|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
The same idea was expressed by Jesus in the first century and translated in the King James Bible (1611) as "whited", so the idea of superficially dressing up an ugly thing was not new in Potemkin's time.
St. Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
Stales, the word is "shellacking". Shellac is a type of varnish. Interesting that there are two picturesque words for the same thing, both using a term for a surface coating.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re:...to see if Helen may be approaching, because I have no doubt that she knows all about whitewash. One characteristic of the actual substance is that it is very thin when dry, and thus wears away very quickly, exposing the not-so-nice-looking surface beneath.[/bue]
No more than most-- unless your talking about laundry! but whitewash is also thin when wet-- its about as thick as light cream-- where paint is thicker and has more body.. so its failry easy to slap on..but its hard to whitewash anything with out getting spatters on yourself!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428 |
It is evident how the basic definition (quoted below) gives rise to the defintion as "thin concealment", but unclear how it gives rise to the sports usage.
I always thought it was in reference to the blank space on the scoreboard for the whitewashed team. I know that there would probably be a "0" there, but maybe in the good old days the scores would get painted on in a "tally" format (four vertical lines with the fifth a slash through them all to form groups of five) and then painted over after the game. If that were the case, a shutout might look like one team's space on the board had been whitewashed.
I have no proof of the above, it is merely theory, possibly sparked by subliminally remembered bits from Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies/other old cartoons?
[uncultured aside]When my mother used to listen to "classical" music on the radio my stepfather, brother, and I used to attempt to be the first to identify the Tom & Jerry or Looney Tune cartoon the music was "from."[/uncultured aside]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773 |
Regina v. Ojibway
Blue, J.: - This is an appeal by the Crown by way of a stated case from a decision of the magistrate acquitting the accused of a charge under the Small Birds Act, R.S.O., 1960, c.724, s.2. The facts are not in dispute, Fred Ojibway, an Indian, was riding his pony through Queen's Park on January 2, 1965. Being impoverished, and having been forced to pledge his saddle, he substituted a downy pillow in lieu of the said saddle. On this particular day the accused's misfortune was further heightened by the circumstance of his pony breaking its right foreleg. In accord with the Indian custom, the accused then shot the pony to relieve it of its awkwardness.
The accused was then charged with having breached the Small Birds Act, s.2 of which states:
2. Anyone maiming, injuring or killing small birds is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine not in excess of two hundred dollars.
The learned magistrate acquitted the accused holding, in fact, that he had killed his horse and not a small bird. With respect, I cannot agree.
In light of the definition section my course is quite clear. Section 1 defines "bird" as "a two legged animal covered with feathers". There can be no doubt that this case is covered by this section.
Counsel for the accused made several ingenious arguments to which, in fairness, I must address myself. He submitted that the evidence of the expert clearly concluded that the animal in question was a pony and not a bird, but that is not the issue. We are not interested in whether the animal in question is a bird or not in fact, but whether it is one in law. Statutory interpretation has forced many a horse to eat birdseed for the rest of its life.
Counsel also contented that the neighing noise emitted by the animal could not possibly be produced by a bird. With respect, the sounds emitted by an animal are irrelevant to its nature, for a bird is no less a bird because it is silent.
Counsel for the accused also argued that since there was evidence to show the accused had ridden the animal, this pointed to the fact that it could not be a bird but was actually a pony. Obviously this avoids the issue. The issue is not whether the animal was ridden or not, but whether it was shot or not, for to ride a pony or a bird is of no offence at all. I believe counsel now sees his mistake.
Counsel contends that the iron shoes found on the animal decisively disqualify it from being a bird. I must inform counsel, however, that how an animal dresses is of no concern to this court.
Counsel relied on the decision in Re Chicadee, where he contends that in similar circumstances, the accused was acquitted. However this is a horse of a different colour. A close reading of that case indicates that the animal in question there was not a small bird, but in fact, a midget of a much larger species. Therefore, that case is inapplicable to our facts.
Counsel finally submits that the word "small" in the title Small Birds Act refers not to "Birds" but to "Act", making it the Small Act relating to Birds. With respect, counsel did not do his homework very well, for the Large Birds Act, R.S.O. 1960, c.725, is just as small. If pressed, I need only refer to the Small Loans Act R.S.O. 1960, c.727 which is twice as large as the Large Birds Act.
It remains then to state my reason for judgment which, simply, is as follows: Different things may take on the same meaning for different purposes. For the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two legged, feather covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals as well. Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals "naturally covered" with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature, I am certain that the phrase "naturally covered" would have been expressly inserted just as "Long" was inserted into the Longshoreman's Act.
Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a bird, and, a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird.
Counsel posed the following rhetorical question: If the pillow had been removed prior to the shooting, would the animal still be a bird? To this let me answer rhetorically: Is a bird any less of a bird without its feathers?
Appeal allowed.
......-- from (1965) 8 Crim.L.Q. 137-139 (Canada)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
a Potemkin village feigns the existence of a non-existent thing
From the A.W.A.D. email:
While this setup depicted an illusion of prosperity, the real condition of the village was hidden behind this facade.
There was a village there; it wasn't invented out of whole cardboard. It was not a feigned existence of a non-existent thing; it was dressing up as prosperous a village that was impoverished
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
There was a village there; it wasn't invented out of whole cardboard. It was not a feigned existence of a non-existent thingFaldage, I am not sure with what authority the writer of the writer of the quoted e-mail speaks. The AHD definition at http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/P0480000.html (quoted below, emphasis added] seems to me to support of my reading that the term is limited a feigned but non-existent entity. Potemkin village NOUN: Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance: “the Potemkin village of this country's borrowed prosperity” (Lewis H. Lapham). ETYMOLOGY: After Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin, who had elaborate fake villages constructed for Catherine the Great's tours of the Ukraine and the Crimea.The WAD-description differs from this etymology, in that it assumes a real (though whitewashed) village exists. (WAD: put up elaborate cardboard houses ... in the villages) I suggest this asumption is contrary to the published dictionary authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Sparteye, that was great! Tell us another one, any time! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Keiva quotes: ETYMOLOGY: After Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin, who had elaborate fake villages constructed for Catherine the Great's tours of the Ukraine and the Crimea....
Are all stage sets Potemkin villages? I hear a pantomime horse's hooves trotting in the wings of a Potemkin village...
Beast regards,
DubDubious
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
we still know and use it most often as Tom and Huck did when they painted a fence
Yes, musick!...I was going to mention Mark Twain's famous scene in Tom Sawyer where Tom suckers his friends into whitewashing the fence for him, and sits back and takes credit and pay for all the work. Perhaps this is where "whitewash" gained its connotation for connivance, putting one over, slanting the truth, etc.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,360
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
615
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
