for other(s) of the same denomination.
That would also apply to other customers in the queue as you carefully go through your change to make sure you don't have an "incorrect" coin.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Surely he/she only needs to refuse to accept change that contains the coin..
Now, that's an interesting question. Is the proffering of change by a merchant part of the initial negotiation over payment, in which case leo is free to refuse a £2 coin as part of his change (at the risk, of course, of the merchant telling him to sling his hook and take his business elsewhere) or is the proffering of change payment of a debt incurred by the merchant owing to leo's initial overpayment, in which case he is obliged to accept any form of legal tender in settlement of that debt.
I think the former is the case, but I'm not completely certain.
It's a relatively academic question, because businesses tend to want to satisfy reasonable requests made by their customers, and so (assuming there's adequate change in the till) leo is likely to be able to avoid receiving £2 coins in change.
However, I'm sure tempers will fly at some point during any such boycott, in which case the precise legal nature of change might be of relevance.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Whereas I buy Christmas stamps because I send Christmas cards through the post, and, given the lines out the door at the post office, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. The government, I think, knows that people are rather likely to send mail and cards this time of year, and knows a good moneymaking opportunity when they smell one. I rather suspect this is part of why, at least here in the States, we get stamps for every religion and holiday under the sun. I also suspect that there are people who collect Christmas themed items, including stamps, which, if they're collected and never used, is money paid to the post office for a service that will never be used.
Basically, being part of a multicultural, diverse society is the least of reasons to boycott Christmas stamps; wishing to avoid crass commercialism and overt money-grubbing on the part of the postal service, perhaps a better one.
Additionally, as to the image picked for the £2 coin: is there a better one to commemorate the beginning of the war, with its jingoistic bluster and nationalistic spirit? I wonder if the mint won't be putting out a series of coins, one for each year of the war, each one remembering something particularly important to that time. In 1914, there were no poppies in Flanders' fields, just the promise of an easy and fast defeat of the Hun. While we remember, and should never forget, the bloodshed and horror of the next five years, those setting off to fight in France would not. If you're marking the start of an event, one in which perceptions and ideas changed, mark the start of the event, perhaps even with an image relevant to thinking at that time.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not sure about that. I had the impression that in most countries accepting the national currency is an obligation, not a choice. After all, the guarantee that people will accept it is where the value of a coin or note comes from.
I don't know about other countries, but legal tender in the UK has a very specific meaning.
from the Royal Mint:
quote:
It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes.
Nobody can force either party to accept the coins offered. Change is part of the transaction.
You didn't read all the way to the bottom. For the avoidance of doubt:
quote:
Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.
(My emphasis)
If no change can be demanded, then on the same basis you cannot demand that your change omits specific coins.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Will this image of Kitchener be the infamous finger pointing pose ?
I always think that finger might as well have been the muzzle of the maxim machine guns which wiped out 'Kitchener's Army' at the Somme .
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Have these coins already been minted? I've just signed a petition asking for Kitchener to be replaced by some image depicting the loss and suffering caused by that war. I very much doubt if it will have any effect. But if those coins will shortly be in circulation it seems completely pointless and impractical to attempt a 'boycott'. That's not to say we shouldn't continue to protest at any attempt to make the commemoration of WW1 any sort of celebration or jingo-fest.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I hope that Her Majesty is well guarded. AIUI country house guests of both sexes- admittedly rather younger ones than HM is now- used to be warned of the possible consequences of allowing His Lordship to get behind them.
That part of Lord Kitchener isn't on the coin. Presumably it rests at the bottom of the Pentland Firth.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
If no change can be demanded, then on the same basis you cannot demand that your change omits specific coins.
I think you'll find the phrase you have highlighted refers to the narrow definition of legal tender, which is solely related to payment of debt to a court.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
If no change can be demanded, then on the same basis you cannot demand that your change omits specific coins.
I think you'll find the phrase you have highlighted refers to the narrow definition of legal tender, which is solely related to payment of debt to a court.
It follows the statement "It does not mean that any ordinary transaction needs to take place in legal tender" and so the comment on change also refers to 'ordinary transactions'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Will this image of Kitchener be the infamous finger pointing pose ?
Yes. BBC news page showing the new coins. The £2 commemorates the 1914-1918 war (rather than specifically the start of the war) with Kitchener pointing out and "Your country needs you" logo. As far as I can see on Google they're now coming into circulation - rather than a proposal for issue later in the year.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
It follows the statement "It does not mean that any ordinary transaction needs to take place in legal tender" and so the comment on change also refers to 'ordinary transactions'.
Rubbish.
quote:
In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.
In order to comply with the rules about legal tender (paying a debt to a court), you must pay with the exact amount.
This clearly has nothing to do with ordinary transactions.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
Read for comprehension, pydsey, but believe whatever you like. I look forward to the reports of you insisting on specific change from your local stores.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Read for comprehension, pydsey, but believe whatever you like. I look forward to the reports of you insisting on specific change from your local stores.
I can read for comprehension. In addition, I know for a fact what the law in this situation.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I rather suspect this is part of why, at least here in the States, we get stamps for every religion and holiday under the sun. .......I wonder if the mint won't be putting out a series of coins, one for each year of the war, each one remembering something particularly important to that time. In 1914, there were no poppies in Flanders' fields, just the promise of an easy and fast defeat of the Hun. While we remember, and should never forget, the bloodshed and horror of the next five years, those setting off to fight in France would not. If you're marking the start of an event, one in which perceptions and ideas changed, mark the start of the event, perhaps even with an image relevant to thinking at that time.
When, in the UK, we have stamps for Diwali, Eid etc., I'll buy all of them.
Re further coins over the years, I very much hope you are right and think that some sort of campaign now might make that happen.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I suppose that no-one had bothered to think about how a boycott won't, presumably, change the policy of the government or the Royal Mint but has the potential to seriously mess up the day for a harassed cashier in a bank or supermarket?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Have these coins already been minted? I've just signed a petition asking for Kitchener to be replaced by some image depicting the loss and suffering caused by that war. I very much doubt if it will have any effect. But if those coins will shortly be in circulation it seems completely pointless and impractical to attempt a 'boycott'. That's not to say we shouldn't continue to protest at any attempt to make the commemoration of WW1 any sort of celebration or jingo-fest.
I signed that too - but didn't mention it because the Ship forbids us to 'crusade'.
Agree entirely with your last sentence.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
pydseybare
I think you'll find the average salesperson less than delighted if asked to exchange perfectly good coin(s) for other(s) of the same denomination.
And what about automated tills???
And Leo: if you're really so republican presumably you refuse to be a member of anything with a royal patron or with royal in the title?
So no National Trust, RSPCA, RSPB, etc...
Indeed - not into animals or birds, maybe I should be.
though i think my church is a corporate member of the Royal Society for Church Music.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Why?
My post says why.
Um, your post contains a massive non-sequitur?
Am in too much of a hurry to see what the Latin means - we used to have a rule requiring translation by those who posted in another language.
Save me time by telling me what it means and I can comment.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What's convenient about this mission is that it gives you something to feel smug about without actually requiring any changes in your lifestyle.
Pacifists went to prison, were bullied etc. Being anti-war has been sacrificial to many
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leo: conscientizing WTF?
Liberation theology-speak for 'raising awareness'.
'fraid you haven't raised mine.
It always take some time. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
If I was a cashier in a shop where Leo was known as a regular customer, I think I might quietly and politely accede to his request, making use of a large stash of pennies set aside for the purpose.
I don't think much of Kitchener either, but annoying the people who have to handle the cash won't take his mug off the coins.
How about the 2011 £2 coin celebrating the 400th anniversary of the KJV? Was there a multi faith outcry over that?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Why?
My post says why.
Um, your post contains a massive non-sequitur?
Save me time by telling me what it means and I can comment.
A logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What's convenient about this mission is that it gives you something to feel smug about without actually requiring any changes in your lifestyle.
Pacifists went to prison, were bullied etc. Being anti-war has been sacrificial to many
And by annoying cashiers you can count yourself as one of them.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I actually kind of understand this. Several years back, someone was trying to put a bill through that would have put Reagan's image on the American dime. Fro reasons I won't get into but I'm sure you could guess, I think Reagan was a scoundrel.
But,as Zach says, why hassle some cashier, who has no part in anything? My plan, had the legislation passed, was to collect all those diimes that came my way and send them off to AIDS organizations.
So, there's your boycott-swords into plowshares. Collect all those coins and donate the to the International Institute for Peace.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I don't know how much you can buy for a dime these days, having not been to the States since 1997, but 2 quid's not the sort of sum I could give away every time I got one.
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I actually kind of understand this. Several years back, someone was trying to put a bill through that would have put Reagan's image on the American dime. Fro reasons I won't get into but I'm sure you could guess, I think Reagan was a scoundrel.
What's interesting about this is that as a president who refused to learn the nuclear launch codes 8 months into his presidency based simply on his conviction that launching them would be immoral, Reagan might have actually sympathised with you.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
If you want to open a thread on the pros and cons of Reagan, I will join you there. And invite RuthW. Actually, there might already be one of those in Limbo somewhere. My point was making the currency protest proactive, if possible.
[ 04. January 2014, 20:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Am in too much of a hurry to see what the Latin means - we used to have a rule requiring translation by those who posted in another language.
Save me time by telling me what it means and I can comment.
You really don't know what a non-sequitur is? Latin in origin, but thoroughly Anglicized. How are you on ad hoc and post mortem? Would you require glosses for hoi polloi and tiramisu, bungalow and detente, schadenfreude and chutzpah?
[ 04. January 2014, 20:20: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I think it is inappropriate to ridicule Shipmates for not knowing whatever foreign phrase happens to appear. I suspect most of us know terms with which ate least some others would be less than familiar. I frequently encounter technical terms in discussions (having to do with philosophy or theology) for which I may need to seek definitions on line. Some people who use such terms are doubtless intending to be precise, and others, I suspect, are snobs.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I am not ridiculing - merely expressing genuine surprise. Leo has frequently advertised his extensive reading of academic and theological texts, so it seems a strange lacuna*.
*unfilled space, a gap.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Dodgy people being on various parts of British Sterling will not be effectively fought against via boycotts, I believe. Now, what this is really about is about how WWI should be remembered. Blackadder was right. Gove is wronger than a very wrong thing.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Royal Mint's new £2 coins, by way of 'celebrating' the outbreak of World War one, have Lord Kitchener on the front (of whom it was said that he was better on a poster than in real life.)
Can you quote to a link where the coin is described by the Mint as 'celebrating' WWII? Commemorating, yes. But of course that's a different thing altogether.
However, it does seem bizarre to use an image on 21st century British currency which is popularly notorious for representing some of the worst aspects of a hellish national experience, from the early 20th century. Whatever that particular icon of Kitchener was famous for at the time of its original use, it fairly quickly lost all popular appeal or approval. So it seems strange - if not inexplicable - to use it now for whatever reason. If one wanted to commemorate the loss of life during that war there are surely other images much more appropriate?
Practically speaking, boycotting the use of the coin seems stupid. It will only be an extra pain in the arse for people who work tills and do cashier work. Better to write letters to people in authority if one is truly concerned about it.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's a relatively academic question, because businesses tend to want to satisfy reasonable requests made by their customers, and so (assuming there's adequate change in the till) leo is likely to be able to avoid receiving £2 coins in change.
However, I'm sure tempers will fly at some point during any such boycott, in which case the precise legal nature of change might be of relevance.
I think it's clear that there is no absolute obligation to give change, because one often finds automated machines that insist on exact payment only.
My guess is that because change is usually given unless stated otherwise, it's assumed that if I overpay in a shop I did so with the implicit expectation of receiving change. However I don't think there's any sense that I could claim an implicit expectation of receiving specific coins in my change - because that's definitely not usual.
In other words, I would guess that if leo refuses his change, the shop has no obligation to offer him an alternative. But I am not a lawyer.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
News story from BBC describing the four new designs for this year:
- £2 coin with Lord Kitchener to mark the centenary of WWI - the first of a series,
- Another £2 coin design, not shown, to mark the 500th anniversary of Trinity House,
- £1 coins with various floral designs for national flowers - shamrock, thistle ...
- 50p coin with Commonwealth games design
Royal Mint press release saying that this £2 coin is the first in a series to mark the full centenary from 2014 to 2018.
sorry x-post - that was in response to Anselmina
[ 04. January 2014, 22:35: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Royal Mint press release saying that this £2 coin is the first in a series to mark the full centenary from 2014 to 2018.
That would make more sense: the Kitchener poster very much typifies the initial attitude to the war. If it's succeeded by other images which reflect the actuality, then fair enough.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Do you boycott stamps with a white person on them because we are a multi-racial society?
There's a Circus game parodying the tendency to be offended for the most trivial reasons possible. It feels like you wandered across from there.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Orfeo wrote:
quote:
Do you boycott stamps with a white person on them because we are a multi-racial society?
That comparison is a little off-base, because the simple fact of someone having a particular skin colour does not represent a truth-claim against anyone else.
Whereas a nativity-scene, for example, is meant to represent certain theological ideas, with the implicit suggestion that people who disagree with those ideas are in the wrong.
[ 04. January 2014, 23:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Leo:
quote:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Lol, how is boycotting images of faith (regardless of what faith they happen to be) being a multi-faith society. It's like an inverted bigotry, utter crap.
"Inverted bigotry" is, it seems to me, at the heart of a great many of leo's stances, and it's exactly why I have such a problem with them. He seems to think that the way to not discriminate against non-Christians is not simply to stop discriminating against non-Christians, but to bend over backwards to show just how much he's not discriminating against non-Christians.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Orfeo wrote:
quote:
Do you boycott stamps with a white person on them because we are a multi-racial society?
That comparison is a little off-base, because the simple fact of someone having a particular skin colour does not represent a truth-claim against anyone else.
Whereas a nativity-scene, for example, is meant to represent certain theological ideas, with the implicit suggestion that people who disagree with those ideas are in the wrong.
I disagree. There's a truth-claim that white people are more presentable and more attractive to look at. There's an implicit suggestion that white people are the 'standard' kind of people that we should be seeing on nationally circulated material.
Are you not familiar with all the arguments about how our advertising, television shows and films don't accurately reflect the demographic reality?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Before anyone points out the real flaw in my racial analogy, let me point it out for you. Because the exact flaw exists in all of leo's 'inverse bigotry' positions.
The flaw lies in responding to a systemic problem through an individualised boycott.
Okay yes, so white people are over-represented in our imagery - whether it be advertising, TV shows, whatever.
So we should have a larger proportion of black people, Asian people etc being represented, right? Absolutely!
But what does a boycott of white images do? It takes the representation of white people from 'too high' to zero. A massive underrepresentation.
The same with this Christmas stamp business. Do we live in multicultural societies? Yes. Would it be good to have stamps representing Ramadan/Eid and festivals of other religions? Yes. (By the way, Australia has Chinese New Year stamps, and also gold/silver collector coins. Frankly I don't know how much of this simply intended as international marketing to our Asian neighbours rather than being for Australian internal consumption).
Does boycotting Christmas stamps reduce the proportion of Christian representation to a level consistent with the Christian element of the population? No. It reduces it to zero instead.
That's pretty much the essence of 'inverse bigotry'. Overreacting to overrepresentation by enforcing severe underrepresentation. Instead of trying to achieve balance, people like leo try to make a win for the people who traditionally lose.
And with the coins... Firenze has it. You don't commemorate World War I by being raving pacifists for 4 consecutive years of coin releases. That's not balanced. A coin for the 100th anniversary of 1914 can, completely appropriately, reflect the zeitgeist of 1914. If they're still reflecting the zeitgeist of 1914 rather than 1918 when the 2018 coins come out, then there can be a complaint about a systemic problem.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
The Australian polymer $100 bank note features a portrait of WWI general Sir John Monash, with a (I think) eighteen pounder gun crew in the background.
The OP of a parallel thread asks the question whether the term "politically correct" is ever useful.
The OP of this thread possibly provides an answer.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Monash was one of the great Generals in WW 1* - caring for troops, opposed to the policy of over the trenches, great organiser and so forth. He and Mawson deserve all the recognition they get.
You're right about the OP, even though I don't think Kitchener deserves any great fame
* The other was Canadian General Sir Arthur Currie.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
You should probably include Lord Byng in there too. He was the Canadian Corps' commander until 1917 after Vimy; Currie was his deputy. Byng may have been a British aristocrat, but he did like that he got a Corps of volunteers longer than other British generals, and he didn't stand in the way of his Canadian subordinates when they tried to fix things after the disaster of the Somme. Of course he was made Viscount Vimy for his efforts and their results.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Viscount Byng of Vimy
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Monash was one of the great Generals in WW 1* - caring for troops, opposed to the policy of over the trenches, great organiser and so forth. He and Mawson deserve all the recognition they get.
You're right about the OP, even though I don't think Kitchener deserves any great fame
* The other was Canadian General Sir Arthur Currie.
Yes, of course Monash was a far greater commander than Kitchener ("the great poster", as Margot Asquith called him), but that is not the point.
The point is that the criticisms of the new UK two pound coin could also be directed at the Australian $100 note, but I am not aware that it has ever been the cause of any comment.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I'm a republican and Kitchener was a wankbadger, but this is pretty ridiculous. It's the kind of middle-class meaningless posturing that gives lefties a bad name.
I also volunteer for leo to send me his unwanted £2 coins
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... Whereas a nativity-scene, for example, is meant to represent certain theological ideas, with the implicit suggestion that people who disagree with those ideas are in the wrong.
Even put like that, it's still fairly odd to boycott something that represents something you believe in and therefore agree with.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Although, a traditional Nativity scene with Magi, shepherds, Mary and Joseph gathered around a manger with angels and a prominent star above isn't really what I believe either. Although, this years Santa surrounded by presents doesn't present that problem, devoid of theological content entirely.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.
In order to comply with the rules about legal tender (paying a debt to a court), you must pay with the exact amount.
This clearly has nothing to do with ordinary transactions.
You're wrong. The Royal Mint's website is referring to the 'defence of tender' to a court action brought to recover a debt, not to a debt owed to the Court itself.
If someone sues you for money you owe, it is a good defence to say "but I offered to pay him and he refused to take my money". However to prove that you mean it, and aren't just making shit up (as, astonishingly, debtors have occasionally been known to do), if you raise this 'defence of tender', you have to pay the money 'into Court' - pay it to a Court bank account to prove that the money is available and can be used to settle the debt if the creditor will take it.
The rule about legal tender is that it sets out rules about what it would be reasonable to accept as good tender. Try to pay your £900 rent in pennies in order to piss off your landlord, and he's within his rights to refuse to take them. When he sues you, and you claim a defence of tender, you can't pull that shit on the Court - you have to pay the money in sensibly.
Of course, when paying money into Court most people write a cheque, so the practical effect on most people of legal tender rules is zero. I believe (but don't know for sure) that Scotland gets by without any legal tender rules at all, and of course, Scottish banknotes are accepted in England despite not being legal tender.
And add me to the list of people willing to take leo's money to spare him offence.
[ 05. January 2014, 08:57: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I could imagine that someone would dislike stamps with a nativity scene from a separation of Church and State point of view (not that this separation is particularly strong in England).
Posted by Lots of Yay (# 2790) on
:
I recently spent two weeks in England with a friend and we were both baffled by how underused the £2 coin is. On countless occasions at all sorts of places we were both given up to £8 change in £1 coins. I was clearly the more special of the two of us because I think 7 £2 coins crossed my palm, but my friend was given only one in the whole fortnight. Each time we spent an amount that would result in £2-9 of change there was great suspense as to whether we would strike the jackpot or not. Usually not.
So I feel that this is a moot point. You'd have to try very hard to boycott the damn things because that would involve being offered them in the first place!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Indeed. I look out for special edition coins because I'm strange, and I'd say the number of times you actually get them is very low. (I've seen the Dickens £2 about twice and I've yet to see the Edinburgh pound coin.)
So while I agree with previous posters that making cashiers' jobs harder is a Bad Thing, the practical result is more likely to be that a boycott passes entirely unnoticed.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the coins... Firenze has it. You don't commemorate World War I by being raving pacifists for 4 consecutive years of coin releases. That's not balanced. A coin for the 100th anniversary of 1914 can, completely appropriately, reflect the zeitgeist of 1914. If they're still reflecting the zeitgeist of 1914 rather than 1918 when the 2018 coins come out, then there can be a complaint about a systemic problem.
I agree with this , and take the point made by other posters that at the time of the Kitchener image being used as a recruitment tool the majority could not have anticipated what lay ahead .
Although considering the size of German, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish armies in 1914 , I would say there were those in the upper echelons of power who knew full well that this conflict was not set to be a picnic.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
What the Royal Mint actually says about the choice of Lord Kitchener is:
quote:
In 2014 we mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War with the first coin in a five-year series that will take us on a journey from outbreak to armistice. This official UK £2 coin remembers one of the most significant moments in British history with a design that recalls the spirit, and with hindsight, the poignancy, of the rush to enlist encouraged by Lord Kitchener.
I spend quite a bit of time on Twitter and it's interesting to read the original statement rather than the blogosphere reactions to things.
(And I'll just sulk - Firenze quoted me in the quote that's now been picked up.)
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What the Royal Mint actually says about the choice of Lord Kitchener is:
quote:
In 2014 we mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War with the first coin in a five-year series that will take us on a journey from outbreak to armistice. This official UK £2 coin remembers one of the most significant moments in British history with a design that recalls the spirit, and with hindsight, the poignancy, of the rush to enlist encouraged by Lord Kitchener.
So, in other words, not a "celebration" of the outbreak of war as the OP suggests.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What the Royal Mint actually says about the choice of Lord Kitchener is:
quote:
In 2014 we mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War with the first coin in a five-year series that will take us on a journey from outbreak to armistice. This official UK £2 coin remembers one of the most significant moments in British history with a design that recalls the spirit, and with hindsight, the poignancy, of the rush to enlist encouraged by Lord Kitchener.
So, in other words, not a "celebration" of the outbreak of war as the OP suggests.
I'm not aware of plans by anyone to 'celebrate' the outbreak of war.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Mudfrog - this is what the Opening Post says.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Royal Mint's new £2 coins, by way of 'celebrating' the outbreak of World War one, have Lord Kitchener on the front (of whom it was said that he was better on a poster than in real life.)
I got bored a couple of pages in and looked to see what the Royal Mint actually said, which is what you've quoted above.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
The Royal Mint's commemoration of the outbreak of WWI is a lot more sensible than Gove's comments on it.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm a republican and Kitchener was a wankbadger, but this is pretty ridiculous. It's the kind of middle-class meaningless posturing that gives lefties a bad name.
I also volunteer for leo to send me his unwanted £2 coins
It's all a bit old school. When the various protest movements started they were dominated by white middle class blokes exactly like Leo who felt that the way women / blacks / non-Christians / gays / the disabled was wrong and that something should be done. Everyone should have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else regardless. Those white, middle class blokes accomplished a lot. What they're not so good at is listening to those they're trying to help, letting them set the agenda and make the decisions. Or accepting that their way might not be the only way or even the best way.
If not taking £2 coins with Kitchener on makes Leo feel like he's contributing to the pro-peace movement, then he can knock himself out. But I'm not convinced that it's anything other than a piece of self indulgent more right on than thou style posturing.
Tubbs
[ 05. January 2014, 13:05: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I am starting a campaign to boycott any £2 coins Leo gives away. Terms and conditions apply.
Sigh.
Pyx_e
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I could imagine that someone would dislike stamps with a nativity scene from a separation of Church and State point of view (not that this separation is particularly strong in England).
Ahem. Not that this separation exists in England.
BTW, now that the Royal Mail has been privatised, or mostly privatised, what is the status of stamps? Are they still issued in some sense by the government, or by a private company? Does anyone happen to know for sure? If they are now issued by a private company, why have they still got the Queen's head on them, rather than, say, a great big fat cat getting stuck into the cream?
[ 05. January 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Let me google that for you ...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
white middle class blokes exactly like Leo who felt
Not sure that I am 'middle class'!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I am starting a campaign to boycott any £2 coins Leo gives away. Terms and conditions apply.
Sigh.
Pyx_e
Shan't buy you another coffee, then.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I boycott stamps with a Christmas picture on them because we are a multi-faith society.
Why?
My post says why.
Um, your post contains a massive non-sequitur?
Save me time by telling me what it means and I can comment.
A logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.
That's as clear as mud - anyway, babies in mangers on stamps privileges Christianity above the other religions, and humanism, represented in this country.
Unless i have missed something, they don't issue stamps for Diwali or Eid.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not aware of plans by anyone to 'celebrate' the outbreak of war.
Ironically the outbreak of WW1 was greeted with widespread patriotic jubilation right across Europe.
Four years of mud and blood may not have ended all war , but it did ensure war fever on that scale was never repeated.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Am in too much of a hurry to see what the Latin means - we used to have a rule requiring translation by those who posted in another language.
Save me time by telling me what it means and I can comment.
You really don't know what a non-sequitur is? Latin in origin, but thoroughly Anglicized. How are you on ad hoc and post mortem? Would you require glosses for hoi polloi and tiramisu, bungalow and detente, schadenfreude and chutzpah?
Chutzpah, I can do.
Hoi polloi, too.
Because i did Hebrew and Greek at uni.
Latin was closed to me because I failed the 11+ because my father chose to commit suicide not long before i sat the exam.
They DID do a post mortem!!!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's pretty much the essence of 'inverse bigotry'. Overreacting to overrepresentation by enforcing severe underrepresentation. Instead of trying to achieve balance, people like leo try to make a win for the people who traditionally lose.
So how DO we achieve this?
I'm learning much through this thread and rethinking. It would be good to know more.
[ 05. January 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
white middle class blokes exactly like Leo who felt
Not sure that I am 'middle class'!
As a well-educated, well-read former teacher you certainly aren't any lower down the class system.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
News story from BBC describing the four new designs for this year:
- £2 coin with Lord Kitchener to mark the centenary of WWI - the first of a series,
- Another £2 coin design, not shown, to mark the 500th anniversary of Trinity House,
- £1 coins with various floral designs for national flowers - shamrock, thistle ...
- 50p coin with Commonwealth games design
Royal Mint press release saying that this £2 coin is the first in a series to mark the full centenary from 2014 to 2018.
sorry x-post - that was in response to Anselmina
I am glad to know that it is a series, not a one off, especially with the Olympic symbol at the end, showing some sort of progress. However, it would be nice to have someone like Wilfrid Owen on a coin.
It will provide a good topic of conversation.
It was certainly odd that people should 'commemorate' the start, rather than the finish of the war. I am sure i have heard someone talk about 'celebrate' though.
Much as i dislike this paper and prefer this, which won't surprise anyone and Michael Give does not seem to understand the theology of the Just War which may be why (tangent alert) he has dismantled school RE.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Chutzpah, I can do.
Hoi polloi, too.
Because i did Hebrew and Greek at uni.
I always understood chutzpah to be Yiddish.
Overall though, I would resist your suggestion that you have to have learnt the original language in order to understand words and phrases long domiciled. Indeed, I see my Chambers 20th Century (1959 ed) places non sequitur in the ordinary sequence of definitions; as far as they are concerned, it is English.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless i have missed something, they don't issue stamps for Diwali or Eid.
So campaign for such stamps instead of against Christmas stamps.
And while you're at it Ramazan, Kurban Bayram, Haunnaka, etc.
But campaigning against all religious representation on stamps in hardly embracing a multi-faith society.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
[QUOTE]I always understood chutzpah to be Yiddish.
Overall though, I would resist your suggestion that you have to have learnt the original language in order to understand words and phrases long domiciled. Indeed, I see my Chambers 20th Century (1959 ed) places non sequitur in the ordinary sequence of definitions; as far as they are concerned, it is English.
Since I'd cheerfully add an 's' onto the end of non sequitur if I was criticising someone for having perpetrated more than one of them, I'd regard it as having naturalised.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the incident where Jesus is asked about paying taxes to Caesar -then again, people have squirmed around to interpret it in a non-political way.
This site is something follow and find useful as 'a magazine of Christian unrest'.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
white middle class blokes exactly like Leo who felt
Not sure that I am 'middle class'!
As a well-educated, well-read former teacher you certainly aren't any lower down the class system.
Too right.
Tubbs
[ 05. January 2014, 17:27: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
white middle class blokes exactly like Leo who felt
Not sure that I am 'middle class'!
As a well-educated, well-read former teacher you certainly aren't any lower down the class system.
Too right.
Tubbs
I am the child of a shop keeper (but so was Thatcher) bought up, largely, by a single (widowed) mother who worked as a cleaner to put me through school. Reckon that makes me 'lower middle class' at the very 'highest'.
Then again, this could descend into 'I was raised in a shoe box'
'Were you? We didn't even have shoes.' etc.
[ 05. January 2014, 18:17: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am the child of a shop keeper (but so was Thatcher) bought up, largely, by a single (widowed) mother who worked as a cleaner to put me through school. Reckon that makes me 'lower middle class' at the very 'highest'.
By this description, you were raised by a hard-working so-called "lower class" mother who probably struggled to help you get educated and employable in what is clearly recognized as "middle class" status. To deny your current status is to cast aside the value of working for a better life, and to retreat into thoughtless and oppressive generational classism.
Clearer description of this concept would only be suitable for Hell.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...Kitchener was a wankbadger...
BTW Jade that's a grossly offensive thing to say.
You should know that the preferred term is People Who Have Non-Penetrative Sex With Woodland Animals. It's true that some of the more radical members of the PWHN-PSWWA community are trying to reclaim the word 'wankbadger' for themselves, but none of them would thank you for using it as a term of vulgar abuse.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...Kitchener was a wankbadger...
BTW Jade that's a grossly offensive thing to say.
You should know that the preferred term is People Who Have Non-Penetrative Sex With Woodland Animals. It's true that some of the more radical members of the PWHN-PSWWA community are trying to reclaim the word 'wankbadger' for themselves, but none of them would thank you for using it as a term of vulgar abuse.
Yes, fancy JC, of all people, displaying insensitivity toward People Who Like To Have Sex With Other Species (so long as it's consensual and respectful).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Kaplan Corday, lay off the personal insults or take it to Hell. Clue: posting "sorry" as a response is not what is expected. What is expected is you do not do that again.
/hosting
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And just to be clear, I wasn't having a pop at JC- just a bit of facetiousness on the general theme of taking offence.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the incident where Jesus is asked about paying taxes to Caesar -then again, people have squirmed around to interpret it in a non-political way.
This site is something follow and find useful as 'a magazine of Christian unrest'.
I thought my reference to it was fairly clear.
quote:
Contrary to the OP, I assume Lord Kitchener's picture will be on the back, with the Queen's on the front in the normal way. So one will continue to render the things that are Her Majesty's unto her, rather than be rendering them unto Lord Kitchener. ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's pretty much the essence of 'inverse bigotry'. Overreacting to overrepresentation by enforcing severe underrepresentation. Instead of trying to achieve balance, people like leo try to make a win for the people who traditionally lose.
So how DO we achieve this?
I'm learning much through this thread and rethinking. It would be good to know more.
By saying to the powers that be 'we should represent Y and Z as well as X'. Not by saying 'you've represented X so I'm going to go off in a huff'.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: By saying to the powers that be 'we should represent Y and Z as well as X'. Not by saying 'you've represented X so I'm going to go off in a huff'.
Wouldn't it be easier if the State represented/endorsed no religion at all, but left this to the churches/synagogues/mosques...?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
If I set out to insult anyone it will be very obvious.
The post in question was not intended as an insult, but as a facetious reference to the increasingly arcane contemporary discourse on sexual identity.
If JC perceived it as insult, then my sincere apologies.
Cross –species sex, with its associated ethical questions, is a genuine issue, and can be found in the writings of Peter Singer, amongst others.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If I set out to insult anyone it will be very obvious.
The post in question was not intended as an insult, but as a facetious reference to the increasingly arcane contemporary discourse on sexual identity.
If JC perceived it as insult, then my sincere apologies.
Cross –species sex, with its associated ethical questions, is a genuine issue, and can be found in the writings of Peter Singer, amongst others.
Tell you what, Kaplan, if you have any further questions or clarifications in reference to Eutychus's Host post refer them to the Styx.
Kelly Alves
Admin
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
leo, I'm still intrigued about the actual logistics of this.
How do you plan to organise your boycott? Do you plan to tell check-out assistants in advance that you won't accept Kitchener £2s, which would surely result in blank looks and an explanation of what a "Kitchener £2" is? Or will you simply say you don't want £2 coins in your change, which would be simpler, but would miss out the point of your boycott?
Alternatively, do you plan to accept your change, scrutinise it for Kitchener £2s and then return it to the check-out assistants asking for a swop?
Some shops (Next, for example) have a policy that once a till drawer has been closed it can't be re-opened until the subsequent transaction, without the manager's authorisation. If you spot the Kitchener £2 too late for a quick swop, you, and everyone in the queue behind you, would have to wait while the assistant put out one of those "manager to Till 3" calls.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Or you could dash it to the floor, crying 'Away with this glorification of senseless slaughter!' And stand there glowering magnificently until asked to leave by the management. Whereupon you refuse, on the grounds you haven't got your change.
If the ensuing fracas ends up in court, chances are it'll get in the papers, and from the twin pulpits of dock and tabloid the message rings out, crowds riot outside the Bank of England, the hated coins are melted down into ploughshares.
Simples.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Good grief, Firenze, you don't seriously think they waste high-quality ploughshare-grade steel on making mere MONEY, do you?
You could melt it down to make tacky bling. That's about all it's good for.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
You could take all the £2 coins of this stamp you are offered, and donate them to the SSSFA, British Legion or similar charity.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
You could take all the £2 coins of this stamp you are offered, and donate them to the SSSFA, British Legion or similar charity.
No, No, Penny. Several of us have already staked a prior claim to them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Floating Fund
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
If anyone is looking for a definition of "offenderati", then I think we have a winner in the OP!
I thought it was a wind-up for a laugh. Seriously.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am the child of a shop keeper (but so was Thatcher) bought up, largely, by a single (widowed) mother who worked as a cleaner to put me through school. Reckon that makes me 'lower middle class' at the very 'highest'.
By this description, you were raised by a hard-working so-called "lower class" mother who probably struggled to help you get educated and employable in what is clearly recognized as "middle class" status. To deny your current status is to cast aside the value of working for a better life, and to retreat into thoughtless and oppressive generational classism.
Maybe. But I also want some sort of solidarity with 'the workers' rather than turning my back on 'them.' Hence I have found it essential to be a trade unionist throughout my career - and still, in retirement.
The notion of 'class' is difficult in the UK though it still exists.
Difficult because 'we are all middle class now' is a catchphrase since thatcher allowed to buy council houses and since legislation made union membership problematic.
Social class has long been problematic for teachers - most teachers came/come from working class backgrounds and 'made good'. There was a long debate and some research as to whether teaching was a 'job' or a 'profession'.
In my mispent youth as young conservative, many argued that 'class' was about 'delayed gratification' i.e. the middle classes saved up before buying things whereas the working classes got stuff through hire purchase. Credit cards have changed that for most of us.
Anyway, I am making this into too much of a tangent.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
You could take all the £2 coins of this stamp you are offered, and donate them to the SSSFA, British Legion or similar charity.
No sure whether that was a joke.
Many of us boycott the British Legion for its glamorising of war.
That's why people get cross at us when we wear white poppies.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
leo, I'm still intrigued about the actual logistics of this.
How do you plan to organise your boycott?
I have changed my mind, partly through reading what others have said on this thread.
Ekklesia, which i linked to earlier, has more experience on nonviolent direct action, protest and the like.
History teachers are working up some sort of action in response to Michael Gove's ignorant advice on how to teach MW!.
Comments similar to my OP have already sparked off quite a lot of debates.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Michael Foot was wrong on everything. Clever and brave, but just wrong.
Don't know why I feel the need to refer to the old boy.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
History teachers are working up some sort of action in response to Michael Gove's ignorant advice on how to teach MW!.
What's MW?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Sorry - typo when distracted - and WW1.
Maybe this thread has gone as far as it can and a better thread would be more on the merits/demerits of celebrating/commemmorating war.
One more comment, though, before I am done - on the issue of boycotting stamps. I am surprised that so many Christians seem to have a problem with boycotts. Out bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about 'consumer power' and organisations like Traidcraft and those who push for 'clean' clothing have shown how effective boycotts can be in the furthering of justice.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Out bishops
I'm assuming this was also the result of distraction?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Michael Foot was wrong on everything. Clever and brave, but just wrong.
...
On the Falklands ? And not a fan of Tony Benn, either.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One more comment, though, before I am done - on the issue of boycotting stamps. I am surprised that so many Christians seem to have a problem with boycotts. Out bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about 'consumer power' and organisations like Traidcraft and those who push for 'clean' clothing have shown how effective boycotts can be in the furthering of justice.
Yes, but our bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about boycotting over issues that actually matter.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One more comment, though, before I am done - on the issue of boycotting stamps. I am surprised that so many Christians seem to have a problem with boycotts. Out bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about 'consumer power' and organisations like Traidcraft and those who push for 'clean' clothing have shown how effective boycotts can be in the furthering of justice.
Yes, but our bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about boycotting over issues that actually matter.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Sorry to be cynical, but I am no more convinced by boycotts than I have been by sanctions in the various contexts when they have been proposed or tried. Both are usually chosen as a remedy by those who would like to do something that will deliver a result, but know they can't.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
You could take all the £2 coins of this stamp you are offered, and donate them to the SSSFA, British Legion or similar charity.
No sure whether that was a joke.
Many of us boycott the British Legion for its glamorising of war.
That's why people get cross at us when we wear white poppies.
Wasn't a joke, but I take the point about the Legion, though they do supportive work with those the government, in the tradition established back in the reign of the first Elizabeth, can't be bothered with. (My Dad wasn't interested in joining, saying that he felt that the atmosphere was as if the men involved had not done anything else of interest in their lives since the war. Their web site mentioning the camaraderie arising from the care homes only being the ex-military does seem to emphasise a separating out which isn't quite glamourising, but doesn't feel quite right.)
What about St Dunstan's? - I know it has a new name now, but can't recall it. My own exclusions tend to be the modern ones which have sprung up with an emphasis on the people they help being heroes. At any rate, there aren't any more victims of Kitchener to be helped, but no shortage of more recent sufferers.
[ 06. January 2014, 19:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Leo, you could get round it quite simply by paying by card for everything. You can also print out postage from the comfort of your own home.
There you are, all sorted now. No need to thank me, though if you insist, feel free to send me some of those £2 coins you don't want (and the designs are interesting: I had the Dickens one turn up in my change last month).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Leo, you could get round it quite simply by paying by card for everything. You can also print out postage from the comfort of your own home.
There you are, all sorted now. No need to thank me, though if you insist, feel free to send me some of those £2 coins you don't want (and the designs are interesting: I had the Dickens one turn up in my change last month).
Indeed. I rarely pay by cask with credit cards and bus pass etc.
Now if you want my cash, send me you your bank details- sort code, branch, personal account number etc.!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Now if you want my cash, send me you your bank details- sort code, branch, personal account number etc.!!!!!!!!!!
How are things in Abuja?
Tell you what, give us your home address and you will receive small padded envelopes containing reply-paid labels to a post restante in Auchterarder.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: By saying to the powers that be 'we should represent Y and Z as well as X'. Not by saying 'you've represented X so I'm going to go off in a huff'.
Wouldn't it be easier if the State represented/endorsed no religion at all, but left this to the churches/synagogues/mosques...?
Not, I think, when it comes to something like stamps. Because the general philosophy here is probably some statement about 'representing the community'. And if the community has religions, I don't think it's right for the government to say 'we are a secular government and therefore we can't reference religion in any way, ever'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Leo, you could get round it quite simply by paying by card for everything. You can also print out postage from the comfort of your own home.
There you are, all sorted now. No need to thank me, though if you insist, feel free to send me some of those £2 coins you don't want (and the designs are interesting: I had the Dickens one turn up in my change last month).
I didn't know you could do postage.
But i do pay by card for virtually everything. I think the only exception is the gym.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: And if the community has religions, I don't think it's right for the government to say 'we are a secular government and therefore we can't reference religion in any way, ever'.
But it might be right for them to say "We are a secular government and therefore we should be careful not to give the image of privileging one religion."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One more comment, though, before I am done - on the issue of boycotting stamps. I am surprised that so many Christians seem to have a problem with boycotts. Out bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about 'consumer power' and organisations like Traidcraft and those who push for 'clean' clothing have shown how effective boycotts can be in the furthering of justice.
Yes, but our bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about boycotting over issues that actually matter.
So wear and carnage doesn't matter?
F. O. R. has a similar ideas to mine.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Out bishops
I'm assuming this was also the result of distraction?
Yes.
Interesting mistake though - but i think peter Tatchell got there first.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One more comment, though, before I am done - on the issue of boycotting stamps. I am surprised that so many Christians seem to have a problem with boycotts. Out bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about 'consumer power' and organisations like Traidcraft and those who push for 'clean' clothing have shown how effective boycotts can be in the furthering of justice.
Yes, but our bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about boycotting over issues that actually matter.
So wear and carnage doesn't matter?
F. O. R. has a similar ideas to mine.
There is no URL in this link.
Posted by Swarthmoor (# 17960) on
:
There's one thing could be done, which would be effective if enough people did it. The Mint is always complaining about how coins saved in people's piggy-banks (and thus taken out of circulation) mess up their attempts to keep the right number of coins of different denominations in circulation.
So (for people who financially in a position to do this) we could accept the coins when we get them (in change or whatever) and then take them out of circulation until December 2018. Just put them in a jar and leave them there until all the fuss is over. Then, a great heap of the coins being paid into banks just before Christmas 2018 (but after 11 November) would send its own message.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Swarthmoor:
There's one thing could be done, which would be effective if enough people did it. The Mint is always complaining about how coins saved in people's piggy-banks (and thus taken out of circulation) mess up their attempts to keep the right number of coins of different denominations in circulation.
This certainly is what has happened in the US with the 50-cent piece and the various dollar coins, as well as the $2.00 bill.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Welcome Swarthmoor and Happy New Year
If you haven't already done so, please check out the Ship's Ten Commandments and board posting guidelines. You can also say hello on the "Welcome Aboard 2014" thread in All Saints. Enjoy the voyage!
Eutychus
Purgatory Host
[PS: General suggestion: another use for all those £2 coins might be to donate them all to the Floating Fund ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
...]
[ 07. January 2014, 17:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[PS: General suggestion: another use for all those £2 coins might be to donate them all to the Floating Fund ...]
A great idea, but a bit late to suggest it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: And if the community has religions, I don't think it's right for the government to say 'we are a secular government and therefore we can't reference religion in any way, ever'.
But it might be right for them to say "We are a secular government and therefore we should be careful not to give the image of privileging one religion."
Yes.
All of which, I think it's worth adding, isn't readily applicable to the UK.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Michael Foot was wrong on everything. Clever and brave, but just wrong.
...
On the Falklands ? And not a fan of Tony Benn, either.
.... and wasn't afraid to point the finger of blame at the real villain of the peace in the Bosnian crisis .
Foot didn't align himself to the glorification of war . The press put the knife in over the infamous Remembrance Day 'donkey jacket', (which it wasn't), incident , and that sadly is how he's remembered.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: All of which, I think it's worth adding, isn't readily applicable to the UK.
I know, as I've already indicated in an earlier post.
I don't know leo's stand on disestablishment, but if he's in favour of it, his dislike of a Nativity stamp would fit right in.
These are last year's Christmas Stamps from the Netherlands. You see people sleighing and ice-skating, lots of snow and Christmas trees, but no overly religious images. I think that having a discussion about whether it would be a good idea to issue a stamp with a Nativity scene would be a no-starter in my country.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
These are last year's Christmas Stamps from the Netherlands. You see people sleighing and ice-skating, lots of snow and Christmas trees, but no overly religious images. I think that having a discussion about whether it would be a good idea to issue a stamp with a Nativity scene would be a no-starter in my country.
They may be pretty, pretty but what have those pictures got to do with Christmas? If you're going to issue Christmas stamps at all, they should be about Christmas. Otherwise, why have special stamps at all?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Enoch: They may be pretty, pretty but what have those pictures got to do with Christmas? If you're going to issue Christmas stamps at all, they should be about Christmas. Otherwise, why have special stamps at all?
My guess is that they are about Christmas as a cultural phenomenon that exists within the Dutch tradition and which is celebrated also outside of Christianity.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Am in too much of a hurry to see what the Latin means - we used to have a rule requiring translation by those who posted in another language.
Save me time by telling me what it means and I can comment.
You really don't know what a non-sequitur is? Latin in origin, but thoroughly Anglicized. How are you on ad hoc and post mortem? Would you require glosses for hoi polloi and tiramisu, bungalow and detente, schadenfreude and chutzpah?
Chutzpah, I can do.
Hoi polloi, too.
Because i did Hebrew and Greek at uni.
Latin was closed to me because I failed the 11+ because my father chose to commit suicide not long before i sat the exam.
They DID do a post mortem!!!
Hallelujah?
Amen?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One more comment, though, before I am done - on the issue of boycotting stamps. I am surprised that so many Christians seem to have a problem with boycotts. Out bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about 'consumer power' and organisations like Traidcraft and those who push for 'clean' clothing have shown how effective boycotts can be in the furthering of justice.
Yes, but our bishops and other leaders increasingly talk about boycotting over issues that actually matter.
So wear and carnage doesn't matter?
F. O. R. has a similar ideas to mine.
There is no URL in this link.
sorry - 2nd attempt
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
F. O. R. has a similar ideas to mine. ....sorry - 2nd attempt
Not really. Their idea is that already suggested by a number of posters - that you send the money to a worthy cause (eg the Hosts' gin cabinet).
What you do appear to share is a failure to take in the Royal Mint's statements about the series of commerative (not 'celebratory') coins true to specific historical stages in the perception of the war - in which context the Kitchener image makes perfect sense.
[ 08. January 2014, 16:06: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
While some from a perspective of the 21st century may deplore what they see as Kichener's glorifying of war, they fail to take into account the social mores of the time, including the very real patriotism at all levels of society.
As Firenze pointed out, the image is only one of many that is associated with WWI.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
There is now a call to put Edith Cavill on it, instead of Kitchener.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is now a call to put Edith Cavill on it, instead of Kitchener.
By whom?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
She'd be good, but for 2015 (centenary of her death) if they don't so something to do with Gallipoli.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Edith Cavell??? That's like frying pan into fire. Is it just because she was a nurse or what?
Honestly, the same level of historical illiteracy which seems to have castigated Kitchener despite him being about the only person in a position of authority in the UK armed forces in 1914 warning that it was going to be a) bloody and b) not over by Christmas is going to be replaced with another example of British propaganda at its finest. When she got shot in 1915 the UK papers were full of outraged editorials and lurid depictions of the young girl cruelly sacrificed by the barbarous Germans. In reality she was in her 50s and yes, nursing, but also working for SIS (MI6 a generation later) in an occupied country and helping British prisoners to escape. Now, all of these things are laudable (and indeed the very reason I've always liked her) but the fact remains that even under the Geneva Convention as it stood at the time her execution was allowed - she just got busted (which is why the Foreign Office let the Germans get on with it without even issuing a protest).
Edith Cavell is a deeply complex character involved in murky things at a murky time. She's not in the same league as Kitchener, but she's not the great beacon of the pacifists either.
Having said that, I'd quite happily put her on the coin in 2015 *when it would actually be chronologically appropriate*
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is now a call to put Edith Cavill on it, instead of Kitchener.
By whom?
We are not supposed to link to petitions and such like so all I can say (I believe - would a host please delete, otherwise?) is that it is from Sioned-Mair Richards from change.org and they've already got 15 thousand supporters within less than 12 hours.
[ 09. January 2014, 15:51: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is now a call to put Edith Cavill on it, instead of Kitchener.
seconded on the "by whom?" question.
Also, it's a little bit late in the day for "instead", given they're already in production.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
leo: quote:
... and they've already got 15 thousand supporters within less than 12 hours.
If you know how to work Twitter you could get 15,000 people to support just about anything. You might even get 15,000 people to sign a petition calling for the exact opposite thing the next day, though they wouldn't all be the same people.
Also, what betjemaniac and L'organist said. Kitchener has been discredited, but *at the time we are marking the anniversary of*, he was a very important figure. And that recruiting poster has been parodied so often it probably counts as Popular Culture.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There is now a call to put Edith Cavill on it, instead of Kitchener.
it's a little bit late in the day for "instead", given they're already in production.
Halt the production. Then the Kitchener coins would become rare collectors' items.
Then both sides would be happy.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
Tangentially, I just looked at the threads in Purg, saw this one, and my immediate thought was "Why put Geoffrey on a coin?
This despite dropping in and out of the thread several times since it started...
AG
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Also, what betjemaniac and L'organist said. Kitchener has been discredited, but *at the time we are marking the anniversary of*, he was a very important figure. And that recruiting poster has been parodied so often it probably counts as Popular Culture.
"Probably?" At this point, given how many times that pose and poster has been copied in however many countries, which have themselves been parodied into oblivion, I think it's pretty much part of the world's popular culture. Being an American, I always thought of that poster as "Uncle Sam Wants You," and then "Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires," not even knowing about Lord Kitchner. If you're looking for an iconic and hugely influential image, that's it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We are not supposed to link to petitions and such like so all I can say (I believe - would a host please delete, otherwise?) is that it is from Sioned-Mair Richards...
I don't know Ms Richards but I do know that here in Wales when you see someone with a name like that doing anything that has a 'peace' flavour you have to beware. They will hector you in two languages about the wickedness of war (subtext: wickedness of the warlike English and the British state) until you start wondering whether there is something to be said for extreme violence after all. The Churches Tent at the Eisteddfod on Hiroshima Day is a place to steer well clear of...
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
..... if they don't so something to do with Gallipoli.
What might that be I wonder , a coin with Churchill's face on it maybe ?
Even our greatest leaders have chapters in their lives they'd rather weren't there.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
..... if they don't so something to do with Gallipoli.
What might that be I wonder , a coin with Churchill's face on it maybe ?
Even our greatest leaders have chapters in their lives they'd rather weren't there.
In fairness, current thinking at the military colleges and in the universities, having studied it at both is that Churchill was probably right and Gallipoli should have worked. the RN and army grown-ups stuffed it up, Churchill carried the can because it was his idea. It wasn't his idea to force the Dardanelles weeks ahead of the troops, or indeed to land them on a deserted promontory and have them sit on the beach for a couple of days to give the Turks a sporting opportunity to flood the place with their own forces.
Gallipoli was a disaster, but it wasn't pre-ordained as one.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Guess we'll have to wait til 2015 for an in-depth on Gallipoli . It's an interesting topic, and one that bears the usual hallmarks of failed WW1 strategies .
Ridiculous optimism , ridiculous arrogance, and meticulous planning that bore no resemblance to that which frontline servicemen knew to be hard-bitten reality .
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Royal Mint seems not to be on the defensive.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
To be honest, I can understand a bit of where leo is coming from. Normally, this kind of coins is made to celebrate positive things that happened in the past. It seems that in this case, the Royal Mint decided to opt for something different, and tell a four year story instead: the good, but also the in-hindsight-not-so-good. I can see that this can feel a bit jarring.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
To be honest, I can understand a bit of where leo is coming from. Normally, this kind of coins is made to celebrate positive things that happened in the past. It seems that in this case, the Royal Mint decided to opt for something different, and tell a four year story instead: the good, but also the in-hindsight-not-so-good. I can see that this can feel a bit jarring.
After the fall of the communist states of eastern Europe, there was a rash of statue destroying, street renaming, removal of iconic materials etc. Over time - and before it was all obliterated, there was a change of heart, and you can now go to see a lot of communist era statuary etc. displayed in public parks. The thought was largely that these things represented a part of the country's history, and attempting to airbrush it away might in the long run prove more dangerous than helpful. So it remains.
There's a similar thing to be said here I think. The commemoration of problematic periods of our history does have something going for it. With the benefit of hindsight we can easily see the nature of what is problematic about this period, but isn't that itself a useful thing to have before us?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And I boycott people who wear red clothes, otherwise I would be discriminating against those who wear blue*.
...[/QUOTE]
[Aside]
There are late night places here in Toronto where a person wearing blue can not go, and likewise a person wearing red can not go into others.
Bloods vs. Crips
[/Aside]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
I did preview that.....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
There are late night places here in Toronto where a person wearing blue can not go, and likewise a person wearing red can not go into others.
Can you explain that please to the rest of us who do not live in Toronto? Is this something to do with gangs? Toronto isn't well known for having violent gangs over here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Royal Mint seems not to be on the defensive.
At the heart of his reaction - and indeed yours, leo - is an unexpressed assumption that falls apart when examined.
The assumption is this: that you're expected to have a positive reaction to the image.
Why should that be the case?
It's the same assumption that underlay reactions to the synchronised swimming team that intended to reference the Nazis in their Olympics routine (a routine that was groundbreaking precisely because it wasn't all nice and fluffy). It's the same assumption that underlay some half-hearted attempts here in Australia some years ago to ban the film Lolita.
At heart, it's an assumption that depiction is approval.
Depiction is depiction. It's not approval. Commemoration is not automatically positive commemoration.
The image of Kitchener's poster is being reproduced because it's iconic - what it's iconic of is entirely a separate question.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
To put it another way, the entire argument boils down to "We can't depict that because it's a bad thing."
Well, sorry, but even if I agree with the premise "it's a bad thing", that premise doesn't support the conclusion "therefore we can't depict it".
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I thought that was a very strange blog - the author appears blind to the fact that he has has a particular view on things.
About two thirds of the way through the article he writes:
quote:
I am not asking for coins that simply reflect my own view of the war.
And yet that seems to be exactly what he wants.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
There are late night places here in Toronto where a person wearing blue can not go, and likewise a person wearing red can not go into others.
Bloods vs. Crips
Can you explain that please to the rest of us who do not live in Toronto? Is this something to do with gangs? Toronto isn't well known for having violent gangs over here.
Added the rest of the quote back in because I think it helps clarify the point. Because the Bloods and Crips are definitely gangs in North America. (An American export that I am sure the Canadians could have done without.)
[ 13. January 2014, 11:43: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
..... if they don't so something to do with Gallipoli.
What might that be I wonder , a coin with Churchill's face on it maybe ?
Even our greatest leaders have chapters in their lives they'd rather weren't there.
In fairness, current thinking at the military colleges and in the universities, having studied it at both is that Churchill was probably right and Gallipoli should have worked. the RN and army grown-ups stuffed it up, Churchill carried the can because it was his idea. It wasn't his idea to force the Dardanelles weeks ahead of the troops, or indeed to land them on a deserted promontory and have them sit on the beach for a couple of days to give the Turks a sporting opportunity to flood the place with their own forces.
Gallipoli was a disaster, but it wasn't pre-ordained as one.
Thank you. After reading about what actually happened I've often thought Churchill was a convenient scapegoat for Gallipoli. His plan was just the high-level idea of opening up a second front in the war to relieve the Western troops in the trenches to end the war quicker. (Similar to his belief that Italy and the Balkans could be used similarly at the end of WWII). It was a good outflanking idea and if it had worked he'd have been a hero. But he wasn't in charge of the operational planning (not surprising since he was a politician, not a general). It was the military that made it FUBAR, not him.
The people who were responsible for the mess were de Roebeck who failed to capture the straits by sea, and then refused to support the land invasion with further assaults, despite Churchill's orders. And General Sir Hamilton, whose management of the land invasion was atrocious.
De Roebeck got out of it unscathed but Hamilton's career was over. The Secretary of State for War should have been blamed in place of Churchill since he was responsible for the inadaquete supply and planning that Hamilton had to work under. But he happened to be Lord Kitchener, who was widely considered a war hero, and recently dead into the bargain, so no one was allowed to criticise him.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought that was a very strange blog - the author appears blind to the fact that he has has a particular view on things.
About two thirds of the way through the article he writes:
quote:
I am not asking for coins that simply reflect my own view of the war.
And yet that seems to be exactly what he wants.
He IS aware because he calls himself a Christian pacifist and then goes on to say that there many with other views which also support the boycott.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Welsh Nationalists have come out against it too.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Welsh Nationalists have come out against it too.
Not quite. One prospective candidate for the Welsh Assembly say that a Welsh poet who died in the war should have been commemorated instead.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Hedd Wyn, I take it? A very moving story and his black-draped bardic Chair could make a very powerful image. Only problem, given that this is a UK coin, is that nobody outside Wales has ever heard of him unless they saw the film.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0