Downstreet, from my piont of view, it is the difference, rather than the agreement of opinion that would provide for the continuity of conversation for which a learning base can be established. The fact that you choose to maintain the conversation by providing us with your opinion is a testament of your commitment to the purpose and intent of our Gogouyave Talkshop. In this regard, we will continue to share our opinions while maintaining proper decorum as the good Gentlemen that we are, despite Mother's belief that this chivalrous salutation is reserved for her lawful children.......you knew that was coming, right?...lol
But Bro, in read to your rebuttal, I detected that our differences do not in anyway deminish our passion for self actualization and the abmonition of that dash! deplorable 'Subject' connotation that Mother had bestowed on us. It frets me even more(remembering how thin-skinned us fellas, north of L'anse Bridge can be......lol) to read of your reference to this vile characterization as ' her loyal subject' and if I was to unleash some of my flowery writings with some green verbs from her teachings on her, you can bet it would not be pretty. But then again, I must maintain my "gentlemanliness" and speak nicely of Mother in order to respect to her........ legacy (bad debt, if you ask me).....( . _ .)
So having now removed my tongue which was firmly placed in my cheek, your response, though tepid, does not abscond Mother in any way but points to what I had acknowledged to be a by-product of her legacy. Admittingly (and as with any by-product) there were some benefits to be had upon our entry to Mother's and Uncle's house but that small benefit vould only have been enhanced by us taking the initiative to move beyong the tetiatary education and develop complementary skills to supplement the little Mother gave us. And for that, you are willing to give her 50% and a optimistic perception grade for her legacy?
No! I say. For that she gets only 10% (being quite generous here) for giving us a basic education in the fundamentals, that is all.
>>>>>..... We Caribbean blacks ARE mutha's ******* children and therefore should not expect the same treatment as her legitimate babies.So she did not give us all she had or all she could, but why should there be a sense of entitlement,just because we sang God save the Queen on 24th May didn't make us British...... <<<<<
Downstreet, quite frankly, I had to make an appeal to the Gods for a deliverance upon reading the above. Sir, the fact that we went from slavery to a colonized, subjugated people, the latter being at the hands of Mother, you are now questioning our entitlement and equal treatment?
May I ask you to make a case as to what are the prevailing factors that would disqualify us from having that sense of entitlement you dpeak off?
Please tell me ......what is it about Mother's children that made them so entitled and not us?
Remember to apply the gentlemen rules of engagement when making your case and keep Mangodog in mind in case you need to consult him on the rules.
I have left you with enough typographical errors, just to fret you back but I am confident that the Gentleman in you would make the correction without any charge just for Mother's sake...?lol
Sorry to "sully it" .....Tony D, wish you could coax me in me head, eh! Lol
Verne, it would take many more of your old teachers like Ronald, Sir Carl, John, and Elsa among others to coax your head for you to avoid those errors and typos(lol).
Seriously though, I am enjoying the discussion about "Mutha's" that you guys are having. But it seems though that your argument is more about degrees rather than real differences in how you view "Mutha." Half full or half empty.
I agree with Downstreet that we are ultimately responsible for picking up the ball that Mutha dropped and run with it. After all a hungry man would much prefer a piece of bread than nothing at all. Won't you?
On the other hand, we never went to England to beg them to adopt us. It was John Hopkins and the rest of those "civilized" Europeans who travelled on "the good ship Jesus" all the way to Africa that eventually led to our "adoption."
So yes we can take issue by asking why were we treated as *******s, while someone else can say okay but admonish you for not saying "thanks for tender mercies." To be sure Sparrow's condemnation of "if me head was bright, ah woulda be a **** fool' cannot be dismissed, but then as I asked before, how many of us would trade that education Mutha gave us, albeit elementary, for anything else?
It is really a case of half full or half empty.
Vernon Vernon, it seems that you are passionate about this subject, and like a British Bulldog, want to chew it to the bone, I was prepared to leave it alone, butI will attempt to respond as per your request.
It would appear that you want to make a case for reparations, from Mutha for the 200 years of slavery and servitude extracted from our forefathers. If so, disparaging their education of us as sub standard is a curious way to approach the subject.You might find that like in Bill Cosby's case, the statutes of limitation for Muthas pesh, expired long, long ago. If on the other hand you believe that we are entitled to receive perpetual "welfare" from Mutha,then make that case.
My position continues to be that I took whatever I got from Mutha and ran with it as a thief in the night. Whether it is 50% or !0%, is a function of the use that the recipiant can put that flawed education to, isn't it? I have learnt not to look a gift donkey in the mouth.
>>>>>>Downstreet, quite frankly, I had to make an appeal to the Gods for a deliverance upon reading the above. Sir, the fact that we went from slavery to a colonized, subjugated people, the latter being at the hands of Mother, you are now questioning our entitlement and equal treatment?<<<<<
A nations duty is to its citizens, and therefore Mutha's, is to her British offspring which we aint, and nevah wuz.Unless you bought that fiction that you were a British subject. How then can you feel entitled to whatever Mutha has? Your term "equal treatment" is a "red herring" a specie unknown in "Down Street" waters,dunno about the L'anse. It suggests that Mutha was treating you as second class, that may not be neccessarilly true, she may simply be treating us as what we were,non British, Caribbean citizens of African and Indian descent.
It is a little unfair to be asking God for deliverance, after He already delivered from slavery, and from Mutha's out-house. Besides are we not still singing God save the Queen, on her majesty's birthday? Correct me if Im wrong but Vernon wasn't that you in the $10.000 dollar a plate dinner for the Royals in NYC two days ago?
>>>>May I ask you to make a case as to what are the prevailing factors that would disqualify us from having that sense of entitlement you dpeak off?
Please tell me ......what is it about Mother's children that made them so entitled and not us?<<<<<
We aint British we were never qualified. Believe it Vernon you aint British.Nevah wuz.I have noticed that you bleeeped out the word "*******"and cautioned that we should keep our discourse Gentlemanly. It may be comforting to know that, that dastardly word has always being in the Oxford Concise Dictionary, and furthermore we fellahs from the South side of town, never struggle with genteelity,our stiff upper lips never allow us to utter cuss-words, is it Muthas DNA or the close proximity to all the major churches in town, who knows? thats how we roll Down Town.ROTFLMAO.
Downstreet, my Boi, as always, I appreciate your response to my challenging questions on the subject matter, particularly, your characterization of my "Bull Dog", bone-crushing approach in defense of my position. I however, would have preferred the Pit Bull Terrier, because of its jaw-locking ability that takes no prisoners regardless of which hand that fed it, may it be Mother's, or in my case, Uncle's.
And I would be remiss in not mentioning that the "bleeped-out word" you referenced was not of my doing but was a result of the "Talkshop Word Police" not recognizing the word synonymous with a child born out of wedlock as accptable for use in conversations here. As the good gentleman from the L 'Anse that I am, it is my desire to conform to the Police edict at all times, while keeping my 'stiff upper lip' in check. We from the North Side (the French Quarters, thank you!) recognize that we do not have the luxary of quickly accessing a church of any denonination to seek attoinment for our few venial sins.
Pardoning my audacity, the Good Lord(or was it Mother!....again) found it necessary to echo his words within close proximity of those sinners ears which are most in need of an intervention hence the multitude of denominations on the South Side of town as you have attested. YROTFLYAO, I could bet.
And lastly my good pal, I would leave the topic at the impasse on our contending positions but at the point where I would have mounted a more succinct challenge if I had chosen to do so.
>>>>>>>......A nations duty is to its citizens, and therefore Mutha's, is to her British offspring which we aint, and nevah wuz.Unless you bought that fiction that you were a British subject. How then can you feel entitled to whatever Mutha has? .....<<<<<<<
On that, we in the French Quarters will continue to sing, " we want we Granfadah pay"
It was Tony you saw in NY at that $10,000 a plate dinner for the Royals the other day. Remember, he made acquaintances with them some two years ago at Buckingham palace in London and came back to tell us how pleased he was to see Mother putting in good use our Grandparents Cocoa and Nutmeg money.
Try convincing him that he was not a British Subject.
Well done Down Street, for your succinctly written post, with your decimal of 0.5 glass of Rivers and coconut water to hand... and even Grand Anse beach will 'clap its hands', and the waters will sing out, the coconut trees will 'tap' the steel pan..... that Down Street.....Your Life Matters, especially on the GoGouyave forum!
PS what is the meaning of the 'Rivers' component of this drink?