Thierry Henry lost a golden opportunity to show the world that in addition to being a great ball player, he was also a great sportsman.
It is understandable that in the heat of the moment one will make a silly mistake such as Henry did, but there is then no excuse for failing to rethink ones action after the mad moment has passed.
After the "heat of the moment" event, Henry surely would have considered the fact that dozens of TV cameras and still cameras had captured the moment and just like all goals scored would have been played repeatedly over and over again, in slow motion, and zoomed.
He also lost a never to be repeated opportunity to become a truly great role model for those youths of African descent and for the African communities who don't usually get a good press. But then he's probably just a normal human being after all and not the superhuman being his exceptional footballing skills falsely make him out to be.
Regretfully the moment has now passed and is unlikely to come again soon and African people and of African descent will still languish in a negative light.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
WHO ARE WE
WHO ARE WE
Just who exactly are we, where did we come from and are we deserving of any great interest?
Written histories, which are the main source of information on our ancient ancestors, are notoriously inaccurate if not downright lies. Remember that these histories were written from the point of view of the conqueror and the ruling aristocracy. History has been manipulated from time immemorial by politicians as they still do so today.
History as accepted until recently.
The Celts originally came from Central Europe, and swept into the archipelago of islands off the coast of northwest Europe, where they slaughtered the resident inhabitants and secured the islands for themselves. And, except for myth and legend, we know little of who the original inhabitants were.
The earliest known historical reference to the inhabitants of the Isles comes from records of the voyage of Pytheas, a Greek geographer. He is said to have made a voyage of exploration around the Isles between 330 and 320 BC. Pytheas called the islands collectively the ‘Brittanic Isles’ and the peoples were called the ‘Pritani’. The group of islands included ‘Prettanike’ (island of the Albions) and ‘Ierne’ (island of the Hiberni). The peoples of these Isles later became known as the Celts or the ancient Britons.
In 43AD, the mighty Roman Empire invaded the island of the Prettanike. After a brief and bloody resistance, the Celtic Britons, as they were now known, settled down to Roman rule. The main resistance was led by one of the most famous female warrior of ancient times, Boudica. She led her Celtic tribe, the Iceni, in the overwhelming devastation of the Roman cities of Colchester, London and St Albans. When the Romans left ‘Prettanike’ in 410AD, these Romano-British Celts had to fight off Germanic raiders from Northern Europe, who became known to history as the Anglo-Saxons. A full scale invasion of ‘Prettanike’ by the Anglo-Saxons occurred in 449AD. These marauding Germanic tribes massacred the Britons, and the survivors fled to the extremities of Britain; Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland.
The next set of newcomers was the Vikings, first arriving in the Isles in the late 8th century AD, and who first fought against, and finally settled alongside, their Germanic cousins the Anglo-Saxons and the Celts. Then in 1066, another group of immigrants from France, the Normans, arrived to add their genetic input to the melting pot of the main island and 100 years later they extended their conquest across the Irish Sea to the smaller island.
This then, is the accepted account of who the people of the Isles are. A people forged by successive waves of immigration: The original indigenous people, the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Normans.
History as exposed by science.
The above version of events concerning who the peoples of the isles are has become canon. But is it true? The relatively new science of DNA analysis has revolutionised the way we untangle the truth about the peoples of the world and where they came from. And an examination of the DNA of the people of the Isles by prominant geneticists from Oxford University has revealed a history distinctly at odds with the accepted version of our origins.
Recent genetic studies have shown that far from being a genetic hotchpotch, the people of the Isles are extremely homogeneous (meaning all from the same genetic line.) These studies show that 75% of the inhabitants can trace their ancestry back to the end of the last Ice Age, some 15,000 years ago.
As most of Europe was uninhabitable during the Ice Age, the original European people retreated into three areas of refuge: the Ukraine, Italy and the Balkans and the area that is now the Basque region, comprising Southern France and Northern Spain, along the Atlantic coast. And it was these people from Southern France and Northern Spain (the area known as the Iberian Peninsula) who were our main ancestors. When the ice began to melt, they moved up the Atlantic coast, arriving in the Isles around 15,000 years ago.
As a whole, these Ice Age Iberians account for 75% of our indigenous ancestors. When you look at the different areas of the Isles, these ancestors account for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 79% of the Cornish, 70% of Scots and 68% of the English. So these figures clearly show that the people are all very similar and share a common genetic heritage.
The remaining 25% of the gene pool has its origin in the Ukrainian and Balkan Ice Age refuges. As the ice thawed, these people moved through what is now Russia and on up to Scandinavia, and it is from Scandinavia that the remaining quarter of the people of the Isles can trace their forefathers. Starting at the end of the Ice Age and continuing through the Neolithic period (about 10,000 years ago) these Scandinavians settled on the Eastern coast of what is now England, while the more numerous Iberians occupied the Western part of the Isles.
Many people say that Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man and Ireland are ‘Celtic’ whereas England is ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Germanic’ because the English were supposed to have come from northern Germany and southern Denmark. But through the scientific testing of DNA, we find that the ‘Celtic’ people of the West of Britain and the ‘Germanic’ people of the East were settled here many thousands of years before the supposed split between Celt and Anglo-Saxon, caused by the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Celtic Britain in 450AD.
So what of these historic invasions, or mass immigrations, which everyone seems to think is so important to our history? The DNA evidence shows that these invasions were on a far smaller scale than previously thought and mainly consisted of invasions and settlement by a ruling elite as opposed to a full-scale takeover. The Celtic invasion story has no genetic evidence and the Roman occupation brought virtually no genetic material to the gene pool.
Likewise, England’s Germanic heritage did not come from the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions but from those Scandinavians already present in the Isles for thousands of years. The Anglo-Saxon invasion and settlement only accounts for 5% of our ancestors as a whole, whilst the Normans were a ruling aristocracy who produced barely a ripple in our gene pool.
The people of the Isles then are a homogeneous people, of predominantly very old Celtic stock with an invigorating dash of slightly later Scandinavian blood, who have been here for 15,000 years. Our ancestors were the first inhabitants of these islands, and through our direct ancestry from these ancient men and women, we are the true indigenous people of the Isles.
You are unique. You are a ??? (what name do you wish to give yourself? I can't do it for you in the politically correct world in which we now live). You, your family and all of your ancestors have a history in these Isles that goes back thousands upon thousands of years. You should be proud of whom you are and proud to say “this is my home.” Your people, the people of the Isles, have given the world some of the most important inventions and the greatest ideas in human history.
For more information click on;
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/
For further study refer to;
"Blood of the Isles" by Dr. Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics and "The Origins of the British" by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.
Just who exactly are we, where did we come from and are we deserving of any great interest?
Written histories, which are the main source of information on our ancient ancestors, are notoriously inaccurate if not downright lies. Remember that these histories were written from the point of view of the conqueror and the ruling aristocracy. History has been manipulated from time immemorial by politicians as they still do so today.
History as accepted until recently.
The Celts originally came from Central Europe, and swept into the archipelago of islands off the coast of northwest Europe, where they slaughtered the resident inhabitants and secured the islands for themselves. And, except for myth and legend, we know little of who the original inhabitants were.
The earliest known historical reference to the inhabitants of the Isles comes from records of the voyage of Pytheas, a Greek geographer. He is said to have made a voyage of exploration around the Isles between 330 and 320 BC. Pytheas called the islands collectively the ‘Brittanic Isles’ and the peoples were called the ‘Pritani’. The group of islands included ‘Prettanike’ (island of the Albions) and ‘Ierne’ (island of the Hiberni). The peoples of these Isles later became known as the Celts or the ancient Britons.
In 43AD, the mighty Roman Empire invaded the island of the Prettanike. After a brief and bloody resistance, the Celtic Britons, as they were now known, settled down to Roman rule. The main resistance was led by one of the most famous female warrior of ancient times, Boudica. She led her Celtic tribe, the Iceni, in the overwhelming devastation of the Roman cities of Colchester, London and St Albans. When the Romans left ‘Prettanike’ in 410AD, these Romano-British Celts had to fight off Germanic raiders from Northern Europe, who became known to history as the Anglo-Saxons. A full scale invasion of ‘Prettanike’ by the Anglo-Saxons occurred in 449AD. These marauding Germanic tribes massacred the Britons, and the survivors fled to the extremities of Britain; Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland.
The next set of newcomers was the Vikings, first arriving in the Isles in the late 8th century AD, and who first fought against, and finally settled alongside, their Germanic cousins the Anglo-Saxons and the Celts. Then in 1066, another group of immigrants from France, the Normans, arrived to add their genetic input to the melting pot of the main island and 100 years later they extended their conquest across the Irish Sea to the smaller island.
This then, is the accepted account of who the people of the Isles are. A people forged by successive waves of immigration: The original indigenous people, the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Normans.
History as exposed by science.
The above version of events concerning who the peoples of the isles are has become canon. But is it true? The relatively new science of DNA analysis has revolutionised the way we untangle the truth about the peoples of the world and where they came from. And an examination of the DNA of the people of the Isles by prominant geneticists from Oxford University has revealed a history distinctly at odds with the accepted version of our origins.
Recent genetic studies have shown that far from being a genetic hotchpotch, the people of the Isles are extremely homogeneous (meaning all from the same genetic line.) These studies show that 75% of the inhabitants can trace their ancestry back to the end of the last Ice Age, some 15,000 years ago.
As most of Europe was uninhabitable during the Ice Age, the original European people retreated into three areas of refuge: the Ukraine, Italy and the Balkans and the area that is now the Basque region, comprising Southern France and Northern Spain, along the Atlantic coast. And it was these people from Southern France and Northern Spain (the area known as the Iberian Peninsula) who were our main ancestors. When the ice began to melt, they moved up the Atlantic coast, arriving in the Isles around 15,000 years ago.
As a whole, these Ice Age Iberians account for 75% of our indigenous ancestors. When you look at the different areas of the Isles, these ancestors account for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 79% of the Cornish, 70% of Scots and 68% of the English. So these figures clearly show that the people are all very similar and share a common genetic heritage.
The remaining 25% of the gene pool has its origin in the Ukrainian and Balkan Ice Age refuges. As the ice thawed, these people moved through what is now Russia and on up to Scandinavia, and it is from Scandinavia that the remaining quarter of the people of the Isles can trace their forefathers. Starting at the end of the Ice Age and continuing through the Neolithic period (about 10,000 years ago) these Scandinavians settled on the Eastern coast of what is now England, while the more numerous Iberians occupied the Western part of the Isles.
Many people say that Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man and Ireland are ‘Celtic’ whereas England is ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Germanic’ because the English were supposed to have come from northern Germany and southern Denmark. But through the scientific testing of DNA, we find that the ‘Celtic’ people of the West of Britain and the ‘Germanic’ people of the East were settled here many thousands of years before the supposed split between Celt and Anglo-Saxon, caused by the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Celtic Britain in 450AD.
So what of these historic invasions, or mass immigrations, which everyone seems to think is so important to our history? The DNA evidence shows that these invasions were on a far smaller scale than previously thought and mainly consisted of invasions and settlement by a ruling elite as opposed to a full-scale takeover. The Celtic invasion story has no genetic evidence and the Roman occupation brought virtually no genetic material to the gene pool.
Likewise, England’s Germanic heritage did not come from the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions but from those Scandinavians already present in the Isles for thousands of years. The Anglo-Saxon invasion and settlement only accounts for 5% of our ancestors as a whole, whilst the Normans were a ruling aristocracy who produced barely a ripple in our gene pool.
The people of the Isles then are a homogeneous people, of predominantly very old Celtic stock with an invigorating dash of slightly later Scandinavian blood, who have been here for 15,000 years. Our ancestors were the first inhabitants of these islands, and through our direct ancestry from these ancient men and women, we are the true indigenous people of the Isles.
You are unique. You are a ??? (what name do you wish to give yourself? I can't do it for you in the politically correct world in which we now live). You, your family and all of your ancestors have a history in these Isles that goes back thousands upon thousands of years. You should be proud of whom you are and proud to say “this is my home.” Your people, the people of the Isles, have given the world some of the most important inventions and the greatest ideas in human history.
For more information click on;
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/
For further study refer to;
"Blood of the Isles" by Dr. Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics and "The Origins of the British" by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
The History Of Fanaticism
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave should guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.' Nazi fanaticism resulted in the death of 44 million Europeans, including 7,5 million Germans.
We were told Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The majority who wished to live in peace were irrelevant.
We were told that China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million of its own people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
We are told that the average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most were killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. The peaceful majority of Japanese were irrelevant.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery in the 1990s. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? The peace loving majority of Rwandans were irrelevant. 1 million deaths estimated.
We are told again and again by so called 'experts' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Accepting this unqualified assertion as true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better. The fact is the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
We were told Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The majority who wished to live in peace were irrelevant.
We were told that China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million of its own people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
We are told that the average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most were killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. The peaceful majority of Japanese were irrelevant.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery in the 1990s. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? The peace loving majority of Rwandans were irrelevant. 1 million deaths estimated.
We are told again and again by so called 'experts' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Accepting this unqualified assertion as true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better. The fact is the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
• It is the fanatics who demonstrate on the streets of the European cities, who have welcomed them in with open arms.
• It is the fanatics who interpret the Koran literally.*
• It is the fanatics who are currently waging some 50 shooting wars worldwide.
• It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian and other non Muslim groups throughout Africa. They are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
• It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill.
• It is the fanatics who indiscriminately fire unguided rockets loaded with high explosive across the Gaza border into Israel.
• It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
• It is the fanatics who take hostages, usually innocent aid workers, and murder them when their demands are not met.
• It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
If they don't speak up, peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy, because like our German friend, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
* If Christian fanatics were to interpret the Old Testament in the same manner as Muslim fanatics do the Koran, they would be going around demanding the execution of adulterers, fornicators and homosexuals. Oh yes, and also those who do not keep the sabbath.
• It is the fanatics who interpret the Koran literally.*
• It is the fanatics who are currently waging some 50 shooting wars worldwide.
• It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian and other non Muslim groups throughout Africa. They are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
• It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill.
• It is the fanatics who indiscriminately fire unguided rockets loaded with high explosive across the Gaza border into Israel.
• It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
• It is the fanatics who take hostages, usually innocent aid workers, and murder them when their demands are not met.
• It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
If they don't speak up, peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy, because like our German friend, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
* If Christian fanatics were to interpret the Old Testament in the same manner as Muslim fanatics do the Koran, they would be going around demanding the execution of adulterers, fornicators and homosexuals. Oh yes, and also those who do not keep the sabbath.
Friday, September 11, 2009
A positive view of the British Empire in the 19th century? Surely a jest!
During our studies with UNISA we were asked to do an essay with the following title.
Analyze the reasons for the shift towards a more positive view of empire in Britain during the nineteenth century.
The following was my response.
Whoever wrote this question either had their tongue in their cheek or was acting the silly fellow. Nobody who knows anything about Ireland in the 19th century would ally the term “British Empire” and “positive view” in the same sentence.
Sure the negativeness of English rule didn't even conclude in the nineteenth century but went on until 1921 when the island was torn asunder by "Perfidious Albion" and which left a bitter legacy that is still with us today.
Or maybe the question reflects the new political correctness, whereby if it happens to blue eyed (which the Irish have in abundance), white people (lily white Celts whose bare skin never sees the sun), then it’s not important.
I wonder how many know that over one million people died in a famine which the government in Westminister could have acted quicker to alleviate and that a further one million immigrated to America and Australia and carried the seeds of future bitterness against the Limies and the Poms.
Analyze the reasons for the shift towards a more positive view of empire in Britain during the nineteenth century.
The following was my response.
Whoever wrote this question either had their tongue in their cheek or was acting the silly fellow. Nobody who knows anything about Ireland in the 19th century would ally the term “British Empire” and “positive view” in the same sentence.
Sure the negativeness of English rule didn't even conclude in the nineteenth century but went on until 1921 when the island was torn asunder by "Perfidious Albion" and which left a bitter legacy that is still with us today.
Or maybe the question reflects the new political correctness, whereby if it happens to blue eyed (which the Irish have in abundance), white people (lily white Celts whose bare skin never sees the sun), then it’s not important.
I wonder how many know that over one million people died in a famine which the government in Westminister could have acted quicker to alleviate and that a further one million immigrated to America and Australia and carried the seeds of future bitterness against the Limies and the Poms.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Political Correctness
Language is never neutral territory. However, it is my belief that it should be, because after all, the sole purpose of language is to communicate and to communicate clearly. It's only made controversial by a minority, who are usually ill educated and because the better educated allow to them get away with it.
In my first year history studies in South Africa we have been given the following activity to carry out;
Identify words or phrases in a (specified) extract which modern historians would not use.
The model answers given were; Hottentot, tribes, wretched creatures, natives, higher races.
I should like to state up front that I’m in no way criticizing grammar, pronunciation, spelling or accent as I most definitely am not qualified to do so. I am the only adult I know of in South Africa, who is unable to produce a piece of paper to prove that they have passed an examination in the English language. Whether this says more about the abysmal standard of my English or the teaching of English in South Africa, I’ll leave others to decide.
Whilst I’m not worried about the non English words being discouraged, as I don’t normally use them myself, I’m concerned with the removal of many valuable words from the lexicon, especially when no suitable replacements are offered, as was the case here. As a monoglot Hiberno-English speaker, I find that there are less and less English words that can be used, as some politically correct person, usually a non native (useful word isn’t it) English speaker takes umbrage at them.
Whilst the problem does not exist in discussions within my own tribe (another useful word), my dilemma is I am beginning to run out of politically correct words and terms, which may be used these days in societies with large non native English speaking groups, as is the case in South Africa. I therefore tend to steer clear of discussion with these groups in case I inadvertally offend.
The word “Native” has a meaning and nuance beyond the word town, home, locality, village, parish or even townland, which are all words in my vocabulary. I do however feel that I describe myself better when I say that I’m a native of “Tralee”, rather than when I say “I come from Tralee”. It carries within it a sense of belonging which no other word has. It is also used extensively in a poetic sense, as can be seen in the lyrics of the immigrant songs composed and sung by immigrants all over this world and in that context it brings one closer to one’s roots.
The word “tribe” also has a meaning that goes beyond the term family and it has a less derogatory meaning than the term “clan”. It describes persons who share a common language, culture and belief system. I would not normally use this word “clan” except within the native English speaking community. Within the Scots/Irish tribal system the term “clan” has a special meaning as belonging to an extend family who share the same surname. The term “clan” is from the Gaelic and its actual meaning is children of a family sharing the same surname. Why non native English speakers do not object to being referred to as “children” is beyond me but may have something to do with their lack of understanding of the true origin of the word. It may be a case of “ignorance is bliss”. It would however make more sense if the word “clan” was banned when referring to groups of people.
And how can I forget my early childhood that I spent with my Nanny and Granda in western Ireland as a little boy and it was as a hurt little boy that I went crying to my Nanny to banish my pain after falling and skinning my knees, The cure was to be enveloped in her arms and to hear the sympathetic and endearing words “there, there, you poor wretched crater (creature) come in and I’ll make it better”. How in Gods name can removing such soothing words help to improve the English language?
It is my belief that any word, expression or term can be made derogatory simply by facial expression, tone of voice or body language. Some are past masters of this art and one has only to recall the term “he can tell you to go to hell so that you look forward to the journey”. I’m also sure that it is only a minority of native English speakers, who are usually the ill educated ones, who refer to others in a derogatory way. It is therefore unfair on the majority of us who use our language correctly and as it has been handed down to us from a time before the term political correctness was conceived.
We should be on our guard as we and our language will be the losers, if we are to allow people whose learnt English language skills, are, to say the least faulty and which may also have been learnt at the hands of other non native English speakers. It leaves a lot to be desired if we allow those non native English speakers to dictate which words are acceptable or otherwise.
My suggestion is that we improve the level of English teaching in South Africa, so that non native English speakers learn to understand the language correctly. This can best be done by prohibiting the teaching of English by non native English speakers and employing native English speakers as teachers of English.
Sorry for having carried on so long, it probably comes from having kissed the Blarney Stone as a young boy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)