October 10, 2010

My favorite theory of who wrote Shakespeare's plays

"Another hot debate I remember I was in had to do with the identity of Shakespeare. No color was involved there; I just got intrigued over the Shakespearean dilemma. The King James translation of the Bible is considered the greatest piece of literature in English. … Well, if Shakespeare existed, he was then the top poet around. … If he existed, why didn’t King James use him? … In the prison debates I argued for the theory that King James himself was the real poet who used the nom de plume Shakespeare."
The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Of course, any book involving Alex Haley raises its own issues of authenticity.

62 comments:

David said...

Riotously funny. When you have nothing better to do, you can wield the stiletto better than any of us.

Jim O said...

OK Steve, I get it. You view debates about the Shakespeare authorship controversy with a mixture of amusement and contempt. Well, it's your blog. I'll drop the subject.

Anonymous said...

Very droll ...

Why didn't King James use Shakespeare indeed. He was around when the KJV was produced ...

Perhaps King James felt that it was inappropriate for a poofter to be involved with the translation of the bible.

Big bill said...

He's here, he's queer, he's Ed de Vere!

James Kabala said...

Someone should take this suggestion and run with it at book length.

Who would be more likely to write Macbeth, King Lear, and Hamlet than a native Scot, king of the whole island of Britain, married to a Dane? Who knew more about court life than a king? Who had more book-learning than "the wisest fool in Christendom," a known published author? Who (for those who favor a gay interpretation of the sonnets, as most Oxfordians do) was known for his dubious relationships with male favorites? Who had a known interest in witches and the supernatural? Who was a known patron of the theater who adopted Shakspeare's company as "the King's Men?" Who had dates much closer to those of Shakespeare of Stratford than Oxford did? (1550-1604 for Oxford, 1564-1616 for Shakespeare, 1566-1625 for James.) Who never traveled to Italy as far as I know, but surely had ambassadors and emissaries who could fill him in? And if a mere earl would have been anxious to conceal his authorship, how much more eager would a king have been? (A king would also have been more successful than an earl at pressuring/forcing others to keep the secret under wraps.)

Doubtless the early plays, written when James was still in Scotland, were forwarded to London in secret; when James himself came to London in 1603, the process became easier.

Anonymous said...

Anthony Burgess claimed that Shakespeare did work on the Bible and even managed to insert his name in Psalm 46.

travis said...

My favorite quote about the "authorship question" comes from James Joyce's Ulysess:

"All these questions are purely academic, Russell oracled out of his shadow. I mean, whether Hamlet is Shakespeare or James I or Essex. Clergymen's discussions of the historicity of Jesus. Art has to reveal to us ideas, formless spiritual essences. The supreme question about a work of art is out of how deep a life does it spring. The painting of Gustave Moreau is the painting of ideas. The deepest poetry of Shelley, the words of Hamlet bring our mind into contact with the eternal wisdom, Plato's world of ideas. All the rest is the speculation of schoolboys for schoolboys."

Kylie said...

Steve quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X: "Another hot debate I remember I was in had to do with the identity of Shakespeare. No color was involved there; I just got intrigued over the Shakespearean dilemma."

For some reason, that reminds me of this:

Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion visit Jean Paul Sartre.

stari_momak said...

Tangential, but ever since I first saw this clip where Malcolm X is asked about his name, I've thought that no paleoconservative can possibly disagree with him on that issue, and indeed as the history of white folks is eroded in American education (e.g. Sojourner Truth being more famous to our high schoolers than the Wright bros, Ford, Eli Whitney or just about any other male caspers) we have things to learn from him.

Brent Lane said...

Personally, I prefer the Sam Crubish theory.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to here a little elaboration on the Alex Haley comment.

tanabear said...

"I hoped to gather some traditionary anecdotes of the bard from these ancient chroniclers, but they had nothing new to impart. The long interval during which Shakespeare's writings lay in comparative neglect has spread its shadow over his history, and it is his good or evil lot that scarcely anything remains to his biographers but a scanty handful of conjectures."
Washington Irving The Sketch Book(1820)

Michael R. Bloomberg said...

Mr. Sailer, could you help me fix that minor glitch?

Glaivester said...

Anthony Burgess claimed that Shakespeare did work on the Bible and even managed to insert his name in Psalm 46.

I remember reading a Richard Lederer column about that, oh, fifteen or twenty years ago (I would have been in junior high or high school at the time).

Anonymous said...

400 years from now, will anyone remember that Kwanzaa was invented out of thin air by a thug named Ron Everett?

Or that MLK Jr plagiarized his PhD dissertation?

Or that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from My Father?

Anonymous said...

Alex Haley and Malcolm X are both black. Maybe that raises issues for you too.

TGGP said...

stari_momak, the left conservative has expressed appreciation for Malcolm from a paleo perspective. Jack Hunter has sometimes expressed similar thoughts, though I don't recall if he specifically mentioned Malcolm.

Whiskey said...

That's interesting. I am reading God's Secretaries: the Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson (who also wrote Seize the Fire, the account of Nelson at Trafalgar and why Nelson won).

In a word, why not one man was chosen to write the King James Bible: Politics.

Showing how profoundly stupid Malcolm X was, and more to the point how unable even a man like Alex Haley was to actually comprehend anything about European or White history, culture, politics, and religion.

James primary purpose was to unite both Puritan visions of Protestant worship (i.e. huge amounts of margin notes, documenting different interpretation of each passage, ala the Geneva Bible which also had many problematic anti-tyrant passages denouncing royalty and kings) and that of the CoE. James generally sided with the Bishops "No Bishops, no King" he once told a Puritan figure, but did include some Puritan points of view particularly as related to the Old Testament.

The King James Bible was a flop upon publication, the Bishops still used the Bishop's Bible (highbrow incomprehensible) and the Puritans the Geneva Bible. It was not until the Puritans descendants and border Scots in America embraced it that the English actually did.

Guys like Malcolm X and Haley SHOULD have understood political divisions and rivalry in James fractured kingdom. That's part of basic human nature found also among Blacks. But to them, Whites are the "other" as some monolithic group denied the humanity of the failings they could see among their fellows.

The charge is often leveled, that no White person can understand what it is to be Black, and perhaps that is true. It is undoubtedly true, however, that few Black persons can ever understand what it is to be White, or even understand that White history and culture contains the same human flaws and virtues found among Black folks.

I write this because nearly all Black writers and thinkers from Frantz Fanon to Malcolm X/Haley to WEB Dubois to Marcus Garvey to Elijah Mohammed to Cornell West and Henry Louis Gates IV present Whites as some monolithic bloc, as though there were no difference between Irish and Scots Celts, the Welsh, Vikings, their Scandinavian descendants, Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, Serbians, Russians, Greeks, Finns, the Swiss, and the like. These same folk would object, and rightly so, to have the Yoruba considered the same as the Masai and the Dinka. But they have no hesitation in lumping Scotsmen and Frenchmen together.

Anonymous said...

Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare. They were written by someone else who had the same name.

David said...

Perhaps it should be mentioned here, merely for the record, that James I famously got up a committee of writers to work on the translation of the Bible; he didn't translate it himself. The name "King James Bible" is honorific.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey,

I think it's pretty clear that Malcom X was being facetious, as people often are when they're trapped in dialogue with people far less intelligent than themselves.

That you didn't get the joke seems to suggest volumes...

Drawbacks said...

The plays were mostly written by a Moorish fellow, name of Sheik Mahmoud ibn-Spe'arr.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer, it seems like the only purpose of this post was to attract scorn towards Malcolm X in particular and blacks in general. At least, you must have figured that the majority of your comments would have been along those lines. As a non-white reader of your blog, I'm once again simply appalled by your pro-white stance. Didn't you specifically point out to Jared Taylor that you're not a white nationalist?

Anonymous said...

Shakespeare was considered a talented hack in his day, and was looked down upon by coterie dramatists like Ben Jonson, so Alex Haley doesn't know what he's writing about.

Remember, Shakespeare was a director of a theatrical troupe(1 play a year Willie), which explains his need to write plays. There is virtually no question that Shakespeare was the only author of the plays and sonnets.

Omnivore said...

" Who knew more about court life than a king?"

A courtier.

Kings know very little about court life. Courtiers know it all.

"facetious"

Malcolm X was never facetious in his entire grim life. The least facetious man ever.

Even Obama has a better sense of humor than Mr. X.

josh said...

Re James Kabala: Who's the black private dick thats a sex machine to all the chicks?

Anonymous said...

The sober side of who wrote the plays calls to mind Joe Sobran's
ALIAS SHAKESPEARE, a really fine introduction to the long enduring question.

Kylie said...

Whiskey said..."The charge is often leveled, that no White person can understand what it is to be Black, and perhaps that is true. It is undoubtedly true, however, that few Black persons can ever understand what it is to be White, or even understand that White history and culture contains the same human flaws and virtues found among Black folks."

Which is one of the reasons why I found the election of the current POTUS so appalling. A man who can dismiss half his racial and cultural heritage by writing, "It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine. ..." should not be governing a nation whose majority is people of white European descent, a nation based on the European culture from which he is so obviously and profoundly alienated.

Mike said...

The name "King James Version" is commonly used for the 1611 translation only in America. It is attached to it mainly because the original preface invariably reprinted before the text is addressed "To the Most High and Mighty Prince James..." There is no serious historical dispute that it was the work of a committee, and that the king had simply ordered it - not made or even participated in the translation.

It is more correctly called the Authorized Version (because it is the version "appointed to be read in churches" for the lessons prescribed in the Churcxh of England's lectionary). It is ordinarily referred to as such by the British, and within the Anglican community.

Anonymous said...

"Very droll ...

Why didn't King James use Shakespeare indeed. He was around when the KJV was produced ...

Perhaps King James felt that it was inappropriate for a poofter to be involved with the translation of the bible."


Very funny. You mean apart from a poofter like King James himself? Not that King James did any of the translating of course, he just commissioned it.

Anonymous said...

"Whiskey,

I think it's pretty clear that Malcom X was being facetious, as people often are when they're trapped in dialogue with people far less intelligent than themselves.

That you didn't get the joke seems to suggest volumes..."


I'm no fan of Whiskey (the commenter I mean; I love single malts), but I think you're a bit confused here. Whiskey was commenting on the general tendency of black nationalists to lump all whites together and to treat them as the monolithic "other". Whiskey wasn't commenting on Malcolm X's remarks about the Shakespeare question or the authorship/translatorship of the King James Bible.

As for the actual Malcolm X comments, I'd like to see the quote in their larger context, as it is hardly clear from what is quoted that he was in fact being facetious or that he was engaged in debate with people far less intelligent than himself. Malcolm X was certainly smart but that didn't prevent him from believing a lot of dumb things.

Anonymous said...

"I'd like to here a little elaboration on the Alex Haley comment."

Google is your friend. This really shouldn't be a big secret, but we're dealing with the typical mass media blackout here on these topics. Oh, how the MSM wishes the internet would go away; they yearn for the days when they could simply make inconvenient facts disappear.

Anonymous said...

"OK Steve, I get it. You view debates about the Shakespeare authorship controversy with a mixture of amusement and contempt."

Mr. Sailer's rugged good sense stands him in good stead.

michael farris said...

"You view debates about the Shakespeare authorship controversy with a mixture of amusement and contempt"

You haven't got the memo? Steve views almost everybody with a mixture of amusement and contempt.

It's a major reason for his lack of acceptance in places where you think he might be welcome. Only fools and the desperate accept allies who laugh at them.

keypusher said...

It seems that a post on the Shakespeare question is nearly as good as a post on Asian IQ/work ethic for drumming up comments. Who knew?

Anonymous said...

"Steve Sailer, it seems like the only purpose of this post was to attract scorn towards Malcolm X in particular and blacks in general."

Steve simply quoted Haley's book. Any and all scorn here has been attracted by the author of that silly quote on himself.

Polichinello said...

Another reason Shakespeare didn't work on the KJV: it was a translation. Was Shakespeare so proficient in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic that he could act as a translator? Turning a pretty phrase is great, but it still has to somewhat capture the original meaning of the text. I suppose he could work with wooden translation, but that seems like a dicey thing to do with something as potentially controversial as a translation of the Bible was back then. People died over this sort of thing. Hell, England fought a civil war in part because of differing visions of what the Bible said.

zed is dead said...

"Steve simply quoted Haley's book. Any and all scorn here has been attracted by the author of that silly quote on himself."

True. However Steve did edit the quote to make it seem like Malcolm X believed King James wrote the King James Bible because it's called the "King James Version." But that's not quite the case. Malcolm X, under the influence of having read too much Nietzsche, is making the argument that some monumental figure, King James, imposed his will upon the rest of humanity through his translation of the Bible and the works of Shakespeare. I actually prefer Steve's Wolfian edit, which is much funnier and much less Teutonic.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said..."As a non-white reader of your blog, I'm once again simply appalled by your pro-white stance."

Well, you would be, wouldn't you?

Being appalled by anything pro-white is the default setting for leftist whites and non-whites generally. As is the conflation of pro-white with anti-black (or other non-white). As is the conflation of pro-white with white nationalist.

How would you feel if white person told you he was appalled by your pro-black (or other non-white) stance?

Is there any good reason why a white person should not be pro-white?

Leaving aside the question--and yes, it is a question, you're saying it's so does not make it so--of whether or not this post was pro-white, your complaint is just silly.

From where I sit, it looks like Steve was just being inclusive. He did not assume that black people would have no interest in Shakespeare because they aren't bright enough or don't have enough interest in high culture. On the contrary, he bothered to look up the question of Shakespearean authorship from the perspective of a well-known black author. As a non-white, you should be pleased at his inclusiveness.

Mike said...

Polichinello - the King James/Authorized Version of the Bible is not for the most part a translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. It is a pretty straightforward translation of the Vulgate (Latin) bible, with secondary consultation of the Greek New Testament and Septuagint.

Aramaic was probably the principal language spoken in Palestine at the time of Jesus, but the New Testament was written in koiné Greek, a cosmopolitan language that most people around the eastern end of the Mediterranean knew. The Septuagint ("LXX") was translated into koiné Greek, in order to provide a version that was easier for the Jewish laity of the second century BC to understand than Hebrew, which was by then an archaic language used only for liturgical purposes. The LXX is actually older than the Masoretic Hebrew Bible which is accepted as authoritative amongst modern observant Jews.

James Kabala said...

Mike - I believe you're actually thinking of the Douay-Rheims (Catholic) Bible. Protestants very much believed in going back to the original languages.

I'm undecided on to what degree Malcolm's tongue was in his cheek here. The final sentence emphasizing that he argued this way in "prison debates" seems to support the idea that he was just being contrarian and going for the most absurd theory to get a rise out of his fellow inmates, but the earlier sentences seem more serious. I'd have to know what is in those ellipses to reach a final conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Protestants very much believed in going back to the original languages.

Institutions like Harvard were created so that young Puritan boys could read the Gospels in the original Greek, without having to rely on the Latin [mis-]translations being peddled by the Papists.

Truth said...

"400 years from now, will anyone remember that Kwanzaa was invented out of thin air by a thug named Ron Everett?"

Who invented Christmas again? Jesus Christ?

Truth said...

"and more to the point how unable even a man like Alex Haley was to actually comprehend anything about European or White history, culture, politics, and religion."

He comprehended "money" and "achievement" pretty well; how many hits does your "blog" have again?

Truth said...

""It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine. ..."

The basic premise of the site, Sportette, and the basic reason for your silly and repetitive, 5th grade dislike of Barack and Michelle, is that you feel that "EUROPE ISN'T THEIRS." Please, grow up.

"should not be governing a nation whose majority is people of white European descent,"

He was voted by "a nation whose majority is people of white European descent" as the man that they would most like to have governing. That is how our system works.

Thursday said...

Most people seem to desperately want to connect with an author or artist in a personal way, more even than they want to connect with the work. (Why else do people go to concerts where the performance of the music is frequently performed at a level well below that on the record?) When the author effaces himself behind his characters as totally as Shakespeare seems to have done, it seems to drive people into complete fits of desperation.

Anonymous said...

it seems like the only purpose of this post was to attract scorn towards Malcolm X in particular and blacks in general.

Seems to me tht Alex Hailey was the target.

Malcolm X seems like someone who WNs could accomodate.

What would liberals/jews do if WNs and BNs made common cause? Start running for the hills.

Steve Sailer said...

Personally, I think it's the most charming part of The Autobiography of Malcolm X. If you're self-educating yourself in prison, you're not going to going to get every single thing right, but that's not as important as that you are thinking about stuff like who wrote Shakespeare's plays.

As for Alex Haley, he was a terrific storyteller. Sometimes, his stories got a little more terrific in the retelling, but that's okay.

ATBOTL said...

Steve, If you want to read some interesting stuff, look into the history of the Nation of Islam and the movement it grew out of, the "Moorish Science Temple." NOI was founded by a white(possibly part Pakistani or Polynesian) con-artist as a scam to sell fake Muslim paraphernalia to ignorant ghetto blacks. He mysteriously disappeared when the authorities started investigating him and his followers just ran with it. This was around 1930.

My theory is that all religions were started by con artists.

Polichinello said...

Mike,

The KJV was not translated from the Vulgate (except for 2 Esdras). Here's the Wiki summation:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the deuterocanonical books were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

I lazily tossed in Aramaic, because I believe Daniel was originally written in that tongue.

At any rate, you had long tradition of studying Greek and Hebrew in England by that point. While the previous Wycliffe Bible was based on the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale's work and the popular Geneva Bible (which Shakespeare used) were based on the original languages.

Jeremiah Wright said...

Truth said...

The basic premise of the site... is that you feel that "EUROPE ISN'T THEIRS.

Where'd you get that? Haven't you read Steve's recent posts about the rise of a mulatto elite who are only cosmetically ethnic but in fact genetically and culturally off the shelf WASPy elites?

Didn't you read Steve's voluminous writing on "Barry" - how's he is basically a preppy from paradise desperately seeking authenticity in a culture that is essentially alien to his upbringing, education and enculturation?

Steve doesn't say that people like Barry Obama don't belong in America or Europe. It's the opposite. He writes that that it's disturbingly odd that for Obama to claim authenticity among American slave-descended black culture while rejecting the elite white world he was born and raised in - the only one he's really knew growing up.

Also, Obama's people market him as an embodiment of transcending race as do his books. There is a clear hypocrisey when he lovingly praises his white mother and grandmother "toots" for raising him with good values and sacrificing for him, yet he doesn't deign to attend their funerals. The same Obama will be married by, have his children baptised by and attend Rev. Wright's church for many years.

Mike said...

Mr. Kabala - you need to look at the Authorized Version and compare it with the Vulgate, the Greek N.T., and the Septuagint. I have done this and in every passage I've studied, the A.V. is closer to the Vulgate than it is to the Greek N.T. or the LXX. The A.V. is also much closer to the Vulgate than are just about all of the more recent Protestant translations, beginning with the R.S.V.

Indeed, the Douay bible is a direct translation of the Vulgate and it has a more Latinate vocabulary than the A.V. The A.V. simply renders the Vulgate into a better English idiom, and as a consequence influenced English prose for several centuries thereafter - just as Luther's comparable translation of the Vulgate into German influenced German writing.

Dutch Boy said...

The Douay-Rheims bible (subsequently revised by Bishop Challoner in the 18th century)has advantages over the Authorized Version and others. The Vulgate on which it is based was translated in the 4th century AD from texts which are no longer extant. The translator (St. Jerome) was a native speaker of Koine. St. Jerome lived in Palestine and had access to Hebrew scholars for his translation of the Old Testament. The language he used (Latin) is no longer mutating and the words can have definite meaning ascribed for ease of translation.
P.S. - the sonnets are the key to Shakespeare's identity via their extensive biographical allusions (an older man, lame, in disgrace, homo- or bi-sexual; these do not describe the man from Stratford, they do describe Oxford).

James Kabala said...

So is the KJV a fraud in its claim to be directly from the original? That's more interesting than the phony Shakespeare controversy.

Tom V said...

Truth,
Why should Europe (and its extension--"the West") belong to someone who doesn't want to own it?

Racial conflict can be circular, as you're implying, but it isn't so in this case. The cause and effect are clear, not least because while Steve and his commenters read Obama, Obama doesn't read us. (Indeed, in a different context, you'd bring up this fact to taunt us.)

If Obama talked about America vs. Africa the way Ayann Hirsi Ali talks about Europe vs. Islam, he'd be the toast of Steveosphere. Thomas Sowell didn't even have to go that far to win over all the meanies here. His blackness indeed would make him all the more effective, and thus esteemed. And that's even before considering the fact that Obama's half white.

You realize this, and yet you accuse us of "5th grade" prejudice. Why? Here's a thought.

Accusation of racial motivation always boomerangs. It doesn't have to knock you out, but I'm afraid it just did you, Sport.

Mike said...

Mr. Kabala - it is interesting to read the Wikipedia article on the A.V. I hadn't done this before, and my earlier comments on the A.V.'s correspondence with the Vulgate were based purely on my own observations in comparing various Bible passages in the A.V. and other English translations with the Vulgate, Greek N.T., and LXX.

Wiki claims the translation was made primarily from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with secondary reference to the Vulgate. Then, down in the section "Literary Attributes," subheading "Translation," we find the following:

"For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/4), but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which the Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation...

"...in several dozen readings ... no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate... The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation."

Putting all this together - the "translators" engaged by King James may have claimed to work from primary Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, but in fact they were largely compilers, who relied more than they let on upon previous translations. Furthermore, the usual university don or clergyman of the day had a great facility with Latin, some command of Greek, and less that either of those of Hebrew. The tendency would have been here to fall back upon the route of least resistance, i.e., using Latin. Finally, the translators were engaged to produce a Bible that did not engage in the contentious readings favored by Calvinists that challenged the episcopacy or the authority of kings. High churchmen like Launcelot Andrewes were employed on the translation committee. These factors assured that the A.V. was a decidedly more Catholicizing than Calvinising translation, and this also would have favored the Vulgate.

Some aspects of the A.V. show non-Vulgate origins, e.g., the numbering of the Psalms and the verses of certain other books, and the transliteration of certain proper (especially O.T.) names (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nabuchodonosor). However, the bulk of the text is more influenced by the Vulgate than many - probably including the A.V.'s original compilers - might have liked to admit.

Truth said...

"Why should Europe (and its extension--"the West") belong to someone who doesn't want to own it?"

I did not read either of Barry's books, but from what the above quote says, BHO did not say he did not "want to own Europe" he said "it wasn't his" he is an American so that is accurate.

"(Indeed, in a different context, you'd bring up this fact to taunt us.)"

You're right, and I shouldn't have to. In a Chihuahua - Bulldog confrontation, the barking rat is usually the one barking.

"be the toast of Steveosphere. Thomas Sowell didn't even have to go that far to win over all the meanies here."

Thomas Sowell is always the one brought up here in the "some of my best friends are black" vein. Guess what, it's not difficult to hold one member of a group up as one you like to spite the others. If Reverend Al Sharpton says something positive about Morris Dees, does that mean he's not anti-white?

"Accusation of racial motivation always boomerangs. It doesn't have to knock you out, but I'm afraid it just did you, Sport." I don't accuse anyone of racial motivation, Tom. What I do is, well, read. Please don't scoff at that, reading is a dying art in America and it's a damn shame. I don't need to accuse Kylie, Curvaceous, Kudzu Bob or any of the other cast of regular characters here or racial motivation; they don't go to any length to deny their racial motivation... your reproach is similar to you being angry that I accused Paul Newman of having blue eyes.

By the way, you are Thai if I remember correctly, right?

JSM said...

"In a Chihuahua - Bulldog confrontation, the barking rat is usually the one barking."

I've never seen a barking rat. Do they make good pets? Can you train them like a dog?
Oh, and, out of curiosity, what do rats have to do with Chihuahua / bulldog confrontations? Or Shakespeare? Or Barack Obama?

Oh, and do spare me your snide remarks when you explain it, please, because it's a poor writer who blames his audience for not "getting" it.

michael farris said...

"I think it's the most charming part of The Autobiography of Malcolm X...."

Now if you'd included that clarifying info in the original post, it would have read entirely differently, a lot less snarky and a lot less like going for a cheap shot. YOu really should include more context like this more often.

Truth said...

Small, cute lap dog = Barking rat = slang.

Kylie said...

Truth said..."the basic reason for your silly and repetitive, 5th grade dislike of Barack and Michelle, is that you feel that "EUROPE ISN'T THEIRS." Please, grow up."

You don't read minds any better than you read English, do you?

I dislike Barry and Michelle because they've expressed nothing but disdain for and dissatisfaction with a nation that's given them all they've got.

I don't like ingrates.

But you're right. I feel Europe isn't theirs. But I feel that way because they've rejected it. I've never seen anything that indicates either of them have any appreciation for its culture or artistic achievements. Oh, and just in case you're about to jump to another wrong conclusion, I believe it's because they won't, not because they can't.

Like I said, ingrates.

By contrast, Europe does belong to this woman. It is hers more than it is mine.

Jessye Norman.

Truth said...

"I dislike Barry and Michelle because they've expressed nothing but disdain for and dissatisfaction with a nation that's given them all they've got."

How, exactly has Barack Obama expressed "nothing but disdain and dissatisfaction" for the United States?

If you want to see "disdain and dissatisfaction" for the good ole' USA you need to do no more than read the posts on this blog