It is partly because he gained fluency in vernacular English from his travels that this problem arose when it enabled him to provide his own criticisms of the translations of his work (something which frustrated his publishers and has consequently enabled him to remain fresh and sill capable of controversy to this day).

He wrote to Henry Reeve (translator of Democracy in America) to say “Without wishing to do so and by following the instinct of your opinions, you have quite vividly coloured what was contrary to Democracy and almost erased what could do harm to Aristocracy,” which was followed by an interesting academic dispute over intended textual emphasis.

This dispute endures, so the best which one could say is that the original intention is now both lost in translation and lost in history. Which is perhaps a good thing, since when I first read his work (I started with the diaries of his travels) I thought the immediacy of the prose was not its universality, but it historicity – that’s to say it’s value is primarily historical, not theoretical.

Therefore any reading of his work should be done within the terms of it’s own historical framework and historical prejudices which led to the 1851 coup (ie particularly with reference to his thoughts on race). And in which case it is best not to approach any of his works without paying full attention to any introducing foreword or publishers notes.

Just so, he wrote to Beaumont in a somewhat prescient prediction, “style will seem almost as important as ideas and form almost as important as substance.”

Thomas – “Nick, don’t get me started on attempts by right-wingers to reinterpret political theorists who oppose their conclusions as favorable. The Himmelfarb project to claim Tocqueville is distinctly distasteful in it’s blatant falsification for political ends (using outdated and discredited translations among other things). I see it’s successfully managed to suck you in.”

Could you point me to another translation of the Memoir (preferably online but I’ll seek it out elsewhere if necessary)? Tocqueville seems to gain rather a lot of interest on the liberal right but I am happy to see evidence of other interpretations.

I have found that rather interesting over the last year the first people I met in Lewes were a Conservative gay couple. Its not my fault that that silly John B cannot disagree without losing his temper .I must say having been told for hears by gays that it is given and a fixed thing I wonder how some of them will take the news that people can be sexually all over the place. Its awfully hard to understand if you \re not

You should get over your adolescent obsession with sex, it’s wholly boring. I mean, do you think you invented it?

the semiotic distinction I’m making is between ‘gay’ (which, as you say, has become fairly mainstream) and ‘queer’, which isn’t. Queer encompasses not only many gay people but bisexuals, transsexuals and transvestites, the ambi-gendered, polyamorous, kinky people and the intersex movement, and the politicisation of all of that.

Growing up in Lewes and Brighton it was interesting to see a distinction between settled, conformist gay couples and the ‘queer’ scene.

Great suggestion – I’ll come and help you do the measuring. Can’t imagine we’ll need a very big ruler.

Meanwhile – does anyone want to talk about why queer politics might or might not be inherently radical? Anyone at all?

Smirking looks like what you guys are good at

Blogger Philipa said…

That was hilarious. I love the way you wipe the floor with them with such style

6:03 PM

Blogger Little Black Sambo said…

Oh, I’m so glad I followed that link.

6:34 PM

Nice people. Now lets get back to the OP. Got anything constructive to say?

Is this a non smirking blog then ( Marathon marathon)*

* Conservative for snicker

You last point is not what you originally said is it ? No. It becomes a matter of degree. 2005 Labour lost in England and from that point so your underlying point is confused the place of Scotland is important and we re into the gerrymandering of the last few years with the boundary commission , and the Celtic fringe .
Basically I say Labour are dead in the South , you say they always were . I prove they were not always . Fact .You say well . um …errr they can do without it anyway in an increasingly wet way. I do not think 2005 proves this because Labour lost in England , and the long term removal of the Party from this region is not sustainable in a devolved UK and given the classes across the UK that are prominent in the South. ….

Wrong – see your #50

“and 1974 might as well be 1874″

Hardly, 1974 featured the same three main parties as 2008.

“Labour polled significantly in 97 (which you wrongly claimed they did not )”

No I didn’t. But they only polled significantly in the SE/S in 1997; they won in 1974 and in 2005 despite not doing so.

Newmania,
we get that you are a partisan missionary for a Conservative hegemony, but some of us would prefer not to nail our genitalia to the mast so far out from an election when there is still much at stake. You might well be prepared to devote yourself slavishly without good cause, but you’ll come to regret it in the long run.

If the LibDems are Labour-lite and Cameron is Blair-lite, doesn’t that make the Conservatives just snobbish LibDems? Whatever happened to last year’s ‘liberal conservatism’, was that just a fad?

1974 !!! Wilson and miners switching the lights off hung Parliament , Another world f f sake are you on the autism spectrum ? ……

Total real wealth (and therefore both mean and median averages) may have grown but this appears to be matched by increasing relative wealth disparities and a growing underclass. So I’m not sure your conclusion about wealth is strictly accurate, just as I am certain that a reduction is help to these people will not decrease their suffering.”

Well a lot of things have happened in the last ten years that may increase the literal number of beggars. For example, an increasing number in my experience hail from Eastern Europe (obviously a tiny minority compared to those working in the UK) and we may be sharing some of the challenges of the rest of Europe due to more open immigration.

But the relationship between wealth, begging and public expenditure has been a little more complicated than you seem to contend and this has been known for some time (see Tocqueville’s Memoir on Pauperism: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Tocqueville_rr2.pdf ). In essence, if you pay for beggars, you will get more beggars. I am not saying there is an easy solution but rampant public expenditure is not it.

2 My example was when Labour won. Yours is when they are dead in the water. Its up to you but I think mine is more relevant than polling showing everyone hates them everywhere and not much else. I was not being misleading 97 is famous election and my point was exactly that being finished in the South is the end for Labour .

You have only confirmed I am right gimp.Nice job

BTW Do you stick your tongue out when you iron a shirt ? Read aloud ?….just wondering …

“nor would I welcome being encouraged into being a state brood mare with existing sex-ed and current housing policy, my offspring in state nurserys then state school while I toil in a state approved call centre that has an approprite minority recruitment policy.”

Ah, that’ll be an entirely evidence-based, prejudice-free description of the UK, then?

What’s interesting is that his kind of conservatism is dying even within the Conservative party as they educate themselves about facts beyond their experience.

So if you can stop yourself from sinking to his level you might actually end up making some converts.

Nick,
utterly unscientific I know, but the number of homeless people and beggars in my town and the size of the queues outside the local soup kitchen I pass every day has grown in the past decade.

Total real wealth (and therefore both mean and median averages) may have grown but this appears to be matched by increasing relative wealth disparities and a growing underclass. So I’m not sure your conclusion about wealth is strictly accurate, just as I am certain that a reduction is help to these people will not decrease their suffering.

Sorry, is nobody going to challenge this? Because I’ve just got out a jereboam of WHAT THE FUCK?, and I’m going to open it now…”

Well thats obviously a bit of a side point, but there are solid lefties who I will cheerfully argue into the night about nearly everything else (we are not talking “Nick Cohen” lefties here) who are surprised by the number of open anti-semites turning up in their camp these days. I think a doctrine of “Non-racism” might be more productive and command a better consensus than current “anti-racist” politics.

Uhh, actually they are! For the last five years I have been living in two fairly depressed urban areas and the youth there are not suffering from malnutrition and usually have rather more expensive clothes on than I do. Even the (I can only assume, since I am not exactly a rich looking target) fairly desperate young man who tried to mug me at knife point a few months ago was wearing perfectly decent footwear and his tracksuit was perfectly clean and unworn. This compares materially well with the youth of 200 years ago, and a 100 years ago. I would say 10 years ago but what with food prices and inflation, I wouldn’t want to push it. While equality is far more contentious, in terms of sheer resources available to even the poorest, we are doing rather well compared with history. And that is all I need to argue to demonstrate my point.