George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 19, 2009 13:40:40 GMT 10
I note a recent mention of the Kingdom of Pictland in the news thread. The Picts ceased to exist as a distinct culture/nation, and were assimiliated into the Scottish nation over a thousand years ago. How is it that some guy living in present-day Alaska apparently knows otherwise ? His website claims that there are over a million Picts alive today ! What evidence is there to support this rather bold assertion ?
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 19, 2009 16:03:21 GMT 10
I note a recent mention of the Kingdom of Pictland in the news thread. The Picts ceased to exist as a distinct culture/nation, and were assimiliated into the Scottish nation over a thousand years ago. How is it that some guy living in present-day Alaska apparently knows otherwise ? His website claims that there are over a million Picts alive today ! What evidence is there to support this rather bold assertion ? Perhaps what you say is debatable, since we all inherently possess partial information. However, one thing is not debatable: the right of a nation to exist, a right which is sanctioned in the Montevideo Convention. How does some guy born and raised on Long Island, North America, speak Italian and even write in Italian like a native? Shouldn't have he been assimilated into the American melting pot by now? Well he hasn't. In fact, I claim very cogently that I'm neither an American, nor a New Yorker. I can present quite a bit of evidence to that effect. In the same way you can have a descendant of Pictish high kings living in Alaska today, and perhaps he's just as jealous a custodian of Pictish culture as I am of the Italian language (but not Roman ways). The Picts are a people who are slowly recovering from the destruction of their culture, and both the Scots and English participated in this destruction. To claim that this culture assimilated into the Scottish nation is like claiming I assimilated into the American melting pot, or that Native Americans have also been totally assimilated. Yes, I have assimilated into American culture in your dreams.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 19, 2009 19:42:54 GMT 10
There's a vast gulf separating the demonstrable cultural affiliations of someone who is Italian-American, and someone who claims that a people who have been extinct for over 1000 years still exist - and that he is their leader. The Pictland website claims that there are over 1,000,000 Picts alive in the world today. Where have they been hiding for the last 1000 years... and where are they all hiding today ? One might just as credibly claim to be the king of the Tocharians, Amorites, Elamites, Hyksos, Sumerians or Hittites, or the modern-day successor of Og of Bashan. They are all equally ludicrous propositions.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Jun 20, 2009 2:08:28 GMT 10
I myself have a drop ( or a bit more) -it is where my name comes from- of Scottish blood, but it would still be more than slightly pretentious to suddenly move to Edinburgh, adopt a Scottish accent, (dye my hair red?) and announce that I have Scottish blood flowing through my veins to the world.
Whilst I myself have nothing against this Kingdom, or its King, I would not feel comfortable with such a decision.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 20, 2009 8:24:02 GMT 10
There's a vast gulf separating the demonstrable cultural affiliations of someone who is Italian-American, and someone who claims that a people who have been extinct for over 1000 years still exist - and that he is their leader. Question: who is it that makes the claim that Picts do not exist (or have been assimilated)? Was it one of the victors, or one of the losers? If it was from the former, what you read is probably not history, but medieval Norman propaganda. I myself have a drop ( or a bit more) -it is where my name comes from- of Scottish blood, but it would still be more than slightly pretentious to suddenly move to Edinburgh, adopt a Scottish accent, (dye my hair red?) and announce that I have Scottish blood flowing through my veins to the world. Whilst I myself have nothing against this Kingdom, or its King, I would not feel comfortable with such a decision. King Derile is not an American with a little bit of Pictish/Scottish blood. He was born in Pictland, and is the descendant of high kings of the northern Picts. Scotland has the greatest number of red heads in the world (around 11% by some accounts), because the red hair is of Viking origin. In Scotland, the majority of people are not actually Scots, but Picts. Even in Argyll, the stronghold of the Irish Scots, two-thirds of members of the Oisin clan are Pictish Celts. Celtic genes seems to predominate all over Great Britain, however. The overlay of Vikings, Saxons and so on is 20 per cent at most, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland, where roughly 40 per cent are of Viking ancestry. This, in turn, proves another argument of mine: "the Celts were the people that fathered many nations, the tribe of Ephraim, and not Great Britain alone" ( A history of the future: Independent Long Island).
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 20, 2009 10:14:16 GMT 10
Question: who is it that makes the claim that Picts do not exist (or have been assimilated)? Every modern historian who has written on the subject. It is the prevailing scientific opinion based on several hundred years of archaeological, linguistic, cultural and historical research. In Scotland, the majority of people are not actually Scots, but Picts. In Scotland, the majority of people are Scots. The Scots are a nation who have existed for over a thousand years. They arose from a number of different cultural groups, including the Picts, Celts (both local British, and from Ireland), Saxons and Vikings, who assimiliated and eventually created the Kingdom of Alba. The Picts and Celts were two distinct (but related) cultural groups - neither of which exist in their aboriginal form as distinct cultures in present day Scotland. The Picts themselves are believed to have originally come from the Iberian peninsula, over 7000 years ago; does that mean that "King Derile" is also the rightful King of Spain, and that Juan-Carlos is a Johnny-come-lately upstart impostor ? There is no such thing as a fixed and immutable culture. Cultures come and go over the course of time. Some disappear virtually overnight in sudden natural or man-made cataclysms. Some disappear more slowly, as part of a process of social integration or assimilation. This analysis of the genetic history of Scotland demonstrates how complex cultural histories can be. An extinct culture cannot simply be re-created by one person living 1000 years later. Cultures simply do not work that way.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 20, 2009 10:49:28 GMT 10
An extinct culture cannot simply be re-created by one person living 1000 years later. Cultures simply do not work that way. Explain Israel for me then. Explain the Hebrew language. Explain relatively successful nations like the Talossas, created largely by a single person, and now having a life of its own even beyond that person's effort. Explain Esperanto, also a language that started with a single person. Also Egyptian has been resurrected at least for scholarly purposes. Is it easy to do that? No, obviously. But King Derile is not alone, and now they even have sovereign land in Alaska thanks to the sovereign tribe of the HeHL. Now, if you ask me whether it is easy to have a nation like Pictland recognised by de jure states and IGOs, I will not only say it is difficult, but next to impossible. But don't tell me a culture, a people cannot be resurrected. Today they are beginning to figure out how to even resurrect mammoths, so please go sell your dogma elsewhere.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 20, 2009 11:31:12 GMT 10
You now seem to be talking about language, not culture.
It's relatively easy for an extinct language to be revived, or a new one to be created.
However, language is merely one aspect of culture.
There is no example in all of human human history of any ancient extinct culture being successfully revived (despite the many claims to that effect).
It's simply not possible.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 20, 2009 14:25:11 GMT 10
You can split hairs all you want, but Israel, the nation, has been revived after over a thousand years. Judaism the religion had continued in spite of the exile of the Jewish people, but the nation of Israel was extinct before 1948, and a real nation is certainly a lot more than even a culture.
Was it a piece of cake? No, and the nation-state hardly has a certain future, because other people, another nation living in Palestine, was displaced by the Jews returning to the land of their ancestors. Did it take quite a bit of help even from other states? Yes, and the help is still an ongoing effort. Was it accomplished in part because of very extraordinary circumstances? Yes, no doubt about it. Perhaps it is also true that without the underlying circumstances it would have never happened.
I think you are confusing the issue with your absolutes. The fact that an extinct culture may be next to impossible to revive because it was less than perfect to begin with does not automatically make the revival of all extinct cultures impossible. Certainly cultures that had many redeeming factors have a better chance, even though it is still something very hard to accomplish.
If a nation was resurrected even once in history, it is clear that resurrecting nations and that is what the Kingdom of Pictland is is a hard thing to accomplish, which is very different from something impossible to accomplish. Perpetual motion, since it violates the laws of physics, is clearly something impossible. Resurrecting a nation or a culture is only very hard.
|
|
|
Post by Rex TorHavn on Jun 20, 2009 16:07:53 GMT 10
Re: the recreation of an entire culture…. Like Israel.
In Our humble opinion, anything "created" thusly is an artificial construct, and only with zealous vigilance can it be maintained.
Fortunately, for Israel this is not a problem, since zealous vigilance is a hallmark of the Israel culture.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 20, 2009 16:41:57 GMT 10
Israel the nation (ie culture) was never extinct.
It has a contiguous, documented history extending over 4000 years, right up to the present day - which is precisely why it was possible to recreate a polity (ie sovereign state) named Israel in the 20th century.
If the Jewish nation/culture had not survived the intervening 2000 years, the creation of the Jewish polity "Israel" would not have been (a) possible, and (b) necessary.
It is the direct opposite of the reason why there are no groups today lobbying for the recreation of "Elam", "Sumer" or "Scythia"; those cultures are extinct. Dead. Gone.
They are not resting. They are not pining for the fjords. They are EX-cultures.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 21, 2009 4:18:09 GMT 10
Now, this isn't to say a movement couldn't be created to revive the Pict culture/language and traditions. But what exactly would the purpose be?
For some in Scotland or elsewhere to differentiate themselves from the rest in order to accomplish what end? Socio-economic-political autonomy or separation? But why in such an age? I know we're getting at the heart of it all here.
Israel's purpose is clear: to provide a homeland for the Jewish people in the Holy land, a/k/a Middle East, a/k/a Palestine, etc.
The question to be asked is:
What is your country's purpose? Be it the United States of America, France, Atlantium, the Kingdom of Pictland, the Republic of Long Island, Sri Lanka or the Hutt River Province.
Let's really get down to it. While I'm no fan of homosexuality, I can see a legitimate reason in having an enclave for gays and lesbians. For that matter, I'm skeptical of evangelical Christianity (I once viewed it as a neutral or civilizing force in the world, but recent evidence has showed to me otherwise), and so I could understand a sort of homeland for evangelical Christians somewhere.
A homeland for Papuans, independence for Tibetans, etc. All grounded in substance. This isn't to say ego and vanity don't count. The Empire of John or Joseph could be worthy ventures, but to get others to salute is the key.
Speaking for myself, I'm not willing risk life or limb for a free Tibet. It's not my cause or passion. Nor am I willing to donate to glorify Bob as my Emperor.
While I like the idea of a Jewish homeland and believe there should exist one. I do not like the displacement of any peoples. Nor do I like the concept of preempting the coming of the Messiah who will create or recreate Israel himself. Sorry but David Ben Gurion wasn't the Messiah.
Israel was founded by mostly secular and socialist Jews. It's a reality. There was no mad rush to create a free market capitalist paradise. Nor was there a mad rush to create a Jewish theocracy either. I often marvel at how right wing Christians in the Anglosphere salute Israel when the founding principles of that State are diametrically opposite of their own.
From my understanding, Christian support for Israel is focused on the following:
1. Guilt over the Holocaust (and rightfully so in my opinion)
2. The fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and how once all the Jews are lined up in Israel, the rapture will happen and Jesus will return. (I'm no expert on Christian eschatology)
3. Israel makes it relatively safe for Christians to visit the Holy land (This one is a matter of vigorous debate)
4. Israel can serve as the warden of West in the Middle East. This may change if Iraq becomes a U.S. military colony. And that's another vigorous debate altogether.
As I've long argued, there should be a movement to create a Jewish state somewhere outside of the Middle East. I know the President of Iran suggested Germany or Poland. Adolf Hitler thought of Madagascar and Joseph Stalin toyed with the idea of the Mongol-Chinese border.
I don't speak of a replacement to or for Israel. But simply another Jewish country. Maybe one in a less disputed part of the world, one without such a history of bloodshed and chaos. After all, there are several majority Christian and Muslim nations in the world today. Why shouldn't there be more than one majority Jewish country?
Granted, Jews are less numerous than either group by a factor of 100 to 200 or more.
The irony is such a country would probably enjoy better relations with the likes of Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia than Israel itself. After all, it could come across as competition for Israel.
While the overwhelming Muslim states could recognize such a Jewish state outside of the Holy land for propaganda purposes: "we're not anti-Jewish, just anti-Zionist, our quarrel has never been with the Jewish people, we've hosted their communities for centuries and in some cases before the time of Mohammad."
It would be a real interesting experiment. It would also likely raise a tremendous amount of money. The moral of this rant or story is aimed at those interested in actually succeeding.
If I were a Homosexual, I'd take up that cause. If I were an Environmentalist, I'd run with the idea of an "All-Green Country" or an a "Model" nation as an example to all. Whatever your cause is my suggestion is to embrace it.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 21, 2009 8:44:49 GMT 10
Just as every organisation has a mission statement, all real nations and micronations have a purpose as well. Part of the purpose may simply be the preservation of customs, language, religion and the like. Part may be fighting discrimination, prejudice, racism, etc.
States exercise sovereignty within a specific territory, so they have no problem getting what they want.
Well-established churches have a degree of autonomy thanks to things like the First Amendment, religious rights laws, or other more or less formal instruments of religious recognition.
Foreign Embassies of recognised states also have a lot of freedom within their protected spaces.
In America, the taxman or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recognises "qualified" Canadian and Mexican organisations covered under an income tax treaty with Canada or Mexico. Moreover, it also recognises tax deductions to certain Israeli charitable organizations under an income tax treaty with Israel.
However, nations have pretty much the same status of gay and green organisations when they're lucky and have significant support, and these folks also seek their own state with or without an authentic national culture.
Nations within multicultural societies are left with the funds that the state and other government authorities has not taxed, and the monies that were not given to churches and the like. It's not a lot in these days of job and financial rationing, and it is also not an absolutely necessary expense as the mortgage or rent, food, clothing, and the occasional trip to the pub/bar/restaurant/disco/cinema.
Also, governments may cater to large ethnic or linguistic groups like the Hispanics in the US, and this brings all sorts of goodies such as electoral booths with Spanish instructions, and even elementary school educational materials in Spanish not in special schools, but in public schools, and financed by public funds. What do smaller groups like Italian-Americans get? Virtually nothing, and with secessionists and micronationalists the situation is even worse, as patriotic sentiment is respected even in the mass media, but matriotic sentiment is either treated as illegitimate, with derision, or with outright scorn.
So I will never question any member of an underprivileged minority, discriminated nation, or micronation, unless I have good reason to believe the micronation is little more than an 'ego-nation', and has no higher purpose other than to provide frustrated actors with an outlet for their drama.
Even ego-nations have a purpose, however. I just don't see them as real micronations for scientific classification purposes.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 21, 2009 9:06:14 GMT 10
...there should be a movement to create a Jewish state somewhere outside of the Middle East. I know the President of Iran suggested Germany or Poland. Adolf Hitler thought of Madagascar and Joseph Stalin toyed with the idea of the Mongol-Chinese border. I read somewhere recently that there was a proposal at one stage in the 1930s to set up a Jewish homeland in northwestern Australia. The geography and climate would certainly be similar to that of present-day Israel. The proposal was apparently conceived and advocated by a Jewish group.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 22, 2009 3:32:48 GMT 10
Interesting, very interesting and that's news to me. There is certainly plenty of sparsely populated land there. A far less attractive proposal in the 19th century was in the Buffalo, New York area.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 22, 2009 3:38:11 GMT 10
Nobody in their right mind *wants* to live in Buffalo! :-P
|
|
Chas Jago
Full Member
Prime Minister
Posts: 137
|
Post by Chas Jago on Jun 22, 2009 7:17:01 GMT 10
Buffalo, New York? Can someone fill me in on whats wrong with Buffalo, New York? not that I live there.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 22, 2009 8:11:23 GMT 10
Buffalo, New York? Can someone fill me in on whats wrong with Buffalo, New York? not that I live there. Nothing wrong with the place, but when it snows there, you get covered. Like up to your neck. In the NYC metropolitan area, where I live, you may get snow, but it is usually a lot easier to deal with. The 2008-2009 winter was colder than usual, and it snowed a lot more than expected (we may have gotten spoiled with almost Mediterranean winters here in previous years), but it was still pretty decent where I live. In Buffalo winters are quite another ballgame. Almost like living on a different planet. Buffalo, NY also seems crime-ridden in a lot of areas, but this info is not from direct experience, so I don't know if it is a fair characterisation overall.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 22, 2009 8:18:34 GMT 10
Buffalo has a wonderful, massive, derelict Art Deco railway station, a wonderful, slightly less derelict Art Deco city hall, the former Pierce-Arrow car showroom and... well... that's about it for major attractions.
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Jul 1, 2009 5:08:00 GMT 10
It is the direct opposite of the reason why there are no groups today lobbying for the recreation of "Elam", "Sumer" or "Scythia"; those cultures are extinct. Dead. Gone. They are not resting. They are not pining for the fjords. They are EX-cultures. Well, I know a group who is toying with the re-creation of a by-gone culture. Actually, it's a culture that has been soooo extinct that no one knows for sure it ever existed. That's one of the reasons why we chose it in the first time. No one else was claiming it! Of course, the big difference is that we don't have any political claim in our agenda. Interestingly, archeology has proven that most of Israel's claims are based on myths too... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_UnearthedIf you look at them closely, you'll see that most of today's nations have largely turned their early history into myths, or the other way around. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Jul 1, 2009 5:09:06 GMT 10
Oh crap! I just stepped in a cesidiocy...
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jul 1, 2009 6:29:03 GMT 10
If you look at them closely, you'll see that most of today's nations have largely turned their early history into myths, or the other way around. Absolutely. The creation of a resonant and compelling "national myth" lies at the foundation of all successful polities. However, in the case of the "Pictland in Exile", the myth is neither compelling nor resonant, and as a consequence it has garnered no more than a handful of part-time adherents and advocates - despite allegedly being promoted since the early 19th century. Any comparison with Israel, the USA, post-revolutionary France, Australia or other polities that posess powerful national myths is laughable, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Rex TorHavn on Jul 10, 2009 7:16:25 GMT 10
Hello, Sogoln:
In the name of the Wolf-Nation:
If any “recreation” deserves the moniker of “myth-story,” I’d like to nominate my own creation: “Lykosha: Wolf-Nation.”
So far, Lykosha has persisted, just under the surface, as a semi-active, opposite of TorHavn, and I admit to a great deal of supposition… and I always tried to act appropriately when representing Her. And, just when I think that She’s buried and dead, I get a flurry of activity.
Except for the Formori (sort of), I do not know of another like Her… and I’m not ashamed of creating Her; I still think, given sufficient resources, and a small parcel of land, Lykosha could survive… just my 2-cents worth…
|
|
|
Post by Robert Milne on Jul 21, 2009 18:06:13 GMT 10
Wow, I didn't realize there was such a lively debate on the Kingdom of Pictland.Hasn't anybody bothered.To send an inquiry asking all of your questions.To those who may have the answers you are looking for? Let me try and explain some things.To those who are interested.Firstly in my humble opinion.As a people the Picts existed well into the late 15th century.As a separate and distinct population.They were largely located in what is now Northern Scotland.In mostly 2 distinct regions in Sutherland and Caithness.Other enclaves existed in Galloway,and a few other areas.Surely now we are talking only about 400 years give or take.There are many highland clans today claiming Pictish heritage.I ask you.Who are we to say they are not entitled to this heritage?That they are not Picts.This question is a mute one.As D-N-A has proved they are.And if they have their own King,And Government. This too is their choice under international law. Surely some of you have highland blood in your veins.And come from one clan or another.Doesn't your clan have a history they are proud of.This ancestor or that.Now suppose your clan is Pictish.As 49 of the Great highland clans are.As are their Sept's.These same histories and cultures are taught to their children.And so on down the line.We have a strong affinity for our people.And have taken this abroad to other lands.Both in the far distant past.And in the present. And to think that a culture is a static thing.That it never changes or adapts with the times.Is very linear thinking.As long as a people don't forget who they are.And keep their beliefs,culture,heritage,and customs alive.Doesn't that mean those people are still alive?Again International laws says it does.People are subject to their environment,and to circumstance.The church brings in Christianity.And with it ecclesiastical language,Be it Latin,Gaelic,or even English.The women learn it.and they in turn teach it to their children.Economy brings trade and foreign contacts.These in turn bring new ideas etc.A people do not just disappear.Nor does a culture simply just die.Incas and Aztecs are still here.Though changed from 500 years of Spanish contact.There are still Incas and Aztecs alive today.So to are the Picts. As I follow this thread that you have all posted.It was mentioned about Israel.Here is a question if there ever was one.Israel was utterly destroyed by the armies of the Babylonians.and later by the Romans.They existed as a religion.for alot of recorded history.(The key here folks is recorded history.).Our clan histories are the property of the clan.Not the rest of the world.And most of our histories are oral.some have been recorded in recent years.But still belong to the clan.Unless you are related to one of the clans.You will not hear their stories.Our clans do not look for your acceptance.We are who we are.And have a very proud heritage that is our own.All the tribes and peoples that have had contact with us.Know who we are.That is enough for us.For you see we are not a micronation.That exists only on the internet,nor are we a bedroom or backyard experiment that has gone wrong.No. we are a Living Kingdom.We even have our own Sovereign lands.And a living population.That numbers over 1 million people. So according to all Internationally accepted laws of Sovereign Nations.The Kingdom of Pictland is among them.We are a declared Neutral nation.And do not interfere in the affairs of others.Our allies and friends already know who they are."We have no enemies".Having said this.I will end by saying Sabuta Robert Milne Assistant Diplomat for the Kingdom of Pictland
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jul 22, 2009 4:31:10 GMT 10
What the Hon. Robert Milne has stated is perfectly valid.
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention states, "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law". This concept is known as the Declarative Theory of Statehood.
Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 15 of the UDHR provides:
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples (UDRP) states:
All peoples have the equal right to live in dignity and to be respected. It is the duty of all states to treat equally and justly all peoples living within their respective jurisdictions.
Article 15 of the UDRP provides:
All peoples have the right to self-identification and have the right to know, learn, preserve and develop their own culture, history, language, religion and customs.
It is thus clear that not only the Picts exist, but nobody has any right to deny their existence either under a well-accepted part of customary international law (the Declarative Theory of Statehood), or under other international rights conventions.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Mckerra on Jul 28, 2009 12:32:22 GMT 10
Come on, have you seen the Pictland website? It's just another advertisement for Tallini.
Putting the merits of claiming to represent "the picts" aside, the Kingdom of Pictland appears to be nothing more than another Tallini front, and should be dismissed as such.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jul 28, 2009 12:34:43 GMT 10
I think you just said what quite a few of us were thinking.
I am now ducking for cover.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jul 28, 2009 14:57:02 GMT 10
Come on, have you seen the Pictland website? It's just another advertisement for Tallini. Putting the merits of claiming to represent "the picts" aside, the Kingdom of Pictland appears to be nothing more than another Tallini front, and should be dismissed as such. This guy is obviously heavy into REALITY... Or heavily into denial of REALITY.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jul 28, 2009 15:50:47 GMT 10
Reality is where we live our lives, and as such it's the only place that ever really matters.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jul 28, 2009 16:57:57 GMT 10
Perhaps.., but a lot of reality I know about, certainly not all reality, but definitely a significant portion, actually started in my hands... It wasn't delivered to me on some silver platter; like a good homebrew, I had to make it myself, sometimes with a little help from my friends.
And you see, that is what REAL MICRONATIONALISM is all about. Some tribes/communities are just more capable (or determined) at creating new realities, while others just sit by and judge, even though it isn't the place they live in, or what they experience, or can even perceive.
How many people judge me and don't really know me? In American English, they would say "everyone that has an a-hole".
Yet even my nieces don't truly know me, because they may see me on most days, but that is all they see. They see the present, and they probably don't perceive it all, because they certainly don't write all the books I write, or follow all the things I do. They also know nothing of my past, so can they even attempt to predict the future with any probability of success? Predicting one's future is not possible without thorough knowledge of his past.
I know scholars don't know as much as I do about Fourth and Fifth World nations, so I will never assume they know anything more than I do about the Picts. Economists don't have better ideas than I do about currencies, and medical doctors are not necessarily wiser than me about health matters. These are facts to me, and the fact most people are poor even in relatively wealthy countries, and many more people today are dying from cardiovascular diseases and cancer than in the past, proves that these people are nothing more than overrated and overpaid high priests of knowledge of dubious value.
Why should I believe that the English or Scottish had the best interests of the Picts in mind, the ones who have written all those BS tomes you mention, when Washington DC doesn't have the best interests of Texans in mind? Since when scholars have spoken the truth and nothing but, rather than simply repeating the nonsense that was taught to them, and which they cannot prove, and yet take like some mathematical axiom.
An axiom is something totally obvious, so obvious you can build the whole of mathematics and geometry on them, like structures over a solid foundation. What is the building these people have built with their so-called knowledge about the Picts? I'll tell you. Their knowledge is just about as accurate and solid as the knowledge Romans have of the Neapolitan language (which they call a 'dialect', and this is against prevailing linguistic wisdom), or just about as accurate and solid as the knowledge Italian historians have of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (a part of Italy's history that also gets conveniently buried in order to ensure Rome is always top dog).
|
|