"Intellectual" is a dirty word.

Setanta wrote:

Foofie wrote:

O.K., here's my two cents. Anti-intellectualism is part of the popular culture in the U.S. I believe it was put there on purpose . . .

As soon as you had gotten that far, you slipped off the edge into unreasoning conspiracy theory. "Put there" by whom? Are you suggesting that someone, prior to the existence of our contemporary culture, foresaw that culture with sufficient accuracy to implant this anti-intellectual strain, but specifically tailored to appeal to the devotees of an era of mass electronic communications? Not to put to fine a point on it--bullshit.

I haven't the least doubt that right-wing and fundamentalist religious rabble-rousers are delighted with such attitudes, and encourage them where they find them. It is more than a little simple-minded, however, to paint some picture of deep-dyed conspiracy spanning the centuries (and an anti-intellectual streak has been in our society since the beginning) the purpose of which was to dumb-down the populace, and which was so cunningly wrought that it functions as intended in an electronic age, having been cobbled together in a quill, ink and parchment age.

In short, get a grip, will ya?

It's passed down through the centuries with a "wink and a nod," or perhaps just a mild "clearing of one's throat, or a subtle smirk." But, for those that the generalizations of the popular culture serve, they know it must be passed down to the next generation, and it is. The dinner table historically was the medium, before the electronic age (remember the sitcom with Archie Bunker, and all the popular culture generalizations he passed down at the dinner table).

Only from the vantage point of old history can one see it was premeditated, as for example, how feudalism relied on many generalizations of the popular culture to keep the peasants "in their place."

I know very little Latin. What is "ipsie dixie"? A type of ice-cream?

Foofie wrote:

I know very little Latin. What is "ipsie dixie"? A type of ice-cream?

"Ispe Dixit" translates to ""he himself said it".

The origin of the term (From Wikipeida): "Cicero, in De Natura Deorum, refers to Pythagoras's students debating, saying "ipse dixit", that is, "he said it himself", speaking of Pythagoras, whose authority they considered strong "even without reason"."

In other words, people contend that their point on an issue is correct because they can point to someone in a position of authority and claim "He said so...!".

Only from the vantage point of old history can one see it was premeditated, as for example, how feudalism relied on many generalizations of the popular culture to keep the peasants "in their place."

Foofie wrote:

Only from the vantage point of old history can one see it was premeditated, as for example, how feudalism relied on many generalizations of the popular culture to keep the peasants "in their place."

This qualifies as one of the stupidest remarks i've seen here in quite a while. "Feudalism" is not a person, or a body of people, and it is, in fact, a retrospective intellectual construct which only badly and barely describes the constantly re-negotiated contract between men of varying amounts of power as to how to control the lands they claimed.

If anyone even gave a second glance at or an additional thought to the serfs on their estates--which i doubt--they would have pointed out that they were "kept in their place" by men at arms, and had they but known, by chronic malnutrition. The "quality" in the middle ages spent most of their time scheming against one another, but whenever a peasant uprising took place, and they were frequent, they would drop all of their differences to band together to make common cause against the greatest potential threat in their world. Given how many of the gentry were themselves illiterate, i find your fantasy hilarious.

Even then, men at arms and social organization did not equate with complete control. After the "black death" of the 14th century, when as much as a third of the population of Europe died, and the proportion being higher among the peasantry, peasant labor became valuable enough that all the old systems broke down. Peasants who were dissatisfied could run off, and seek employment elsewhere. "Masterless" men were automatically targets for authoritarian suspicion in good times, but in bad times, such as the labor crisis after the black death, everyone looked the other way if an able-bodied peasant with wife and kiddies in tow showed up looking for a job.

Basically, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you?

Here, let me put in terms even Foofie can understand. The claim that man who can't even sign his own name was involved in a conspiracy to keep peasants in their place with ignorance is laughably absurd. If a peasant did anything you didn't like, you would just kill him out of hand, and nobody gave it a second thought. "He was impertinent."

Kind of like la Cosa Nostra writ large across the face of Europe, except they used two-handed broadswords instead of shotguns.

No, you're a liar.




Are you Flaja's alter ego?

So, you're suggesting that human beings were less "evolved" 600 years ago than they are now?

You just get more and more hilarious.

Oh, and Jews were not tax collectors.