Random Vosem and eadmund conversation

[Libertas Vel Mors]

My reply to Eadmund's last post in the Moderation Complaints Thread:

I know this conversation should be allowed to rest, but one last point that I think is worth making: isn't it rather strange for a poster who believes to this day that

1066 remains sufficient grounds for the mass expropriation of landowners without compensation.

and (allegedly) that "Normans" should be expelled from Britain

The older someone is the more likely they are to get the "Saxon vs. Norman" concept (and identify with the "Saxons"), whether that's because they were raised on Eagle or the last generation to inherit the folk memory of 1066.

More founding father. Regnal numbering still begins with William I after all.

We studied the Norman Conquest in Year 7 and one of the exercises my class did was to rank the various claimants taking into account their pros and cons. If I'm remembering correctly William got high marks for being a "strong" ruler.

Is there a North v South divide on opinions regarding him, thanks to his harsh treatment of the former?

No.

I recall you from AH.Com urging that the British left run on a platform of expelling the (((Normans))).

OK.

Also claims to believe that Israeli airstrikes on Gaza constitute a genocide?

Presumably, any standard that banned GMAC for supporting Israel would also obviously require the banning of a poster who wants to start a bizarre Norman-Saxon race war within England that includes expelling "Normans" and expropriating "Norman" property.

Of course, I personally believe in Eadmund's right to free speech, just as I do GMAC's. But I think posters seeking to ban other posters for "denying genocide" should perhaps be a bit more cautious in doing so when (to my eyes) their own speech advocates genocide.

This is one of those 'genocide is a word with meaning to it' things. The definition of genocide doesn't include class and therefore it doesn't matter what you think about stuff I said as a child four years ago and you are wrong.

This is not just four years ago -- you made the expropriation comment earlier this year! And you've made other comments since 2021 hinting at this position as well.

Additionally, you're right, it wouldn't be genocide advocacy to call for class based expropriation if your motive was communist. But that is not what you have argued, or your motive. You have always and consistently framed this as a 1066/Norman based argument -- in other words, an ethnic-based expropriation/genocide, not a class based one.

Three simple questions for you:

1. Do you favor expelling Normans from Britain?

2. Do you favor expropriating Norman property in Britain?

3. Would you consider an Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians, or mass expropriation of their property, to be genocidal?

Help! Help! He thinks it would be good and funny to take the Duke of Northumberland's land and not pay for it! He's calling for a genocide! He's destroying the meaning of the word genocide! OK. IDK how expropriation is supposed to be genocide even by your nonsensical definition but whatever I'll answer your questions.

1/2. Yes. I am a full supporter of expelling Norman Baker, Norman Fowler, Norman Lamb, and Norman Lamont from Britain and expropriating their property.
3. Yes (sane).

1/2 -- you are playing dumb here, but this is strange, because you have clearly not struggled to understand the meaning of Norman vis a vis ethnicity before. In fact, you seem to have had a pretty clear idea of it, much clearer than my own: while I would say that there are no "Normans" in Britain today due to 1,000 years of admixture, you have previously said that all large landowners should have their property expropriated on the mere presumption that their ownership probably dates back to 1066, and (again, allegedly, but alleged by a poster several years ago separate from this conflict, and a long-time poster at that) that Normans even be expelled from England.

And in fact, you have not merely said this several years ago, or as a joke: your most recent advocacy of this subject was in January, at the same time as you were expressing such strident views on Israel's actions in Gaza, and you are clearly very serious about this because you have been so consistent in this advocacy, to the point where you were even banned from another forum for it.

I see no reason not to interpret your evasive, jokey denial here as confirmation that you do believe in Norman expropriation/expulsion, given the otherwise substantial evidence for the idea that you do. If I am wrong in that, feel free to correct me with an explanation that accounts for you having "joked" your way into an Althist forum ban for hating the Normans too much (seriously -- how does that happen? It's hardly a hot topic), that also incorporates your "joking" about Norman expropriation and the redrawing of borders on pre-Norman lines. You must be under deep cover to have kept this "joke" going so long.

But hey, if I am right, no worries: I frankly couldn't care less for its own sake that you have a nutty view. But I would encourage you (if so) to not spend so much time calling for other posters to be banned -- the crow shouldn't call the raven black.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

1/2 -- you are playing dumb here, but this is strange, because you have clearly not struggled to understand the meaning of Norman vis a vis ethnicity before. In fact, you seem to have had a pretty clear idea of it, much clearer than my own: while I would say that there are no "Normans" in Britain today due to 1,000 years of admixture, you have previously said that all large landowners should have their property expropriated on the mere presumption that their ownership probably dates back to 1066, and (again, allegedly, but alleged by a poster several years ago separate from this conflict, and a long-time poster at that) that Normans even be expelled from England.

And in fact, you have not merely said this several years ago, or as a joke: your most recent advocacy of this subject was in January, at the same time as you were expressing such strident views on Israel's actions in Gaza, and you are clearly very serious about this because you have been so consistent in this advocacy, to the point where you were even banned from another forum for it.

I see no reason not to interpret your evasive, jokey denial here as confirmation that you do believe in Norman expropriation/expulsion, given the otherwise substantial evidence for the idea that you do. If I am wrong in that, feel free to correct me with an explanation that accounts for you having "joked" your way into an Althist forum ban for hating the Normans too much (seriously -- how does that happen? It's hardly a hot topic), that also incorporates your "joking" about Norman expropriation and the redrawing of borders on pre-Norman lines. You must be under deep cover to have kept this "joke" going so long.

But hey, if I am right, no worries: I frankly couldn't care less for its own sake that you have a nutty view. But I would encourage you (if so) to not spend so much time calling for other posters to be banned -- the crow shouldn't call the raven black.

Unsurprisingly, and as I have made clear previously, this is not a subject I have much interest in discussing and I have no obligation to do so—especially with people with no knowledge of it. And you have no actual interest in the subject beyond what hilariously false accusations you can level against me (wasn't I supposed to be making the word 'genocide' meaningless by calling a genocide a genocide? oh well).

But nonetheless: I have the radical belief that things in the present are the result of what happened in the past. This, for whatever reason, is the cause of much outrage in certain quarters.

'Norman' is not an ethnicity. Alan Rufus was a 'Norman'. Those ennobled for their 17th-century treason against England are 'Norman'. That I am capable of tracing the existence of these people back to 1066, when they destroyed the most beautiful thing to have ever existed, does not make them an ethnicity any more than pirates are an ethnicity. I don't like the Duke of Northumberland and I think it would be good and funny if we took 'his' land and didn't pay him, and I think it would be good and funny if we then threw him out. This is no more 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' than the transportation of a family of criminals was.

Anyway since you know what AH.com I'm sure you don't actually have to ask how people get banned from it. I must admit that I've never met anyone so enthusiastic about AH.com's moderation as you (btw Casey is also banned from the site for having fun, so). For that, I suppose congratulations are in order. Regardless, you are not Vosem and if you wish to continue this then you should create a separate thread.

1. You don't have an obligation to discuss anything. Nor do I. Glad to get that out of the way.

2. I find your views mildly interesting separately from the genocide point. And I'm not wholly unsympathetic to them: like Jefferson, I agree that the Norman Conquest was probably on net a bad thing. What I find comical (and pretty deranged given your views on the Israel/Palestine conflict) is your belief that the Norman Conquest justifies mass land expropriation and even population expulsions today. There are ethnocacerists more reasonable than you are.

3. Yes, events from the past shape the present. Great. I don't think anyone here thinks that view outrageous, including myself. The question is whether the Hunnic migrations, or Norman conquest, or expulsion of the Jews from Israel justifies violations of rights today. I take the no side on that.

4. What you are describing is an ethnicity. It is an ethnicity with an ethnogenesis that involves some Anglo-Saxon admixture, to be sure, and some foreign influences, but you are suggesting that there is a group sharing a common culture and at least some shared descent that is your enemy. To return to the ethnocacerist metaphor, one could substitute Spanish ancestry/influences for French and Anglo-Saxon ones for Quechua/Aymara/indigenous Peruvian descent to make the exact same statement, and it would be nonsense, because Peruvian mestizos (really whites for much of the country's leadership, but usually with some native admixture) are still an ethnic group. Advocating that this ethnicity have its lands expropriated and its members expelled (including, I presume, women and children, based on your mention of "families of convicts") is still ethnic cleansing and actual genocide. And before you say that I am wrongly using the word genocide: genocide is the intentional extermination of a people. Driving out members of an ethnic group for their membership in that ethnic group would be a classic example of genocide. I guess if you want to be pedantic you can argue that without killing it is merely ethnic cleansing, but that's it and this isn't really an arguable point. We can semi-reasonably argue about whether or not your description of "Normans" constitutes an ethnic group, but there's no remotely feasible argument that what you are proposing wouldn't be genocide if they are.

(BTW, I think it's hilarious to describe England circa 1050 as the most beautiful thing to have ever existed.)

5. Yeah, AH moderation is insane. But it's still pretty difficult to get banned for discussing the Norman conquest! If you got banned for discussing Israel-Palestine, or the Yugoslav wars, that would be one thing: trigger fingers and hot topics don't mesh well. But getting banned for the Norman conquest? That at least prima facie suggests some kind of really nutty belief. WTS, I don't care enough about what Cal or whoever thinks to discuss it to any great degree.

6. If you want to start a new thread, fine. Otherwise, seems kind of pointless to have two separate threads of posters debating you specifically when the reason this thread was set up initially was for a similar "let's not take up space" reason.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

But separately I must also thank you for the opportunity. As you have said, I despise William the Bastard and all those who came with him. And yet there is nobody in the world more against the idea that the Harrying of the North was a genocide than I (unlike those telling us that Israel isn't doing a genocide because they aren't, I can elaborate on this). I do not use the word 'genocide' to mean 'a lot of people died' or 'something I don't like'. I use it to mean what it means. I call Israel's genocide a genocide because that is what it is, however much some wish to deny it because admitting their support for genocide would make them uncomfortable.

Should note my beliefs aren't nearly as 'nutty' as you seem to think: they were quite widespread in England until not that long ago. Just that, as it is with me, it's something that only comes up when relevant.

Reasonable to dislike feudalist warlords. Glad to see you don't regard the harrying of the north as a genocide (I agree).

I don't think being pro Anglo-Saxon is a nutty belief. I share that belief! So did Jefferson, and I'm aware that many historical Englishmen did as well. What I find nutty is the idea that that justifies land expropriations or expulsions, which reminds me (ironically) of the Israeli extremists who make basically the same argument (but with 1,000 years tacked on) WRT to Palestinian land. I reject both arguments and think they're bad: yes, the actions of the Romans/Muslims or the Normans did constitute theft when committed a thousand years ago, but at this point the amount of labor/capital etc invested, the vast separation of time, the lack of moral culpability by the owners, and the lack of clear counter-owners for the land all mean that the argument doesn't imo hold water.

For a practical common law example of this: it is normally accepted in common law jurisdictions that if I farm a piece of land for some long length of time, it is mine even if I did not originally own it -- adverse possession. I have some personal problems with this (I think a contingent factor should probably be not knowing you didn't own the land, and there need to be more protections against squatters) but on the whole it seems pretty reasonable. After all, if a surveyor tells me the property line is at x mark, and so I build a fence there and farm and develop the land, and then 20 years later it turns out the surveyor calculated the mark wrong by 5 feet, it would seem reasonable to say that the investment I have put into the land outweighs my initial lack of property deeds: the land has been forfeited by my neighbor de facto ceding it to me (abandonment to the state of nature) and by my making it my own (mixing my labor with the land to remove it from the state of nature). Why shouldn't similar logic apply here?