>John:
>I'm surprised you would perpetuate a negative portrayal
>of [the luddite] movement since you came from the same
>side of the pond as Ludd and it is more directly part of
>your history.
>So is the British Empire, the queen, the aristocracy,
>House of Lords and Tony Blair. But I don't support these
>any more than I imagine you do. C'mon John, workers of
>the world have no country do we?
>And the enclosure movement was part of a process that
>made agricultural productivity soar, which is part of
>the reason that I'm in a comfortable office in a bank,
>not breaking my back on a farm. For this I am grateful.
Your negative portrayal of Luddites is historically inaccurate and since it is local history for you I am slightly more surprised to see you perpetuate it than I would be for an American. I wasn't commenting in the sentence above about where I felt your affections might lie. I think we could have increased agricultural production in a more worker friendly manner than was done, so in that respect, no I am not "grateful" for the unfair violence done to others just because I am a beneficiary of those policies. I could just as easily say that slavery helped build the US into the country it is today so I am grateful that it happened. Ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of North America also helped bring about our current condition but I am not grateful for that either. Gratitude for these crimes presupposes no alternate path was available at that time for enriching peoples lives.
>"you tried to portray poor Richard Rogers
"
>Not me. I've never read poor Richard Rogers.
The error was mine. It was James Heartfield, not you, who twisted Mr. Rogers words for his own purpose. My apologies for getting you two confused.
>--James
>James Greenstein