Whether living, or not, within Cornwall there is a perception that things are not all that they seem. Is Cornwall in England or isn't it? Are the Cornish people 'English' or 'Cornish'? Is Cornwall an English county or is it a Royal Duchy? Take any aspect of Cornwall and there is the constant vieing for position within the great Cornish Debate with each one contesting the view of the other. Whilst this debate invokes the need to sharpen one's wits, it needs another dimension to replace the impasse which such a sterile debate, of contradictory truths, engenders.
Whilst endeavouring to negotiate a trouble-free route through the 18th August [2001] holiday traffic from Redruth to Bodmin - took me two hours to cover 32 miles [others took three hours!] - I took one of my rare opportunities to listen to Radio Cornwall. This is our 'local' BBC radio station which had a magnificent opportunity to act as a catalyst for consolidating the Cornish identity but, sadly, it cannot even claim to be neutral when it comes to respecting Cornish Rights. It has its moments but these are - to be kind! - only fleeting. It is so 'establishment' and 'status quo' that it is rumoured that it only employs people who can get the maximum number of references to 'the county' within any one sentence! However I digress! To return to the plot: listeners were being treated to an account, by the station's DJ, of his visit to a radio station serving North and South Carolina.
The only relevance of this as far as this site is concerned was the fact that our 'Cornish' DJ declared that he was over "from England". When this little story was finished, someone with him in his 'Cornish' studio - a guest? - said, "Welcome back to England" and, "Bet you are glad to be back in England?" The DJ's response was "I'm glad to be back in Cornwall. Not worried about England. That's the other side of the Tamar!" This aspect of the Cornish Paradox can only be reconciled by fully comprehending what is being said within the page on 'Covert Coercion'.
This page attempts to set out why we have ended up with this continuing debate and to advocate that it is clearly time that there should be an in-depth 'independent' analysis of the contradictory truths of the Cornish Paradox and that 'the Cornish truth' should be placed fairly and squarely into the public domain. The consequence of the continuation of the contradictions is that it is providing fuel for the genocide of the Cornish people and that this must stop!
I have sought to understand the creation of the paradox and know well the consequences of it. The key is knowledge and how we perceive knowledge. The following three sections take a look at our gullibility to receiving and accepting information and, for convenience, are identified as:
| a) |  |
Seeing the Light |
| b) | |
People Perception |
| c) | |
People-Groups |
| a) |  |
Seeing the Light: |
It may be considered a little strange to be involved in a simple discussion of 'light' when considering Cornwall, but 'seeing the light' is a most appropriate phrase when seeking to consider the concept of perception and it has a particular relevance to Cornwall. It represents not only that simple statement of physical fact but is also used as a metaphor for a realisation of knowledge - perception! This latter fact is also further illustrated clearly by the symbolic use of a light bulb in cartoons and the expression 'the light at the end of the tunnel'. The quest for knowledge is to seek 'enlightenment' and the expression 'to shed more light on the subject' is a means of providing further enlightenment. We use the metaphor of a 'guiding light' as a beacon to ease our journey through the dangers of the unknown to the safety of our hoped for destination. Of course, the ultimate reference is given in the biblical phrase 'I am the way, the truth, the light!'
It should be borne in mind that our ability to see any object is only through the medium of how light is reflected off the object being observed. A light source itself is, therefore, the perfect object to observe - or is it? In order to be able to see the light from a light source then it must have existed, but, it is possible to see a light source which whilst having once existed may no longer be there. Such is the case with some of the stars which we observe in the night sky where the beam of light has taken so long to reach us from its source that the source may no longer be in existence. In addition to this 'time' factor there is another phenomenon which we may call 'external interference' which can significantly influence how accurately the observed light represents the actual source by the time it reaches us. Such interference from the Earth's atmosphere, for example, gives the appearance of twinkling to the stars when these are observed whereas in truth they do not twinkle. Compare also the changing colour of the light of the sun, or the moon, from a position overhead (low atmospheric interference) to a position when it is on the horizon (high atmospheric interference). What, then, is the absolute truth regarding what is perceived?
Other aspects of the light also come into the frame in that the sun, for example, is a pure light source, whereas the light that we see from the moon is reflected light whose original source is the sun. The moon is an object which is illuminated by the sun and because the moon is too far away to see any detail we only see the phases of the moon as a light source of reflected sunlight as influenced by its relationship to the Earth and Sun. The light from the moon, therefore, gives us an example of transferred information and an example of external influence. We may clearly observe that moonlight is considerably less bright - or different - than the sun itself. Other reflecting objects produce differing results. A perfect mirror will reflect light much truer to the original than an imperfect one whilst a prism will split the light into the colours of the spectrum. Lenses, particularly convex ones, have their own interesting consequences. If we compare the above reflecting objects to 'observers', then it is clear that there is differing de facto information being provided - as influenced by the particular type of observer bias and/or prejudice.
If we associate the origin of the light as an absolute truth and equate that to some facet of Cornish history, say, the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 - or, even, the very existence of the Cornish people! - then it must be accepted that a simple knowledge of the existence, both of the light source itself and the historical event, represent just a superficial and subjective view of that particular absolute truth in that they both do exist de facto. If we wish to know any more about either absolute truth then it must be possible to explore further in order to ascertain more about that object or event. For example, the light source exists because it is made up of identifiable components and a power source, or process, which are definable down to the nth degree of detail but nevertheless at a superficial level it is just a source of light much the same as any other.
The same process is equally true for our historical event in that whilst we know it is true at a subjective level, it is necessary to explore further in order to examine its detail down to the nth degree. Without such knowledge we have no right even entering a debate on the subject. There are even more basic levels of objectivity about the particular absolute truth and that is: why and how did it come into being? Only armed with this knowledge at an objective level and an ability to compare this with how it is perceived now can we begin to determine the levels of external interference which have manipulated the beam of truth from its origins to our naïve and gullible consciousness.
A transfer of information should not be construed to be the same as the transfer of knowledge and like our reflecting objects, or observers, what we perceive is not necessarily what is there. Similarly, there is the form of external interference which wilfully prevents any of the beam of truth from reaching us and hence the need for this type of website.
| b) | |
People Perception: |
It is said that perceptions reflect the reality but wherever perceptions of people are involved - whether individually or en masse - we must accept that the human mind is highly susceptible to manipulation whether this be through media superficiality and super-hype, advertising slogans, fashion snobbery, brainwashing, mnemonics, or political propaganda and that people, in the main, are superficial beings who prefer to opt out rather than to opt in. It is only in the last few decades that there has been a more challenging and objective view on the way that history and absolute truths have been portrayed and some surprising revelations continue to emerge because students are being urged to dig deeper into what is being said and why it is being said. It is therefore of the utmost importance to ensure that - by whatever means possible - 'the Cornish' have a much higher 'cage-rattling' profile in order to focus and concentrate the minds of opinion-creators and decision-makers.
We all have a bias in what we do, and how we express ourselves, so it is unlikely that another person would say things in the same way - especially if from an opposing point of view. Peoples' perceptions of things and events rarely come from primary source material. More usually it has been recycled many times before and lost much objectivity on the way either because all the facts were not (or never) known or because of added colour as a consequence of bias or prejudice. Such superficiality is given undeserved credibility.
Consider any topic of discussion or debate and attempt to place individuals in the three-dimensional pictorial debating chamber [see LH Index Panel] in accordance with how you perceive their contribution. You will invariably make a subjective - can it ever be objective? - judgement based upon some personally assigned credibility rating based on such factors as 'knowledge', 'integrity', 'ideology'. Each of these factors will vary from total apathy to each of the extremes and thus range respectively from subjective to objective, loyal to disloyal and sympathetic to unsympathetic. There may be other factors, such as 'ability', but the former three are, I feel, all aspects of personal conscience and not necessarily indicative of the final outcome of the debate. Ability, on the other hand, is visible and would reflect a personal distance away from the apathetic mass and which would have a significant influence upon your own subjective judgement of the person. Similarly, apply your own criteria to yourself. It would prove an interesting experiment to apply the test to a roomful of people to see how each is perceived by the other but with a predetermined covert agenda and profile for each individual. A bit like 'Call my political bluff'.
History, likewise, has always been written by the conquerors and not the conquered, yet such history is superficially accepted in blind faith by the majority as the absolute truth. With such a history, half-truths become vicious weapons against the conquered and which become established as the contradictory truths of the Paradox - a not amusing puzzle to absorb much valuable time to expose. The most common half-truth applied to Cornwall relates to the Tamar Border which is officially referred to as a county(sic) boundary between Cornwall and Devon(shire). The truth is that it is (de jure) the national border between Cornwall and England as will be covered elsewhere. Half-truths deliberately lead to wholesale confusion and misrepresentation all around, particularly in the United Kingdom where there is an overlay of dominating people-groups within recorded history going backwards from the current concept of a European Union, United Kingdom, the British State, Norman Conquest, Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, Germanic Invasions, Post Roman Celtic Britain, Roman Britain, Pre Roman Celtic Britain and even to the reality of a pre-Celtic or aboriginal Britain. People's failure - yes, even historians! - to relate events accurately to both time-period and contemporary place has led to much historical confusion.
Any public debate about Britain - ignoring, of course, its Celtic derivation - whose history now only approaching three hundred years, invariably degenerates into a debate on English history to which the Celtic nations are considered to be merely peripheral and incidental. In fact English intellectual debate totally ignores the existence of 'Britain' as is also the case with spontaneous conversations from English individuals and almost exclusively by individuals of countries external to Britain. An interesting test to set oneself is to objectively analyse what is truly meant when someone uses the terms England and English and, conversely, Britain and British. The problem will be in recognising whether or not its use is ambiguous. How many, I wonder, ever think objectively about words such as England, English, Britain, British, etc., and stop to analyse the context of their usage or, for that matter, whether the correct parity with foreign equivalents such as France, French and others is observed? To the question '...and did those feet in ancient times walk on England's green and pleasant land?...' the answer must be an emphatic No! Why? Simply because there is a time gap of 800 plus years before England came into existence. 'Britain' can only be the correct geographical reference but this would not have suited the propaganda value of perpetuating 'England'. An inappropriate and sad song, indeed, to sing in Cornwall! One wonders whether 'Britain' was intended but spontaneously supplanted - by a contrived synonymy - as may be shown to be the case on numerous other occasions.
A successful progression from a position of ignorance to one of enlightenment about Cornwall is totally dependent upon ones starting point and an ability to remain objective in the pursuit of truth. An interesting definition of 'bigot' heard recently on the steam radio was "someone who promotes ignorance with confidence" and there are more than one or two of these within Cornwall - and elsewhere!. The starting point must always be, as was urged in a children's book about King Arthur (published in America), to "forget all that you have been told before". I would add, also, to keep an open mind. The more incredible the deception the more credibility it is usually afforded.
In Cornwall we are the victims, I would suggest, of an immaculate deception.
People are, without exception, gullible because we inherently trust people. May that ability to trust never change, but, more than a modicum of scepticism is very healthy. Deception is something that we are brought up to respect from the earliest age as a means of obtaining some 'goodies' whether it is the innocuous tooth fairy or the more devious Santa Claus. The latter provides an admirable model to illustrate to people generally, and to the Cornish people specifically, the phases of deception and ultimate enlightenment which they need to understand in order to put Cornwall into its correct historical context. It is a study of 'truth'. An interesting academic explanation of this process is contained in Cornish Studies Two [Institute of Cornish Studies].
There are two Latin phrases 'de facto' and 'de jure' which denote truth. De facto expresses something which exists in fact simply because you have been told so and which is accepted by you to be the truth. This 'truth' could equally be the object of a lie, communicated as a known untruth, or in innocent ignorance of the real truth. De jure, on the other hand is that which is the truth by legitimate right. The transition from a knowledge of what is de facto to that which is de jure is made difficult by a human phenomenon called 'belief'. Belief allows us to hang on to what we choose to recognise as the truth in the presence of conflicting views or the absence of some irrefutable evidence. As a child we accept Santa Claus as the truth (de facto) until over a period of time, for whatever reason we begin to have doubts. Once we have doubts we then have the choice whether to hold on to the belief and receive what may be offered as 'the benefits' or to accept the inevitable truth (de jure) and progress to total enlightenment.
The Cornish situation is precisely the same as the 'Santa Zone' outlined above where we are deceived into believing one thing about Cornwall - which too many accept as de facto - whilst the Cornish truth (de jure) has been deliberately withheld from us. It is, indeed, these two contradictory truths from the 'Santa Zone' which confront each other to give us the Cornish Paradox. Fortunately, there are now an increasing number progressing from belief to total enlightenment and the deception is being exposed for what it is. Many still hold on to their misguided beliefs because they feel that it provides some benefits. The real benefits come, of course, from promoting what is true by right and we become responsible, and accountable, for what we achieve. There can be no better motivation to get things right!
There is an embarrassing transition from ignorance to enlightenment but there is no shame in ignorance where this has been tutored by the many forms of propaganda. What is clear is that those people who seek to hang on to the old belief of facts - not yet accepted as propaganda - are more aggressive than those who, through enlightenment, move with missionary zeal through the battlefield with their new confidence which knowledge and self-fulfilment inevitably brings. In our 'just' Cornish war [hence use of such words as 'fifth-column' and 'quisling'] the word is undoubtedly mightier than the sword because we expound truth founded in our own history - as written by others. A history which exists by default and written as much by what has not been said as that which has been said despite the wilful attempts of others to repress it.
| c) | |
People-Groups: |
An individual normally has little corporate impact on others and there is a natural tendency to form into people-groups. I shall use the term 'people-group' throughout in order to avoid using a multiplicity of terms within the body of the text and which would only serve to confuse. There will be a specific qualification of the term where clarity of meaning is required but generally it may be construed as any number of individuals, and/or people-groups, who share a common identification. We all, possibly, lay claim to being a member of the human race as the ultimate people-group but within any generic structure of identity there is an infinite number of possibilities.
People participate in people-groups either through pre-ordained circumstances such as a national, ethnic or family people-group sometimes referred to, sadly, as 'accident of birth' (whether determined by territory or race) or, through personal preference in order to participate in certain activities such as pleasure, politics, culture etc. Irrespective of the reason for the people-group's existence or an individual's participation within it there is, I feel, a common model which governs people-groups. The only variable is the degrees to which the attributes of commonality are applied and which ultimately determines the identity of the people-group. A people-group, therefore, must have people, territory, constitution and culture in order to have an identity. For my own use I have created a people-group model which may be viewed by selecting the people-group link in the lh index panel.
There are, however, a multitude of influences which can affect the hearts and minds of the individuals within any people-group and which will determine their degree of alignment within it. The end result of this tangle is that all people-groups, irrespective of size, have within itself people-groups which reflect these alignments. Such alignments may simply be classified as 'good', 'bad' and 'indifferent' with the latter representing apathy and by far the biggest alignment, i.e. the masses. The former two alignments represent the activists within the people-group whether 'the great and the good' or 'the movers and shakers'. The description of 'good' or 'bad' will inevitably be dependent upon an individuals point of view, however that point of view may have been arrived at. There will always be those who will change alignment dependent upon their changing perception of a particular issue or group of issues.
It is not known at what point injustices would be either recognised or would evoke some reaction and change of alignment from those who were normally indifferent to what was happening around them. It is said that it takes three generations for the masses to revolt - in the meantime....! It is true to say, possibly, that the relative size of the people-group will be a significant factor in determining how it will respond to various pressures. The activists also represent the whole spectrum between the extremes of 'positive' and 'negative' support and it is essential, therefore, to consider the degree of the alignment of support such as loyalty. In the majority of cases the conflict of positive and negative provides lively debate and ultimately a meaningful consensus. In some cases the negative component could be no more than a covert display of loyalty to some external people-group by someone who has infiltrated this people-group - the proverbial fifth columnist! Even the positive aspects of participation cannot always be construed as a clear and unambiguous expression of loyalty to the objectives of the people-group, particularly in matters of politics or commerce. The quisling element exists within all societies and true loyalty cannot be guaranteed. Suffice it to say that everything bad is a possibility. I invariably become suspicious when Cornish credentials are used in order to give some degree of credibility to an externally contrived action.
The point being made here, hopefully, is that a natural law of people-groupings exists and common to all levels whether this be a family, a club, a country or humanity itself. The only features which identifies one from the other is the way that it is structured (its constitution), its geographical base (territory) and how it behaves (its culture). These features are inextricably linked together and any externally motivated policy which acts against the interests of this cohesion must be considered as an act of aggression. Any people-group and/or its members are subject to a variety of internal and external actions which may have the potential to be good or bad for the people-group. There will be occasions when extreme views will clash and civil war, resignations, family feuds, splinter people-groups and so on will ensue as relevant to the type of people-group.
It is easier to fragment and cause to fragment than to remain cohesive thus 'divide and rule' is another of the powerful mechanisms which the dominant will always seek to exercise over the weak.
The saying "Unity is Strength" has been born out of bitter experience and, sadly, it is still far from being one of the better Cornish traits despite the Cornish motto of 'Onen hag Oll' ('One and all').
It is people that should link culture to territory whilst the constitution must be the lynch pin which holds it all together by protecting and preserving that most precious people-territory relationship which gives the people-group its identity. It should not be necessary for individuals to have to perform this paramount function of the constitution whether as individuals or in specific people-groups such as a pressure group. The existence of such pressure groups is a reflection that there is some form of failure within the constitution. Any actions which seek to destroy, or fails to protect the people-territory relationship must be construed as repugnant to the rights of that people-group and prejudicial to its continued existence. In all cases the future of the people-group can only be determined by the total participation of its membership and not by any outside force unless, of course, its behavior consistently threatens another people-group. Such outside force should, however, only ever come from some higher level people-group alignment where the lower level people-group infringes some aspects of the higher constitution.
