At 00:48 18/2/99 Dave wrote:
>>At 12:32 16/2/99 RAY wrote:
>>>> Thus RAY's statement is not some simple, unopposed
>>>> historical fact from a value-neutral historian, but a statement loaded in
>>>> political/nationalist meaning.
>>>See, here you are wrong. You want to see it that way, but that's only
>>>your interpretation of what I said. I made this statement as a objetivly
>>>subjective, and in this sense "neutral", historian, but you deducted a
>>>historicistic argumentation from it, which was, in no way, included in
>>>my statement. This, above all, teaches us that texts should be read in
>>>the context they are written, which is especially true for historical
>>>texts, but applies to any text.
>>Sorry RAY, but you seem to confuse the issue here. You talk of your
>>statement as being "objective" and "neutral" etc. as though you were talking
>>about some historical find or fact. However, the subject of your sentence
>>was the "symbolism" of a situation: you have decided that a certain act has
>>"symbolism" for something - namely, the English annexion/conquest of Wales
>>as flaunted by the English held, and titled, 'prince of Wales'. You could
>>have conversely stated that the title of 'prince of Wales' is symbolic of
>>the dominance of England and the desire of the Welsh to have an Englishman
>>as the prince of Wales. Further, I have studied hermeneutical philosophy and
>>would argue that it is quite impossible to read a text in the context that
>>it is written. We will always bring our values, experiences, education,
>>philosophies and ideologies into a library. Reading a text is not done in an
>>'objective' vacuum. Put Popper down and read Michel Foucault's books on
> I'm wondering if you shouldn't give up law and study english
And to think that I accused you of being patronising.
> Ray TOLD you, and explained to you what he meant. Yet
>you still go on to deconstruct his meaning in the same way that modern,
>deluded English literature "scholars" do here in the US. You search for
>meanings you want to see and completely ignore the truth, even when the truth
>is presented by the author themselves. Interpreting the text is one thing, and
>is valid, but ignoring the author's own interpretation when presented is
Let's not browbeat over this. What we have here is an academic dispute
between two methods of textual analysis. Let's look at RAY's statement again:
>> >>>The prince and princess: Charles and Diana for stealing the title of a
>> >>>country they're not even from.
>> >Good grief! It's just symbolic.
>> Symbolic of what?
>Symbolic of almost 800 years of annexion!
What we have here is the projection of a subjective value-assesment onto a
historical event. As I understand it, what RAY has written is that the
the title 'prince of Wales' (by an English monarchy) is "symbolic" of 800
years of annexion. No problems with that. However, this statement cannot be
divorced of any political meaning, whether the author intends it or not. As
I said earlier, RAY could have chosen any number of symbolic meanings to
give to the title. He didn't - he chose one. And the symbolism he chose
happens to be one any Welsh nationalist would choose. Further, to claim
Wales's continued annexion as an undisputed fact, is to ignore a whole
political/nationalist argument on the subject: many conservative academics
and politicians claim that Wales is historically and legally only a region
of England - they refuse to accept that Wales is an annexed country, because
to recognise annexion is to recognise that Wales exists as a distinct
country beyond the legal documents and circumstances of annexion.
In summary, to give something 'symbolism' (even a historical event) is to
give it worth, whether this worth is good or bad. Further, to recognise
annexion in a written statement (in the historical or political context), is
to give a text political meaning - intended or unintended.
Hwyl -- Mike.