Man of Middle Eastern Appearance

In the right light, I certainly am, as has been noticed both by commentators here, and In Real Life. As far as actual ethnicity goes, I’m a mixed bag, but mostly Celt. Quiggin is a Manx name, and my ancestry on my mother’s side is mostly Scots.

None of that signifies anything much except the arbitrariness of distinctions over which a lot of blood has been, and is still being, shed.

34 thoughts on “Man of Middle Eastern Appearance

  1. Dsquared says: ‘We speak Celtic languages for much the same reasons why Indians speak English. ‘

    Was it GB Shaw who claim that ‘a language is a dialect with an army’?

    Generalisations about ethnicity are so bloody compelling we shouldn’t trust them. Someone always gets hurt.

  2. SJ Says: January 2nd, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    an elitist, chardonnay-swilling, latte-sipping, baby-boomer humanist.

    Actually that is quite a good description of the present commenter, when he is off-duty. It certainly represents his world-historical ideal for citizenship of a universal state.

  3. Actually that is quite a good description of the present commenter, when he is off-duty. It certainly represents his world-historical ideal for citizenship of a universal state.

    So what are you telling us here, Jack? That you speak of yourself in the third person, and that you’re completely nutso?

    Or that you have some sacred mission, which only causes you to appear like a nut-case when on-duty?

  4. JQ – you’re hilarious. Hmm dark hair and beard, looks Middle Eastern. It’s not just the colouring me boyo.
    As for me, alone drinking an Ouzo I could be a Wog, with me mate, I could be one of two Middle Eastern males.

  5. SJ Says: January 2nd, 2006 at 11:07 pm

    Or that you have some sacred mission, which only causes you to appear like a nut-case when on-duty?

    I am, like most educated persons, am pretty Wet in my personal opinions and preferences. But I do not make the mistake of elevating my occasional self-indulgences into a political ideology. The Wets do, which is why I enjoy taking the piss out of them. Especially when they fall into that insufferable habit of ostentatiously preening themselves on their supposed moral superiority.

    It is all the more fun when the gap between their scientific ignorance and ethical arrogance yawns so alarmingly. SJ is a text book case of this particular dis-ease.

    So what are you telling us here, Jack? That you speak of yourself in the third person, and that you’re completely nutso?

    The third person omniscient has a distinguished pedigree in literature, even in autobiographical literature. But occasionally I lapse into the first person. Like just then.

    In blogging comments I usually refer to everyone, self and others, in the third person. It maintains my pose of Olympian detachment from the fray and prevents the dispute from getting too personal.

    But if SJ really wants me to get first-personal then I will. You are a light-weight twit who contributes nothing to the discussion except gratuitous bile. Trying to convey scientific findings to you is like explaining chess to a dog. Absolutely nothing gets through to the receiver and the sender just feels foolish for having tried.

    There, feel better now Fido?

  6. Taking the piss out of people and getting personal may give the old simian instincts a good work out but it’s kind of painfully distracting for all us innocent bistanders. Can’t you lot find some other form of self indulgence that does not pollute the blogosphere.

  7. On further review I think JQ could achieve a public good and just kill this discussion. Its going nowhere fast.

Comments are closed.