Manchester Evening News: proving in print why their journalists are mediocre provincialists.
>>>DESPITE being England’s patron saint, St George was actually born in Turkey and lived in Palestine.<<<
>>>Although far-right English groups have attempted to adopt him as a symbol, it is thought he was black and of Middle Eastern descent.<<<
Words absolutely fail me. How stupid are your journalists? How ignorant are they? So, in this vulgar left-wing infested world we have a Sub-Saharan [black] St. George, oh, and by the way, he was a Turk born in Turkey. (Amazing stuff considering his existence precedes the arrival of the Turks and Turkey itself; oh, and Sub-Saharan to boot! wow, little did we all know that Asia Minor was populated by individuals from the deepest recesses of the sub-African continent). This sort of vapid inclusiveness is worse than the idiotic Afrocentrics who believe all the great civilisations were instigated by wondering black Africans. Regardless of the historicity of the man, St. George, for England, has an established aesthetic because he was a manifestation of the people that adopted him as their saint: he's depicted as white because the English people are white (duh, is that not obvious? Can you not quite compute that?); it's akin to asking the Zulu's to change Shaka to a blue-eyed north European just so the Boers can feel 'included' - of course any such suggestion would be condemned: Shaka as he exists is ethnocentric just as much as St. George is to England.
Try and think critically journalists. This sort of news infuriates people because the deepest and most intimate national truths and mythologies are being perverted for the sake of some multicultural ideal; and worse, the impetus isn't even from ethnic minority groups: it's from the panjandrums of a purblind trendy elite.
This is shoddy journalism with a hint a revisionism; and for what avail? To refashion an ethnocentric mythology to make it inclusive of everyone. You even completely pervert the symbolism of the parable (the vanquishing of evil represented by the dragon) to encapsulate some sort of mawkish succouring (perhaps your 'trendy modern artist' could shed some light on why he felt the need to bastardise the Saint and his story? although I'm under the impression that he's so cerebrally impaired that a) he has no reason other than to be, how do they put it? 'trendy' and b) he's too moronic to realise that his depiction is no longer of the Saint and his parable: that it no longer represents Christianity.
Finally, the Anglican clergy in endorsing this inane gesture are doing themselves an enormous disservice: at a time of increasing uncertainty at the longevity of the denomination, this sort of PC inspired left-wingery will only further alienate traditionalists - there is nothing worse than vulgarising a definitive Christian parable just so you can score a few browny points against those nasty right wingers (boo! hiss!). Pathetic.
>>>DESPITE being England’s patron saint, St George was actually born in Turkey and lived in Palestine.<<<
>>>Although far-right English groups have attempted to adopt him as a symbol, it is thought he was black and of Middle Eastern descent.<<<
Words absolutely fail me. How stupid are your journalists? How ignorant are they? So, in this vulgar left-wing infested world we have a Sub-Saharan [black] St. George, oh, and by the way, he was a Turk born in Turkey. (Amazing stuff considering his existence precedes the arrival of the Turks and Turkey itself; oh, and Sub-Saharan to boot! wow, little did we all know that Asia Minor was populated by individuals from the deepest recesses of the sub-African continent). This sort of vapid inclusiveness is worse than the idiotic Afrocentrics who believe all the great civilisations were instigated by wondering black Africans. Regardless of the historicity of the man, St. George, for England, has an established aesthetic because he was a manifestation of the people that adopted him as their saint: he's depicted as white because the English people are white (duh, is that not obvious? Can you not quite compute that?); it's akin to asking the Zulu's to change Shaka to a blue-eyed north European just so the Boers can feel 'included' - of course any such suggestion would be condemned: Shaka as he exists is ethnocentric just as much as St. George is to England.
Try and think critically journalists. This sort of news infuriates people because the deepest and most intimate national truths and mythologies are being perverted for the sake of some multicultural ideal; and worse, the impetus isn't even from ethnic minority groups: it's from the panjandrums of a purblind trendy elite.
This is shoddy journalism with a hint a revisionism; and for what avail? To refashion an ethnocentric mythology to make it inclusive of everyone. You even completely pervert the symbolism of the parable (the vanquishing of evil represented by the dragon) to encapsulate some sort of mawkish succouring (perhaps your 'trendy modern artist' could shed some light on why he felt the need to bastardise the Saint and his story? although I'm under the impression that he's so cerebrally impaired that a) he has no reason other than to be, how do they put it? 'trendy' and b) he's too moronic to realise that his depiction is no longer of the Saint and his parable: that it no longer represents Christianity.
Finally, the Anglican clergy in endorsing this inane gesture are doing themselves an enormous disservice: at a time of increasing uncertainty at the longevity of the denomination, this sort of PC inspired left-wingery will only further alienate traditionalists - there is nothing worse than vulgarising a definitive Christian parable just so you can score a few browny points against those nasty right wingers (boo! hiss!). Pathetic.