It depends on which books you read, i suppose.
well, even Eddie Murphy has an Irish name but he's not your typical Irishman.
Next thing, you'll tell me that there was no attempt to exterminate Acadians in 1755, but they were simply displaced and 'are us' in Louisiana or Boston.
You may also tell me that British laws paying for indian scalps weren't applied to French settlers.
My point, however, wasn't to count severed heads: i wasn't there to count them, neither were you; nor do i intend to assess what a 'mulatto' properly is: my point was that big brother oozes loves for mulattos only so long as they are soap opera quacks that know the script and are all show, no or little go.
Highly politicized mulattos are not loved, much like the Metis: this is my only point.
ham Wrote:(1)It depends on which books you read, i suppose.
well, even Eddie Murphy has an Irish name but he's not your typical Irishman.
(2)Next thing, you'll tell me that there was no attempt to exterminate Acadians in 1755, but they were simply displaced and 'are us' in Louisiana or Boston.
(3)You may also tell me that British laws paying for indian scalps weren't applied to French settlers.
My point, however, wasn't to count severed heads: i wasn't there to count them, neither were you; nor do i intend to assess what a 'mulatto' properly is: my point was that big brother oozes loves for mulattos only so long as they are soap opera quacks that know the script and are all show, no or little go.
(4)Highly politicized mulattos are not loved, much like the Metis: this is my only point.
(1)Irish names are not uncommon among French Canadians both from pre and post conquest immigration. They went to church in the same dead language.
(2)War is hell. For the most part the Acadians were expelled, not exterminated, for not signing an oath of allegiance. In WWII the Japanese population was impisoned. Again war is hell. If in Louisiana the Acadians would be us.
(3)The French and Indian War was particularly brutal and neither side excelled over the other in terms of brutality. Try Fort William Henry on for size.
(4)So it's unfortunate you chose a bad example.
Quote:(2)War is hell. For the most part the Acadians were expelled, not exterminated, for not signing an oath of allegiance. In WWII the Japanese population was impisoned. Again war is hell. If in Louisiana the Acadians would be us.
not the way I learnt it.
Many ships packed with Acadians never reached any shore.
The oath was used later to strip them of their properties.
The deportation was swift and sudden; those who smelled a rat absconded in the woods and were chased.
Quote:(4)So it's unfortunate you chose a bad example.
Why?
I don't know of any other so-called mulatto community that achieved such a level of politicization. Except maybe the war between Paraguay and Brazil, in which Paraguay pushed its own nationalism against Brazil, called a country of negroes.
Quote:(3)The French and Indian War was particularly brutal and neither side excelled over the other in terms of brutality. Try Fort William Henry on for size.
The French and the Confederate were many times more friendly with indians that the average. The French underwrote numerous treaties, and you had episodes like abbè Leloutre that are absent in other cases.
Anyways i suppose we can lay this to rest and agree to disagree.
My point was simple: take it or leave it.
Fort Bragg Wrote:ham Wrote:not the way I learnt it.
Quebecois sans doute.
not exactly. Université de Moncton, Centre d'Etudes Acadiennes
ham Wrote:not exactly. Université de Moncton, Centre d'Etudes Acadiennes
Strange, you'd think they would teach you the truth.
The simple fact on the French Metis in the West is that 5,700 Red River Metis were shortly thereafter swamped with a million plus immigrants and any significance they may have had simply disappeared, stirred into the genetic cauldron.
As far as the Acadians go, I haven't studied the history more than incidentally. They played the neutrality card in a colonial cage match and lost. Ascribing morality or lack thereof to one party in an immoral war is left for the losers. The victors get to write the history.
Sorry I accused you of being a Quebecker. I've heard studying history in Quebec is a bit like studying it on the moon. Same characters as elsewhere, different story.
I may have things to add, but this is not the appropriate place; let's put this to rest.
ham Wrote:I may have things to add, but this is not the appropriate place; let's put this to rest.
Gotcha.
History should be defined as one of the creative arts. You can mould it and twist it to whatever shape you want and I guess I am as guilty as anyone else.
Someone Wrote:I've been wondering why Gollin has set his sights on Breyer State as a first priority after the demise of SRU? There are dozens of large and very successful diploma mills around that offer no courses, have no faculty and make no secret of the fact that they sell degrees.
At least BSU does offer programs of study, it has a faculty and there's nowhere any suggestion that they will mail you a degree as soon as your payment is cleared. Actually Gollin himself in his responses to a poster at DD sort of admitted that BSU offers courses of study, although he questioned the adequacy of these courses. Gollin actually stated that the number of courses for a bachelor's degree at BSU was not the same as in proper universities, to which the said poster replied that BSU bachelor programs include only courses related to the major and not general education courses like in regular American universities. The poster also added that he found the BSU program of the same level and rigor as the program of an accredited university he had also graduated from.
So, why BSU in particular and not one of the outright mills is now being attacked on all fronts? There is only one explanation, BSU was once upon a time affiliated with SRU. It is obvious that the purpose of this affiliation on the part of BSU was respectability, as at that early time most people were convinced that SRU had accreditation from a legitimate foreign MoE. Also, the president of BSU was at one time a member of the SRU faculty, and some SRU graduates served for a while on BSU's faculty.
It is more than certain that Gollin has a network of connections through which he can achieve many things in the world of education. I'm certain he is behind BSU's loss of license in Alabama. I'm also certain that the naming of BSU as a diploma mill that swindles people in that report by the Alabama authorities is also Gollin's work. That naming is clearly disproportionate to the reasons given for denying license renewal to BSU. These reasons were purely technical, they could have asked BSU to comply if they believed they were in breach of a number of regulations. Obviously they didn't.
Now Gollin has proceeded to stage two of his BSU project which is a continuation of his SRU project. He is outing BSU graduates through his connections with journalists and local education authorities. Gollin is obsessed with everything that has or had any connection, no matter how remote, with SRU. He pays only lip service to the genuine eradication of diploma mills, his targets are a select few and the main one among them is SRU and whatever or whoever were or he assumed them to be connected with it.
I expect that at the end Gollin will succeed in bringing about the demise of BSU, he has the connections and the power to do it. The question is, what will be there for Gollin after that? There will be a vacuum which Gollin will try for a while to fill by digging up and posting information about people once connected with SRU, BSU, etc., by outing graduates, and by regurgitating old stories about these outfits. But, that can't last forever, he'll have to find something else on which to unload some of the gall and the bitterness of spirit he has accumulated inside him.
Unless, of course, he connects his personal dots and realizes at last that he is not as impotent, powerless and vulnerable as he thinks he is, that he is able to confront his real problems face to face. Then and only then, he may become a genuine and productive activist in the eradication of diploma mills from the face of higher education.
Yes. I have no affiliation with Breyer, but I'm getting sick and tired of all this undeserved harassment of this school.
They are in no way a perfect institution, but - excuse me - they are far, far from the worst in the class.
Another thing is this bull about no real courses going on at Breyer. Breyer has real courses, and I've corresponded with alumni from Breyer who all say that they gained new, relevant knowledge from their studies at Breyer, and that they had to work for their degrees.
Heck - I know one Breyer alumni who has taken an accredited PhD after his Breyer degrees, and he admits to me that Breyer gave him his money's worth, but - OF COURSE - he is afraid to go out in the open with his experiences because he will get bullied around.
I am really sick and tired of all the beating Breyer alumni and Breyer in itself gets. A lot of these graduates have worked hard for their degrees, and all they get is rude comments and ignorance.
I've posted some comments on "we-believe-everything-we-read-and-all-other-shcools-than-RA-schools-are-diploma-mills-and-should-be-eliminated-immediately" degreedisucssion.com, but of course that is completely useless.
As I see it, this accrediation twist is a bad move, but other than that I wish people could leave Breyer State alone at concentrate on those universities that just takes your money and send your degree in the mail.
Let those who want an unaccredited degree take it, and leave them alone. Their accomplishments are as good as anybody elses.
That is a capsule of what I believe. A crappy accredited school is, well, accredited. A good school that is unaccredited is a degreemill. As I've said 100 times, it's always about the money. The fact that there is competition out there that can produce a nearly identical prduct for a fraction of the cost really irks the education cartel. The shills at degreeinfo and degreediscussion have bought into the concept and think they are part of the system when they are victims of the system.
Poor struggling students are supposed to borrow money to pay $100,000 plus salaries to professors to teach 9 hours per week for half the year. That's the way it was meant to be and anything else is deficient.
The ultimate stupidity is that acceditation has absolutely nothing to do with quality of education. The regionals have admitted this and strenuously object to any inclusion of any measurement of education quality in the accreditation process.
So what does accreditation measure? How many feet of musty books per student are on shelves? How many $100,000 plus PhDs, who hate teaching, are teaching or hiding in their office? Is every decision properly rubber stamped by an academic council? The tests are all about form rather than function. They measure inputs and assume proper outputs will flow from them instead of measuring ouputs. To reiterate, it always about the money and accreditation is a method for schools to protect tens of billions of dollars in government funding from fair competition.