Quiz o' the Day
While digging around in some boxes of books I re-discovered an old favourite, so your starter for ten is, which living (household name) political figure wrote this?:
It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows as a self-evident fact that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination between man and woman is a flagrant act of oppression without any justification. For woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks. . . Woman loves and hates as man loves and hates. . . Woman thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands. . . Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing and vehicles. . . Woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst . . . Woman lives and dies as man lives, and dies.
But why are there man and woman? Indeed, human society is composed neither of man alone nor of woman alone. It is made up naturally of man and woman. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between man and woman? Why was it necessary to create man and woman? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only. It follows that neither of them is exactly the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists between man and woman is proved by the created existence of man and woman. This means, as a matter of fact, that there is a role for each one of them, matching the difference between them.
This is a verbatim transcription of the official translation.
Apparently 'The Thinker (....) does not present his thought for simple amusement or pleasure. Nor is it for those who regards ideas as puzzles for the entertainment of empty-minded people standing on the margin of life'. So no sniggering at the back.
It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows as a self-evident fact that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination between man and woman is a flagrant act of oppression without any justification. For woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks. . . Woman loves and hates as man loves and hates. . . Woman thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands. . . Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing and vehicles. . . Woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst . . . Woman lives and dies as man lives, and dies.
But why are there man and woman? Indeed, human society is composed neither of man alone nor of woman alone. It is made up naturally of man and woman. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between man and woman? Why was it necessary to create man and woman? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only. It follows that neither of them is exactly the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists between man and woman is proved by the created existence of man and woman. This means, as a matter of fact, that there is a role for each one of them, matching the difference between them.
This is a verbatim transcription of the official translation.
Apparently 'The Thinker (....) does not present his thought for simple amusement or pleasure. Nor is it for those who regards ideas as puzzles for the entertainment of empty-minded people standing on the margin of life'. So no sniggering at the back.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 5:27 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
It cant be Tony?
Cant be a Conservative , has to be some leftie tosser Not Benn , not Foot , kinnock?
got his wife to write it?
There's a clue in the line referring to it being a 'translation'....
Saddam?
Dubya Bush ?
If anybody needs translating he does.
This is torture, as I hold politicians in contempt I couldn't ever imagine buying one of their auto hagiographies and it has to be living foreign one?
I would go with Verity, however, I just cannot see Croydonian wandering around waterstones and forking out for a book by Saddam.,add that to the fact that we don't have any living political giants .
COME ON put us out of our misery.
I recognised the florid and sentimental style of Arab writing. How many Arab writers would Croydonian expect his readers to be familiar with? We know that Saddam wrote a dozen sentimental novels.
At the same time, he clearly expects the authorship to surprise us. And it is someone living.
I could be wrong. It may be Dominique de Villepin, but ... nah!
"Official translation". It could also be the Pope, although I hope not.
Not Saddam but definitely Arabic.
Croydonian,You really wanna lay off "The Green Book".
The style is definitely over-sentimental, over-explicatory and florid and reads like Arabic writing.
"Official translation" means the person is important enough to have his stuff translated whether the market warrants it or not.
You said "definitely Arabic", gc, so it can't be the Iranian nutjob.
I know! I know! Kdaffi!
I know who it is. I think "Thinker", even in quotes is tremendously kind.
GC & Verity - take a bow. It was the one and only Muammar Qathafi.
I come to have the book as a friend of a friend was squatting in what was the Libyan People's Bureau and he couldn't move for copies of it, so was dishing them out anyone who showed an interest.
Further extracts available in request....
I must confess a sneaking respect for the Colonel. and Saddam.
You know where you are with people like that, unlike that blanket stain Blair.They also tend to be far more entertaining.
If I could choose to be born again I would be an African dictator, lots of diamonds and leopard skins but would probably give that whole testicle eating cannibalism thing a miss.
Idi Amin was my favourite, also a favourite with Israel, I recall a news paper photo of him gratefully thanking the Israeli ambassador for a gold plated UZI he had just been given as a gift.
You mushy liberal, Peter.
I suspect that Gaddafi would be sectioned in many countries, but by the standards of some the blood-spilling lunatics in his neighbourhood (Lockerbie and gun running for the Fenians notwithstanding...), he is far from the worst of the Middle East strongmen. That he has held power since '68 without turning Libya into a charnel house also says something.
A bow? That's all we get? You can't even buy us a virtual drink?
V (and GC), have a big virtual drink.
A real one (or four) is on me should either of you find yourselves in or around London.
Why, thank you, Croydonian! Very civil! I will have a double whisky and soda on the rocks, thank you!
My pleasure. Cheers.
Croydonian,
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
GC - as are you. No idea if you can lay claim to being an acrobat, but I can't.
Alas, I clain no expertise in the realm of acrobacy but do maintain a healthy interest in pole dancing.
Nothing like a good polka, eh?
» Post a Comment