We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Stop politicising my dumplings!

21 comments to Stop politicising my dumplings!

  • Darrell

    Celebrate Diversity has become Celebrate Diversity, Or Else.

    Oh, I read all the Laura Ingalls Wilder books when I was a little kid, and loved them. They were sweet and innocent.

  • CaptDMO

    Where is the point on the timeline when the explicative fucking replaced bloody among professional communications folks in various spots on the “English” accent spectrum?

  • Bulldog Drumond

    ‘Fuck’ has been in common parlance since the 1400s, but ‘Bloody’ (By Our Lady) no longer has the needed punch in these post-Christian times 😀

  • TMLutas

    I never knew why hemoglobin on the loose was upsetting people on the other side of the Atlantic. I just rolled with it. Finally, an explanation.

    Thank you, Bulldog Drumond

    God bless.

  • James Strong

    There is an important point being made here, but it’d be a lot more fucking effective, and a fuck of a lot funnier, if the comedian didn’t swear so fucking much. Or at all.

  • Mr Ed

    Whilst he complains about it, he seems to be complaining more about the tactics used in identity politics that the fanaticism behind it. People obsessed with identity politics are evil, and they seek to do evil.

  • Yeah, I’ve noticed that with his stuff before.

  • …he seems to be complaining more about the tactics used in identity politics that the fanaticism behind it

    Not really, he seem to be consistently critical of identity politics in their entirety, so not sure what purity test you think he is failing. Saying identity politics turns your brain into blancmange is more than a critique of mere tactics.

  • Philip Scott Thomas

    …‘Bloody’ (By Our Lady)…

    Not to be that guy, but that’s a myth, albeit a common one. On this, as ever, the estimable Michael Quinion is the go-to guy.

  • I am always a bit leery when I get told the origin of a traditional term or practice is false due to my experience with the V-sign debate, where wise opinion has it was actually of early 20th century origins. My great grandmother, of Herefordshire lineage, hooted with derision when I told her that in the 1970s a few years before she died at the ripe old age of 102 (or possibly 106, opinions varied), informing me sternly she had been boxed about the ears for being unladylike as a child by her grandmother, who described the V-sign as a “threatening gesture made by common soldiers” (her exact words).

  • CharlieL

    I always thought the threatening gesture was with palm inward, “V” (for victory) with palm outward. And I agree about the language; once for shock value, maybe. But overuse, especially as done here, negates that effect and detracts from his point(s).

  • Philip Scott Thomas


    Point taken. But Michael Quinion is one of the good guys. His reference library dwarfs even mine. And he has academic connections I could only aspire to. His articles are always well researched. So, short of re-inventing the wheel, I tend to trust him.

  • bobby b

    And here I always assumed the origin had something to do with the Bloody Assizes in the middle 1600’s.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Ruddy “bloody”!

  • Paul Marks

    I know a lot of people like this form of presentation – but to me it is just a lot of swearing and shouting.

    Also the man, at the very start of his talk, effectively CONCEDES THE CASE TO THE LEFT – he just ASSUMES that Laura Ingalls Wilder was wrong in her language and “attitudes” (but then goes on to say the left should not beat us over the head about the matter now). How does he know she was wrong? What evidence does he have that the lady was mistaken? For all he knows the people from “ethnic minorities” that the family and their friends met may have been utterly “savage” – if they were should the lady have kept quite about that? Why?

    I am reminded of the late Governor George Romney (the father of “Mitt” Romney) visiting a town in Michigan – he denounced the locals for not wanting black people to come and live in their town. This was just after the Detroit riot of 1967 – part of a campaign to drive out white people from a city (a city that had been almost entirely white only a few years before) by VIOLENCE – by murder and arson (“burn baby burn”) and Governor Romney seemed to have a no idea why people in a town only a few miles away from Detroit might not want black people to come to live in their town. These people had NOT engaged in slavery, and there were no “Jim Crow” laws in 1960s Michigan (which is on the Canadian border – not in the South). Contrary to lying Hollywood films there was NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION for the offensive violence used for the “Ethnic Cleansing” of so many white people from Detroit and other northern American cities.

    I could not care less what colour someone’s skin is (people can have green skin with purple spots for all I care) – but if they use their skin tone as a reason to drive out people of another skin colour, then I DO CARE (and I also care if the people who are DRIVEN OUT are presented as the “bad guys” for the next 50 years – classic BLAME THE VICTIMS). But Governor Romney did not care – although a Republican (just as this shouting and swearing man would, most likely, see himself as an ANIT leftist), Governor Romney had conceded the case of the left – even before the 1967 riots he was already increasing taxes and government spending, because the “poverty” of certain people (actually their living standards in Detroit in the early 1960s were the highest for their group of people IN THE ENTIRE WORLD – Hollywood does not mention that, and neither does Harvard) justified their crime (no it did not – even if they were poor, which they were not), and their “poverty” could be reduced by government “planning” and welfare – actually the government planning and welfare created real MASS POVERTY (go visit Detroit now – and other cities also, now they really are poor).

    I am not interested in this form of “opposition” to the left – an “opposition” that essentially concedes the case to the left (even though they are actually utterly wrong) and just says (in effect) “stop attacking us – we are doing what you want” – the left will not stop attacking if one effectively concedes the case to them (for example just accepts that Laura Ingalls Wilder was evil – but whines that we are not like her today).

    Still at least Governor George Romney did not shout and swear – unlike this person.

    Laura Ingalls Wilder was the mother of Rose Wilder Lane – essentially the founder of the American libertarian movement (and YES the daughter was involved in producing the works of her mother).

    Throw Laura Ingalls Wilder under the bus (whilst whining that we are not like her today – she was evil, but we are born in a different time – she was born in the time of slavery [no] and Jim Crow [in Minnesota?]…) and you might as well pack up the libertarian movement and go home.


    “You might as well pack up the libertarian movement and FUCKING go home” – if swearing really does add something wonderful to an argument.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Mrs. Wilder in one of her books states that her mother hated and feared the Indians generally, as Indians had attacked and maybe killed some of her relatives, or friends, or maybe both. At least, that’s how I remember it. If that’s correct, I think her prejudice is understandable, even if unfortunate and ill-informed as to the behavior of Indians in general.

    Or perhaps it was Rose Wilder Lane, speaking of her own mother.

    I can’t say I remember her saying anything against persons of Negro ancestry, though perhaps I’ve just forgotten.

  • Paul Marks

    Real life was a lot more like the Sioux attack in Minnesota (Minnesota – already long a State) in 1862 (when the United States Army was busy fighting the Confederacy) which killed 800 civilians – than it was “Dances With Wolves” (or “Dances With FUCKING Wolves” if you prefer). Nomadic raiders have been considered “savages” for thousands of years – it has nothing to do with skin colour. And the Indian plains nomad tribes (not “Native Americans” please – the United States of America was the country they were fighting AGAINST) treated each other just as badly as they treated farmers of European ancestry (they could not care less if X area had been the hunting grounds of another tribe for a 100 years – they slaughtered people of rival tribes and took their hunting grounds). Some Indians left their tribes and became Americans (the “American Eagle look” does not come from mating with birds) – but it was held (right up to 1924 I believe) that one could not choose to be a member of a tribe and an American citizen AT THE SAME TIME.

    As for blacks – when Rose Wilder Lane (the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder) met people (of any colour) she judged them by how they behaved. See the work of Rose Wilder Lane and Isobel Patterson with black people in Philadelphia and elsewhere.

    It was actually such civilised and decent people (who happened to have black skin) who were TARGETS for the forces that the “mainstream media” and the “education system” support – the socialist activists (for that is what the “Black Panthers” and so on actually were) hated such “Uncle Toms” even more than they hated white people.

  • Paul Marks

    Julie – the 800 civilians killed in the 1862 attack in Minnesota was just one of many attacks by nomads against farmers. But do not expect the “mainstream media” or the schools and universities to tell the truth about this (or about anything else). It does not fit their narrative that white-male-capitalists are evil and the source of all problems in the world.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Thanks for the info on the Minnesota attacks, Paul. I had either forgotten or, more likely, didn’t know.

  • I know a lot of people like this form of presentation – but to me it is just a lot of swearing and shouting.

    Then you’re not the target audience. I find Pie very effective.

  • In the pasage I recall, Laura Ingalls Wilder describes (in her usual fashion, that is almost without comment, letting the reader decide) that her mother feared Indians whereas her father always argued there were good as well as bad Indians. The context is that an Indian visits the ‘town’ (we would call it a village in the UK) and warns her father, who is also visiting, that this year is “grasshopper weather” – which turns out to be a wise warning. Her father discusses this at home, and preemptively asserts that there are good as well as bad Indians, both he and Laura knowing that their mother’s reaction to any tale of an Indian will be suspicion.

    Laura is the most adventurous of the daughters and, related to this, generally sides with her father more than her mother (of course, modern PC can make hay with Laura’s ‘sexist’ attitudes here) so, insofar as the book gives the reader any steer at all, it is rather to justify her father’s opinion. Thus the PC critique is particularly unfair (and also, I suspect, unwittingly blind to this sane reading of the book – a minor example of my point here).