UK Politics: Black Lives Matter Here Too

[john]

34 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Greetings from across the Atlantic! Yesterday was the day a statue of Chris Columbus was toppled, and another beheaded. Much ink was spilled, many tears were shed....or maybe it just met with a giant meh.

Those first two Harry Potter films are a travesty.

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Will be? I think we are now, apart from Belgium on a per head of population basis.

The government's handling of this crisis was a fiasco on almost every level.

I think BFC is referring to the news story today about Britain being predicted to have the worst economic hit from the pandemic.

[Derfel Cadarn]

8 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I think BFC is referring to the news story today about Britain being predicted to have the worst economic hit from the pandemic.

Which may be a double whammy when no/deal brexit hits.

And the Americans inflict their shitty meat and fructose-laden food on us.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

This is a good point, although I think the ship is, if not sailing, then certainly unmooring from the pier with regard to Britain following the US into partisan hell.

One of the key problems in both countries is education. In the UK school children are pretty much taught exclusively about the tubthumping awesome moments of British history: the Battle of Hastings, the Spanish Armada, the Battle of Britain, D-Day etc. Even the Henry VIII stuff is often framed so kids come out of it thinking he's a good guy and a bit of a lad (although this varies wildly by teacher and how they get across the greater complexities of the Reformation). The negative impacts of British history are pretty much completely ignored. You get a little in GCSE History (which most children don't take) and a lot more at A-level and higher, but of course that's too late for the general audience.

If we taught more widely that Britain has done both incredibly good things we can be very proud of and committed atrocities to rank among the more heinous in history, we might have more people having a more balanced, less exceptionalist view of the country and its history.

Will be? I think we are now, apart from Belgium on a per head of population basis.

The government's handling of this crisis was a fiasco on almost every level.

All I remember about the teaching of Hastings at primary school is how we got our arses handed to us, and the Normans were brilliant knights mowing down a primitive army. 

In my case it was almost all Tudors and the nineteenth century, and nothing else.  The period I find most interesting is the fourteenth century, the first century in a long time in which you get an idea of what people were like as people, rather than as subjects of chronicles, as you got figures like Gaston Phoebus and Henry Grosmont writing about themselves. 

One place that has really widened by knowledge of the period is the Edward II Blogspot, run by Kathryn Warner.

[Heartofice]

What I’m seeing is that there is plenty of room for teaching about the empire in non glowing terms, and that it is happening. I’m not sure because some lazy teachers rely on talking about Henry VIII and the Romans that is the same thing as glorying Empire. 
 

Showing some positive things about your countries history is no crime, in fact I think it’s to be applauded. And actually if you are limited in what you can teach children due to time then focusing on the major events that’s created the country they live in makes sense. 

I always find the line of argument that we are drilling children to be patriots quite a red herring. 

[Raja]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Greetings from across the Atlantic! Yesterday was the day a statue of Chris Columbus was toppled, and another beheaded. Much ink was spilled, many tears were shed....or maybe it just met with a giant meh.

Someone beheaded a Columbus statue and that made me laugh quite a lot

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What I’m seeing is that there is plenty of room for teaching about the empire in non glowing terms, and that it is happening. I’m not sure because some lazy teachers rely on talking about Henry VIII and the Romans that is the same thing as glorying Empire. 
 

Showing some positive things about your countries history is no crime, in fact I think it’s to be applauded. And actually if you are limited in what you can teach children due to time then focusing on the major events that’s created the country they live in makes sense. 

I always find the line of argument that we are drilling children to be patriots quite a red herring. 

"Great men are rarely good men".  I think there are a lot of leaders throughout history who have been heroic, but flawed, and obviously operating to different values to those that prevail today.  @Old Gimlet Eye gave the example of Queen Nzinga, a national heroine in Angola, who successfully resisted the Portuguese - but also sold slaves to them.  But, then there are those who were rotten to the core, by any measure.  

And, this whole forum is dedicated to an author who writes about such people. 

[DanteGabriel]

37 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Which may be a double whammy when no/deal brexit hits.

And the Americans inflict their shitty meat and fructose-laden food on us.

Sorry in advance for the chlorinated chicken and the pink slime.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

"Great men are rarely good men".  I think there are a lot of leaders throughout history who have been heroic, but flawed, and obviously operating to different values to those that prevail today.  @Old Gimlet Eye gave the example of Queen Nzinga, a national heroine in Angola, who successfully resisted the Portuguese - but also sold slaves to them.  But, then there are those who were rotten to the core, by any measure.  

And, this whole forum is dedicated to an author who writes about such people. 

Well exactly, but even more than that I don’t think kids are taught to hero worship historical idols either. What is  the first thing you learn about Henry VIII.. it’s that he killed his wives.. oh and he was a glutton.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well exactly, but even more than that I don’t think kids are taught to hero worship historical idols either. What is  the first thing you learn about Henry VIII.. it’s that he killed his wives.. oh and he was a glutton.

I think actually "Carry On Executioner" might be many peoples' view of the man.

My own view is that even by contemporary standards, he was an evil man. As Screwtape put it "there was an egotism, a rage, a cruelty only just less robust than our own."

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Greetings from across the Atlantic! Yesterday was the day a statue of Chris Columbus was toppled, and another beheaded. Much ink was spilled, many tears were shed....or maybe it just met with a giant meh.

But the statue of Jebediah Springfield is alright, I hope?

[Rippounet]

38 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Showing some positive things about your countries history is no crime, in fact I think it’s to be applauded. And actually if you are limited in what you can teach children due to time then focusing on the major events that’s created the country they live in makes sense.

Yes and no. Learning only about major events, or even learning about them superficially, might prevent you from understanding the world you live in. It is an obstacle to the understanding of geopolitics and/or the dominant feelings and resentment in other peoples.

A different way to put it is that while the citizens of one nation may forget about the evils it has done, others don't always.

And this matters. A lot. The foreign policies of most nations only makes sense if you have a reasonably accurate representation of the past. Without it you either don't understand it or are reduced to some simplistic manichean point of view. In other words, if you don't know about the past, you are easily manipulated.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes and no. Learning only about major events, or even learning about them superficially, might prevent you from understanding the world you live in. It is an obstacle to the understanding of geopolitics and/or the dominant feelings and resentment in other peoples.

A different way to put it is that while the citizens of one nation may forget about the evils it has done, others don't always.

And this matters. A lot. The foreign policies of most nations only makes sense if you have a reasonably accurate representation of the past. Without it you either don't understand it or are reduced to some simplistic manichean point of view. In other words, if you don't know about the past, you are easily manipulated.

How is Napoleon taught in France, these days?  

I'd have thought he's the classic example of a hero with flaws.  An example of someone who possessed many great qualities, combined with awful defects. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Showing some positive things about your countries history is no crime, in fact I think it’s to be applauded. And actually if you are limited in what you can teach children due to time then focusing on the major events that’s created the country they live in makes sense. 

I think in liberal and diverse societies it is important to teach both the good and bad. Doing otherwise, will create a lot of division and mistrust (of  course I value being accurate for just the sake of being accurate).

In the United States we had one version that went like: Everything the US did was always good and pure and the best. Home of the free and brave, yadda, yadda, yadda. And the Civil War was fought because the South was very concerned about "states rights".

Another version goes like: Before the United States, everything was unicorns and rainbows, and then the US came along and fucked it all up.

Neither are true.

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

How is Napoleon taught in France, these days? 

Let's put it this way: if Goya hadn't painted El tres de mayo de 1808, almost no one would understand why other peoples saw Napoleon as the bad guy.
I shit you not: the painting is pretty much the only way French schoolkids get any idea why being invaded by French armies could be an unpleasant experience. If it wasn't in almost every history book, every one would think of Napoleon as the ultimate hero.
In fact, I have nonetheless met people who described themselves as "Bonapartists."

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Let's put it this way: if Goya hadn't painted El tres de mayo de 1808, almost no one would understand why other peoples saw Napoleon as the bad guy.
I shit you not: the painting is pretty much the only way French schoolkids get any idea why being invaded by French armies could be an unpleasant experience. If it wasn't in almost every history book, every one would think of Napoleon as the ultimate hero.
In fact, I have nonetheless met people who described themselves as "Bonapartists."

I think that Andrew Roberts was angling to get the Grand Cross of the Legion d"Honneur, with his book, Napoleon the Great. English authors have tended to veer between denigrating Napoleon (in favour of Wellington) or sanctifying him. 

[SeanF]

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think in liberal and diverse societies it is important to teach both the good and bad. Doing otherwise, will create a lot of division and mistrust (of  course I value being accurate for just the sake of being accurate).

In the United States we had one version that went like: Everything the US did was always good and pure and the best. Home of the free and brave, yadda, yadda, yadda. And the Civil War was fought because the South was very concerned about "states rights".

Another version goes like: Before the United States, everything was unicorns and rainbows, and then the US came along and fucked it all up.

Neither are true.

I think that's perfectly fair.  The USA has been a refuge for millions fleeing persecution, played an immense role in WWII, was right to fight in Korea, the first Gulf War, Bosnia, but - there's an obviously much darker side to the country's history, too.  As there is for us.

[Conflicting Thought]

51 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think in liberal and diverse societies it is important to teach both the good and bad. Doing otherwise, will create a lot of division and mistrust (of  course I value being accurate for just the sake of being accurate).

In the United States we had one version that went like: Everything the US did was always good and pure and the best. Home of the free and brave, yadda, yadda, yadda. And the Civil War was fought because the South was very concerned about "states rights".

Another version goes like: Before the United States, everything was unicorns and rainbows, and then the US came along and fucked it all up.

Neither are true.

maybe neither is true, but one is alot more accurate than the other.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

maybe neither is true, but one is alot more accurate than the other.

Then explain why one isn't just more accurate, but "alot more" accurate.

[dog-days]

4 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I remember it being we where not really Fully made up British until after the Normans had mixed with us.   

Basically the recipe for British   is   Ancheint Brit + Roman + Saxon + Dane + Norman.       After that we where made,  no more people needed to make us great.

We didn't get that when we did the Battle of Hastings in first year (year seven). This would have been 1998. Unfortunately (from the point of view of someone who went on to do a couple of OE literature modules at university), we hardly looked at Anglo-Saxon or Norman society. The Battle of Hastings was the closest we ever came in school to doing military history - we covered Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge, then his desperate march south and the Norman fake retreats at Hastings. We didn't really cover it in terms of what it meant to be English, or what happened afterwards. I think the Domesday Book may briefly have been mentioned, but the harrying of the north wasn't.