AFLD v Armstrong

finchy

aurelio wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

C'mon, let's be positive - at least we've never had a fascist government - yet!

I'm not quite sure that is the case, especially if, as Orwell put it, we mean 'a slimy Anglicized form of Fascism, with cultured policemen instead of Nazi gorillas and the lion and the unicorn instead of the swastika.'

Actually, Orwell was wrong, if only the bit about 'cultured policemen'!

I don't think that we're quite there yet, but I find the way this country is moving politically is very, very depressing.

Unfortunately, you could say the same about any other country though - I can think of a fair few EU countries where far-right movements are making headway.

teagar

johnfinch wrote:

teagar wrote:

I'm in half a mind to throw in my two cents on amateur/popular history that I've been studying in my final term history degree, but given the various responses last time, I've decided people don't like being told they're wrong!

8)

Well if I've made any factual mistakes in this thread, I'd be happy for you to correct them - I'd prefer to say something stupid once than twice!

Be warned though, my stepdad is a history teacher, and we've got a bookshelf with over two hundred books covering this period, so I'll be checking all of this up :twisted: !

I'm not rising to the bait! My issue isn't with the facts quoted. They're a sideshow... But I shan't be saying what my issue is, or else I will end up in the discussion! I'm happy to discuss it elsewhere, but not in the "pro-race" thread!


Again, like I said, Armstrong's a clever guy. He's better than Alistair Campbell at spinning. ( spining issues - I'm sure Armstrong can beat him in a gym spinning session any day!)

finchy

teagar wrote:

I'm not rising to the bait! My issue isn't with the facts quoted. They're a sideshow... But I shan't be saying what my issue is, or else I will end up in the discussion!

No bait intended. The problem with some of the discussion of history on this thread is that it started off really with an attack on the misrepresentation of history by Aurelio, which can easily be misconstrued as the poster having a certain agenda. From reading his/her posts, I can see why some people might take it to be downplaying the role played by the British and Americans in WW2, but I see it more as ridiculing the fairy-tale version of history, in which airmen with clipped public schoolboy accents single-handedly won the war.

aurelio_-_banned

johnfinch wrote:

The problem with some of the discussion of history on this thread is that it started off really with an attack on the misrepresentation of history by Aurelio, which can easily be misconstrued as the poster having a certain agenda. From reading his/her posts, I can see why some people might take it to be downplaying the role played by the British and Americans in WW2, but I see it more as ridiculing the fairy-tale version of history, in which airmen with clipped public schoolboy accents single-handedly won the war.

I also agree that the myth of 'the few' is in need of revision. (In fact hasn't that happened already?). However, I was not trying to marginalise the role the UK and USA played in WW2 (400,000 deaths is a lot of people). Rather I was trying to counter the more usual 'bias' where the central role of the USSR is downplayed.

As to certain other 'biases' on here, I always find it interesting how people, including Armstrong, are so quick to shout anti-Americanism at the French whilst at the same time blatantly expressing their own anti-French agenda.

Anti-French attitudes in the UK have a long history. Of course France was a long-time military opponent of the UK, but the real differences in political outlook really seem to date from about the time of the 1789 Revolution when the principles of 'Liberty, Egality and Fraternity’ were seen to pose a direct threat to the status quo of the rigid social hierarchy that existed in the UK. (And still does). France got revolution, Britain got the Peterloo massacre and ever since the British have been encouraged to see France as dangerously ‘leftist’, subversive of the natural order and so on.

micron

And were it nor for those pesky French, then the American colonies would still be under the yoke of good old Blighty.

I wonder if all those xenophobic Armstrong fans realise they wouldn't be living in the Land of the Free were it not for...the French

disgruntledgoat

aurelio wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

The problem with some of the discussion of history on this thread is that it started off really with an attack on the misrepresentation of history by Aurelio, which can easily be misconstrued as the poster having a certain agenda. From reading his/her posts, I can see why some people might take it to be downplaying the role played by the British and Americans in WW2, but I see it more as ridiculing the fairy-tale version of history, in which airmen with clipped public schoolboy accents single-handedly won the war.

I also agree that the myth of 'the few' is in need of revision (in fact hasn't that happened already?) but I was not trying to marginalise the role the UK and USA played in WW2 (400,000 deaths is a lot of people). Rather I was trying to counter the more usual 'bias' where the central role of the USSR is downplayed.

As to certain other 'biases' on here, I always find it interesting how people, including Armstrong, are so quick to shout anti-Americanism at the French whilst at the same time blatantly expressing their own anti-French agenda.

Anti-French attitudes in the UK have a long history. Of course France was a long-time military opponent of the UK, but the real differences in political outlook really seem to date from about the time of the 1789 Revolution when the principles of 'Liberty, Egality and Fraternity’ were seen to pose a direct threat to the status quo of the rigid social hierarchy that existed in the UK. (And still does). France got revolution, Britain got the Peterloo massacre and ever since the British have been encouraged to see France as dangerously ‘leftist’, subversive of the natural order and so on.

I have no Anti-French Agenda, i like the french. I just don't like unchecked assertions giving the impresstion that there is only one side to an argument. I appreciate you weren't doing that now so I apologise.

However, the Terror was well underway before, during and after WW2 within Russia. It had nothing to do with the amount of Ukranians, Georgians etc fighting fro teh Germans's (coerced or not), that is a pretext. It had everything to do with vesting all power ina single man who nobody can say no to. And to be honest the French revolution didn't work out so well for the ordinary Frenchman either did it? They got their dictator too.

I don't see any nations role in a conflict as all encompassing as WW2 as being more "central" than anybody elses. for sure, in sheer weight of numbers teh land campaign in Soviet territory is more bloody than any other theatre in that conflict, but why is it more vital to the defeat of germany tahn the battle of the Atlantic or the horible, murderous Island hopping the Americans and Japanese engaged in?

And where did Iraq come into this?

finchy

disgruntledgoat wrote:

teh land campaign in Soviet territory is more bloody than any other theatre in that conflict, but why is it more vital to the defeat of germany tahn the battle of the Atlantic or the horible, murderous Island hopping the Americans and Japanese engaged in?

And where did Iraq come into this?

Well the Soviet land campaign was definitely more vital to the defeat of Germany than island-hopping in the Pacific...

Sorry, I know what you mean, I just can't let such a fine opportunity for pedantry go by

aurelio_-_banned

disgruntledgoat wrote:

.. to be honest the French revolution didn't work out so well for the ordinary Frenchman either did it? They got their dictator too.

Yes, unfortunately, the forces of reactionism always try to turn back the progress made by the 'revolutionaries'. At least the French have a history of fighting back, as in 1848, whilst the British establishment has always managed to cow the British into almost total submission. (Unless, of course, someone suggests doing anything that might increase the cost of using their precious motorcars). No wonder Orwell wrote in 1984, his parody of Britain in 1948: 'The proletarians will never revolt, not in a thousand years or a million.'

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I don't see any nations role in a conflict as all encompassing as WW2 as being more "central" than anybody else’s.

I had thought we were talking specifically talking about the war in Europe and the misconception that the Americans came in and saved the 'asses' of 'the French' from the Nazis.

rockmount

aurelio wrote:

I had thought we were talking specifically talking about the war in Europe and the misconception that the Americans came in and saved the 'asses' of 'the French' from the Nazis.

I thought we were talking about f*cking bike racing ....but then there ain't much of that round these parts !!

aurelio_-_banned

rockmount wrote:

I thought we were talking about f*cking bike racing...

No, we were talking about Armstrong's pathological hatred of 'the French' and the reasons why this goes down so well with his fan-base in the US...

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

..

...... and the misconception that the Americans came in and saved the 'asses' of 'the French' from the Nazis.

Misconseption or truth, that is the general feeling here in the States. Now, that doesn't mean that Americans hate the French. It means that most Americans feel that without the British and our help there would still be a nazi flag flying in Paris.

Dennis Noward

liversedge

dennisn wrote:

aurelio wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

..

...... and the misconception that the Americans came in and saved the 'asses' of 'the French' from the Nazis.

Misconseption or truth, that is the general feeling here in the States. Now, that doesn't mean that Americans hate the French. It means that most Americans feel that without the British and our help there would still be a nazi flag flying in Paris.

Dennis Noward

Mmmm. 'Most Americans'. The same ones that think the Union Flag is the reebok logo, or the ones that think the sun orbits the earth. Or maybe the ones that believe in God. Or perhaps the ones that think the superbowl champions are the world champions. I love a lot of what America brings to the world but they do seem to specialise in dumb-fuckers.

You want xenophobia? you can't handle xenophobia!

dennisn

liversedge wrote:

dennisn wrote:

aurelio wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

..

...... and the misconception that the Americans came in and saved the 'asses' of 'the French' from the Nazis.

Misconseption or truth, that is the general feeling here in the States. Now, that doesn't mean that Americans hate the French. It means that most Americans feel that without the British and our help there would still be a nazi flag flying in Paris.

Dennis Noward

Mmmm. 'Most Americans'. The same ones that think the Union Flag is the reebok logo, or the ones that think the sun orbits the earth. Or maybe the ones that believe in God. Or perhaps the ones that think the superbowl champions are the world champions. I love a lot of what America brings to the world but they do seem to specialise in dumb-idiots.

You want xenophobia? you can't handle xenophobia!

I've got to disagree. I think "dumb idiots" is pretty much worldwide. No country is immune
from them.

Dennis Noward

finchy

dennisn wrote:

I've got to disagree. I think "dumb idiots" is pretty much worldwide. No country is immune
from them.

Dennis Noward

Yes, but large, historically powerful countries like the USA, UK and France seem to have a certain type of "dumb idiot", who think that they are somehow above the rest of the world, making a massively disproportionate contribution to the well-being of humanity, and that the inferior peoples are ungrateful, envious and bitter.

The rest of the world has very different types of dumb idiot.

aurelio_-_banned

liversedge wrote:

I love a lot of what America brings to the world but they do seem to specialise in dumb-idiots.

I don`t think that is a fair thing to say at all.

Human beings are pretty much the same the world over. The biggest problem is that, speaking very generally, Americans are not brought up to think critically and are conditioned from birth by the most powerful, pervasive and effective media-based propaganda machine to have ever existed. One consequence is that America has the lowest percentage of `non believers` in the world, at 3%, and apparently polls show that approaching 90% of Americans `never doubt` the existence of `God`. Americans are also notoriously ignorant of / disinterested in what happens in the next state, never mind the rest of the world, a trait that extends right to the top, as with Bush`s famous `General General` gaff. (And yes, Britain is going the same way).

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, America is only the `Land of the free` in so much as they are free to do as they are told and to think as they are conditioned to think, just like happens in many other states that most Americans would regards as being anything but 'free'. Sure dissent is possible in the US, but that is because the powers that be know they are in firm control. Genuine alternative voices are either marginalised, ignored or controlled and change can only occur within some very well established boundaries which extend from the centre right to the extreme right. Just look at their two-party but essentially one ideology political system (Again, much like the UK, it has to be said). True, Obama is no Bush, thank goodness, and even the Republicans look sane in comparison with the so-called `Libertarian` fringe, but it will be interesting to see just how much real change he will be able to bring about. To quote Bill Hicks once more:

"I'll show you politics in America right here. 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you fucking morons.'"

crown_jewel

There is quite a lot of talk here about what "Americans" believe, as though we all believe the same things. In fact, as I would imagine is true everywhere, Americans believe lots of different things. On religion, for example, recent polls show that non-believers exceed the number of Catholics. You just don't hear much from them about it. Politically, the Republican party has become marginalized because it has become dominated by its extreme right wing. Most Americans don't agree with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or John Boehner for that matter. Obama's approval ratings exceed 67%, and those are not all Democrats. Be careful of overgeneralizing. And btw, most of us don't hate the French.

aurelio_-_banned

Crown Jewel wrote:

There is quite a lot of talk here about what "Americans" believe, as though we all believe the same things. In fact, as I would imagine is true everywhere, Americans believe lots of different things.

Hence my use of such guarded terms as 'speaking very generally'.

Crown Jewel wrote:

On religion, for example, recent polls show that non-believers exceed the number of Catholics.

How about a source for that claim? It certainly doesn't tie in with any other surveys I have read. For example, the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey found that Catholics were the largest single religious group in the US, totalling almost 51 million people, or 24.5% of the population. In comparison there were less than a million atheists and less than a million agnostics. More recent surveys show much the same pattern. For example the 2007 Religious Landscape Survey found that just 2.3% of Americans were atheists.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf

http://religions.pewforum.org/

Crown Jewel wrote:

Politically, the Republican party has become marginalized because it has become dominated by its extreme right wing. Most Americans don't agree with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or John Boehner for that matter. Obama's approval ratings exceed 67%, and those are not all Democrats.

When I was reading around the election result it seemed clear that the Republican party did not lose the election because it had become so dominated by the extreme right, but because it's failures of economic policy began to hurt too many people. Not even the occupation of Iraq seemed to have that much of an impact, and after all the Republicans were voted in again largely on a 'war' ticket last time round.

It also seems that what really got the Democrats into power was the large number of socially marginalised coloured voters who would usually have stayed at home and who turned out to vote instead, and the significant swing in the Hispanic vote in favour of the Democrats. White voters still went for McCain 55% with that figure approaching 70% in the south.

Crown Jewel wrote:

...most of us don't hate the French

Maybe, but expressing anti-French sentiments can't be that much of a social faux-pa in the US, otherwise the media-savvy Mr. Armstrong would refrain from his xenophobica rantings. Similarly, many in the UK would say that are 'not racists' whilst at the same time enjoying the bile of the likes of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning.

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

It also seems that what really got the Democrats into power was the large number of socially marginalised coloured voters who would usually have stayed at home and who turned out to vote.......

"coloured" - Definitely not politically correct here in the states. Got to be black or African-
American. Nothing else will do. Although my mother(85) still refers to "that really nice colored lady who used to clean our house when you(myself) were a child". Things
are always changing I guess.

Dennis Noward

crown_jewel

Thanks for asking me to get the cite on the survey I referenced. I couldn't find it but in looking at my post I did misstate what I recall it said. Non-believers are now about 15M of the US population, about on par with the gay, Hispanic and Jewish communities. Quite right that it's still far fewer than the number of Catholics.

The Republicans are becoming a party of the far right and the South. If you have followed their positions since Obama took office, they border on the absurd. Krugman said it quite nicely this am. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opini ... ef=opinion

And I intended no comment on Lance at all. He can say what he wishes. The fact that he feels free to vent his views without regard to how they will be heard by others should not necessarily be construed as evidence that most Americans agree with him. I think he doesn't care very much who agrees with him.

The fact is that there are plenty of Americans who look down on Europe for lots of reasons. Some think Americans work harder, are more self-sufficient, or that God loves them best. Other Americans, and I'd like to think I fit in this group, are a bit more mature in our thinking and realize there almost never is only one view of an issue. We tend to look at the European cultures and social structures with a heavy dose of respect. After all, access to health care and adequate education for everyone does matter.

Addendum: new poll just out. Perhaps I was too harsh on American views of France and Europe. http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/4/9/US/284

aurelio_-_banned

Crown Jewel wrote:

new poll just out. Perhaps I was too harsh on American views of France and Europe. http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/4/9/US/284

Hmmm, 51% of those in the south have an unfavourable opinion of France. Isn't Texas, Armstrong's home state, part of the south?

Clemson Cycling

Europe wants the Untied States to drive the car (both militarily and econmically) but they intend to sit in the back and bitch about our driving skills.

dennisn

Clemson Cycling wrote:

Europe wants the Untied States to drive the car (both militarily and econmically) but they intend to sit in the back and ***** about our driving skills.

Very well put. Except for the spelling.

Dennis Noward

finchy

Clemson Cycling wrote:

Europe wants the Untied States to drive the car (both militarily and econmically) but they intend to sit in the back and ***** about our driving skills.

No, we much prefer your new, improved, non-insane administration.

Even the Americans seemed to be sick of neo-conservative foreign policy, given that the Republican party had to choose a candidate whose main boast was that he had opposed Bush & co.

Clemson Cycling

No, we much prefer your new, improved, non-insane administration.

Even the Americans seemed to be sick of neo-conservative foreign policy, given that the Republican party had to choose a candidate whose main boast was that he had opposed Bush & co.

I guess history will determine how insane or not insane this administration is. They are taking a lot of risks right now borrowing $1 trillion.

America currently leads the world, and will continue to lead the world, both politically and militarily. The Untied States does not need Europe. I don't know is vice versa is true.

blazing_saddles

Clemson Cycling wrote:

America currently leads the world, and will continue to lead the world, both politically and militarily. The Untied States does not need Europe. I don't know is vice versa is true.

I'm sure you could have squeezed cycling in their, with out much trouble.
We are pretty good at borrowing money we don't have, too.
More Black Holes than a series of Star Trek.

leguape

Clemson Cycling wrote:

No, we much prefer your new, improved, non-insane administration.

Even the Americans seemed to be sick of neo-conservative foreign policy, given that the Republican party had to choose a candidate whose main boast was that he had opposed Bush & co.

I guess history will determine how insane or not insane this administration is. They are taking a lot of risks right now borrowing $1 trillion.

America currently leads the world, and will continue to lead the world, both politically and militarily. The Untied States does not need Europe. I don't know is vice versa is true.

Good luck with that when the Chinese cash in their dollar bond holding. Matter of time before we're going to see more Chinese riders in the european peloton than one on the Skil-Shimano squad.

finchy

Clemson Cycling wrote:

I guess history will determine how insane or not insane this administration is. They are taking a lot of risks right now borrowing $1 trillion.

America currently leads the world, and will continue to lead the world, both politically and militarily. The Untied States does not need Europe. I don't know is vice versa is true.

They were dealt a very, very bad hand economically. Doing nothing and letting the market even itself out risks worldwide instability. Borrowing vast amounts of money means saddling future generations with huge debts. Not an easy choice, and I don't envy those making it (although I'm sure their vast salaries, pensions and potential future earnings compensate somewhat).

With regards to foreign policy, what can I say? Within a few months of coming into power, relations with Russia have gone from the foundation of a new Cold War to talking about nuclear disarmament. I'm not saying that Obama's going to be a miracle worker who will bring peace to all mankind, but he is approximately 1,424,687 times better than the previous shower.

America doesn't need Europe, but vice-versa might not be true? I guess you'll be happy to live without the benefits of any European discoveries and inventions then.

Kléber

Cakestop time...

...unless someone can bring this back on topic with a cross reference from Roland Barthes to American identity and Mont Ventoux.

flattythehurdler

Neither really needs the other. As a paddy living in the UK, I find the constant toadying up to the US government by politicians, on behalf of the electorate (with one eye (excuse the phrase)) on the lecture speaking retirement circuit odious in the extreme.
Life seems better with both to me, but europe will punt on , regardless of the states, much the same in the long run.
Those remembrance sites are haunting wherever they are, and whichever side they commemorate. Soldiers don't pick the war, by and large, just do the dying.
Anyway, no shimano, no campy, the yanks would have to make do with that plastic sram crap, and cannondales... except they are stopping manufacture in america as well.

rockmount

At least LA's visit to Ireland later this year should give the Irish economy a much needed boost, being as it is presently f*cked ... the celtic tiger was declared extinct long ago...those yankee dollars can be very useful !!