Sunday 28 February 2010

Tid

Perhaps the first of a six-part series? Anyway, running together two replies to comments on this evening's earlier post about pig farming (or not):

Actually, I thought it was a spoof when I first read it. I had, I confess, much the motive attributed to me by Anonymous 22:22 (who has the present scene right, too - cheers). [This was the suggestion that I was double-bluffing, and sitting here with a glass in my hand, laughing away at those who rose to my bait. Yes.]

But not only have I received a truly staggering number of unprintable comments just like that, I have also received at least as many very much like Tom's [see below], as well as a number of emails such as lead me to expect a very great many by lunchtime tomorrow. I would like to thank everyone for them, even if many have been far too, er, choice and fruity to put up here.

Tom seems to speak for an awful lot of people, whom of course I knew existed, who are profoundly resentful of the domination of this area of policy by people who are no more typical of agriculture than of society in general.

It really does seem to be the case that this letter is copied off the Internet and sent off every time that anyone has this situation, which seems to arise an awful lot. I am surprised on one level. But not on another.

This problem occurs quite frequently, so those in the field, so to speak, copy and paste this letter, make the necessary tweaks, and send it off. A certain number inform the Internet that they have done so, and can therefore be found to have done so by means of Google.

Doubtless, there are many similar examples, of the recurring response to the recurring problem. There is a lot to be said for the aristocratic social conscience and for the leadership role of the gentry. But such are not the only voices of agriculture. They are far too often treated as if they were.

In response to the following:

You are a very wicked man, Mr. Lindsay. Goading those overeducated souls into a response is bad enough. But then goading them even further by not putting up their words of wisdom. They have never been treated like that in their lives. Who do you think you are? Truly the heir to Rod Liddle.

Yet you seem to have come across a real problem unexpectedly and given a voice to otherwise voiceless people who have existed in this country for many centuries of forced silence under ignorant, absentee yokes. Truly the heir to Rod Liddle.

I wrote:

It will be many years yet before Rod needs to name, as Gore Vidal said of Christopher Hitchens, a dauphin or delfino.

Oh, well, it's Lent again in well under an hour. Maybe I'll do one of these every Sunday until Easter? See if you can spot it. See if I do one at all.

8 comments:

  1. If you think that you have spotted a mistake in David Lindsay, then you have made a mistake. Either you are plain wrong or you have fallen into his trap.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some people never fail to disappoint. David's critics never disappoint to fail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Break Dancing Jesus28 February 2010 at 23:36

    There are only five Sundays left including this one you ridiculous little man!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is this the same Break Dancing Jesus who once thought that your reference to "the conservative Colbert" was to The Colbert Report? How many can there possibly be?

    There would be no point in saying "Tid, Mid, Misere, Carlin, Palm, Paste Egg Day" to him. But fair play to you for knowing something like that. Hereditary pastoral to his nasty noov, I suppose. Is that your background in St. Helena?

    But is it really not Lent until midnight?

    ReplyDelete
  5. My background over there is not clerical, if that's what you mean. Nor is it political in the sense that exists over here. But it is very much civic, and oriented towards public service.

    I joke about the sort of liberal elitism that vanished in Britain at the end of the First World War: good works every day and good parties every evening, the world of Lady Violet Bonham Carter. It wouldn't be funny if there weren't a grain of truth...

    But I am far too left-wing to be a liberal, because I am far too conservative to be a capitalist. My formative influence is the harmonious union of small business and a strong public sector, based around the production of real things, including food. In Saint Helena. In the Scotland of my father's youth. In my own County Durham.

    We heirs of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome can define a day as sunset to sunset, or as dawn to dawn, or as midnight to midnight, according to our purposes. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That "or delfino" was priceless then and it is priceless now. Have you ever met Gore Vidal? If not, then I suppose you never will. That is a pity. In a funny kind of a way, you and he would have gotten along.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That would account for how easily you can change your accent from quite posh to merely local middle class.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If I do that, then it's not on purpose.

    However, in terms of sheer comprehension, rather than replication, I can find my way effortlessly around the many versions of the North East, around Saint Helenian (at least as spoken over here), and around upper-middle-class (at least as spoken at Durham).

    So, with that sort of range anyway, I have never come across an accent of which I couldn't get the gist. As I say, in terms of comprehension rather than replication. One of my tutees is a huge reggae fan but says that he cannot watch The Harder They Come without subtitles! I find that baffling.

    Put it down to being "hereditary pastoral"? Why not? In fact, yes. I'm sure that that is what it is. And if my accent sometimes shifts up or down a couple of gears depending on the situation, then, again, that is the reason why. As I am very, very glad to say.

    ReplyDelete