UK politics: Veni Vidi Vaccinati

[Heartofice]

16 hours ago, Werthead said:

Bit of a weird one. The government is wants to create a "Free Speech Champion" to defend free speech and academic freedom on campuses, with the power to fine college or student bodies that "cancel, dismiss or demote people over their views."

Simultaneously they also want to host a meeting with the UK's biggest heritage bodies and charities to tell them "to defend our culture and history" from people who want to tell the full story of history, Britain, Empire etc, the bad as well as the good.

These do seem somewhat opposite positions they are trying to advance simultaneously. "People need to be free to express opinions no matter how difficult they are to hear, but also no."

Well yeah, isn't that the point being made, that they want to give a full story of Britain and the Empire, rather than the one being told right now? It even says in the article that history is complex

"History is ridden with moral complexity and interpreting Britain's past should not be an excuse to tell an overly-simplistic version of our national story, in which we damn the faults of previous generations whilst forgetting their many great achievements.Purging uncomfortable elements of our past does nothing but damage our understanding of it."

[mormont]

'The one being told right now' is the one the Conservatives like, the one about the 'great achievements' told without the faults. Boris Johnson frequently alludes to it. It's views that challenge this idea of the Empire as being admirable, aspirational, placing Britain as the great civilising influence, the ones that make the story more complex, that this is a reaction to.

The Conservatives don't want a complicated story about Empire. They want a simple one. The one they absorbed growing up, that they still use as a touchstone.

ETA - the test is simple: find me a prominent Tory politician bringing up the moral complexities of Empire, in any context other than defending it.

[john]

Got a vaccine appointment letter to my parents house this morning. The NHS apparently consider me a vulnerable individual, which is news to me.

Anyway, I don’t live in Britain, so despite the fact I won’t get one for at least six months here, 10 days quarantine in a crappy hotel at 1750 pounds seems a steep price for early access. I messed around on the website with my login details, just out of interest. You can reschedule the time and place but a quick perusal didn’t show any free appointments in any place in my local authority up to the end of April, which is as far as it allows you to go.

If you want to cancel, they want to make it as hard as possible, so I had to phone the number and listen to five minutes of recorded audio that encourages you not to cancel and to use the website for all enquiries. Thankfully I only had to wait on hold for a few seconds after that, so I guess it’s working.

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

'The one being told right now' is the one the Conservatives like, the one about the 'great achievements' told without the faults. Boris Johnson frequently alludes to it

When did Boris Johnson say he wants to see the British Empire talked about without it's faults?

[Chaircat Meow]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

'The one being told right now' is the one the Conservatives like, the one about the 'great achievements' told without the faults. Boris Johnson frequently alludes to it. It's views that challenge this idea of the Empire as being admirable, aspirational, placing Britain as the great civilising influence, the ones that make the story more complex, that this is a reaction to.

The Conservatives don't want a complicated story about Empire. They want a simple one. The one they absorbed growing up, that they still use as a touchstone.

Is there really one version of the Empire 'being told right now?'

By and large people are not told, or taught, or very interested in, the Empire and to the extent they are, both narratives, to speak crudely, the pro and anti, are known. I doubt the people reacting to the conservative story have a particularly complex view either, but maybe that is me being unfair. 

I did history all throughout school and never once learned about the Empire, save for glancing references. We did do a module on the slave trade but with no political context (or much content of any kind, really). You could go through university as a history graduate and never touch the Empire (as a subject on its own anyway) and actually most people did just that. 

I am surprised when I hear that the conservative view of the Empire, namely that it was on balance a good thing, is somehow dominant. I would be interested if people could back this up by saying where it comes from, i.e. schools, universities, television, etc. 

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

15 minutes ago, john said:

Got a vaccine appointment letter to my parents house this morning. The NHS apparently consider me a vulnerable individual, which is news to me.

Anyway, I don’t live in Britain, so despite the fact I won’t get one for at least six months here, 10 days quarantine in a crappy hotel at 1750 pounds seems a steep price for early access. I messed around on the website with my login details, just out of interest. You can reschedule the time and place but a quick perusal didn’t show any free appointments in any place in my local authority up to the end of April, which is as far as it allows you to go.

If you want to cancel, they want to make it as hard as possible, so I had to phone the number and listen to five minutes of recorded audio that encourages you not to cancel and to use the website for all enquiries. Thankfully I only had to wait on hold for a few seconds after that, so I guess it’s working.

although I agree in principle we should be doing everything we can to encourage people to take the vaccine, if we make it too difficult to cancel (cos you don't live in here, or whatever) this will just lead to people not showing up to booked appointments and thus wasted vaccines.

[mormont]

I'm going to assume that demanding to see evidence that Johnson bigs up the British Empire, which is practically his trademark, is an admission that it is impossible to find a prominent Conservative acknowledging complexity around the issue unprompted.

I can certainly provide a choice quote or two that might be relevant, if anyone's interested: it's never hard to find a quote where Johnson enthusiastically endorses something problematic.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

Quote

The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more... Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. … the British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right... If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain. You never saw a place so abounding in bananas: great green barrel-sized bunches, off to be turned into matooke. Though this dish (basically fried banana) was greatly relished by Idi Amin, the colonists correctly saw that the export market was limited... The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.

As for the version of Empire that exists in the popular narrative right now, well, 59% of Brits think the Empire is something to be proud of, 49% think it left the colonised countries better off, and 34% said they'd like it if we still had an Empire.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire

Where do these perceptions come from? From the narrative we are exposed to, which Chaircat Meow rightly notes is not through being taught the reality of Empire in school, but instead listening to politicians like Johnson speaking about it in nostalgic terms, newspapers that do the same, and popular cultural depictions that are almost always from the British characters' point of view. This is the story that's told about the British Empire, the same one that's told about WW1, WW2, the Falklands, even the Cold War, in which the story of British achievement is played out in a world where other nations play the part of the backdrop.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm going to assume that demanding to see evidence that Johnson bigs up the British Empire, which is practically his trademark, is an admission that it is impossible to find a prominent Conservative acknowledging complexity around the issue unprompted.

I can certainly provide a choice quote or two that might be relevant, if anyone's interested: it's never hard to find a quote where Johnson enthusiastically endorses something problematic.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

As for the version of Empire that exists in the popular narrative right now, well, 59% of Brits think the Empire is something to be proud of, 49% think it left the colonised countries better off, and 34% said they'd like it if we still had an Empire.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire

Where do these perceptions come from? From the narrative we are exposed to, which Chaircat Meow rightly notes is not through being taught the reality of Empire in school, but instead listening to politicians like Johnson speaking about it in nostalgic terms, newspapers that do the same, and popular cultural depictions that are almost always from the British characters' point of view. This is the story that's told about the British Empire, the same one that's told about WW1, WW2, the Falklands, even the Cold War, in which the story of British achievement is played out in a world where other nations play the part of the backdrop.

In addition, there's a startling lack of awareness in Britain of the history of the Troubles and the reasons for it, the knowledge that the Irish Famine happened or British action made it worse, or that concentration camps were a British invention. My Irish friends and family are constantly baffled by the total lack of regard there is for things that are hugely important in their education here.

A lot of this comes down to the fact that History stops being mandatory in secondary schools at 14, which means that the subjects covered are just the usual suspects, and certainly nothing that's going to be too controversial. That does change almost immediately in college with A-Level History and then at degree level, where empire, colonialism, Anglo-Irish relations etc are explored, but that's not much use to the overwhelming majority who do not study the subject at that level.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 2/16/2021 at 4:13 AM, mormont said:

'The one being told right now' is the one the Conservatives like, the one about the 'great achievements' told without the faults. Boris Johnson frequently alludes to it. It's views that challenge this idea of the Empire as being admirable, aspirational, placing Britain as the great civilising influence, the ones that make the story more complex, that this is a reaction to.

The Conservatives don't want a complicated story about Empire. They want a simple one. The one they absorbed growing up, that they still use as a touchstone.

ETA - the test is simple: find me a prominent Tory politician bringing up the moral complexities of Empire, in any context other than defending it.

On that note, I found out this week that in Hawaii they don't [only] celebrate St Valentine's day on 14 Feb, they also celebrate the just and right execution of Capt James Cook for the attempted kidnap of the Hawaiian king. What I was taught as a kid is that James Cook was an unequivocal hero and top gentleman and was savagely murdered by wild Hawaiian savages behaving savagely. I was also taught as a kid that he didn't murder anyone in New Zealand, but recently we learned that his first direct encounter with Maori was indeed fatal for some of the Maori, but for none of Cook's crew, and it was Cook's crew who acted in aggression. I'm curious about how Cook's adventures in the pacific are taught in the UK, if at all, in schools. We definitely got a sanitised version up until very recently.

How does a govt justify legislating how a non-govt entity reacts to speech? There must already be laws that require for cause termination of employment or similar contractual relationships, or there are termination conditions within such contracts that are agreed by both parties, some of which may be challengable as grossly unfair in court. So there are already mechanisms in place for protecting speech to a certain degree. But govt can't possibly legislate to prevent any consequences for speech in private relationships, so the legislation will need to be some convoluted determination of what is and isn't acceptable speech in a large variety of circumstances. Seems like a harder thing to achieve than a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland. it's a nonsense really. Govt should just stick to regulating itself when it comes to imposing consequences for speech, and leave everything else to the market place of ideas and the courts.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm curious about how Cook's adventures in the pacific are taught in the UK, if at all, in schools.

I don't remember him ever being mentioned.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I don't remember him ever being mentioned.

Possibly only limited to certain University history papers. I guess in situations like this being ignorant of an historical figure is better than being mis-informed, or only being told the good bits.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On that note, I found out this week that in Hawaii they don't [only] celebrate St Valentine's day on 14 Feb, they also celebrate the just and right execution of Capt James Cook for the attempted kidnap of the Hawaiian king. What I was taught as a kid is that James Cook was an unequivocal hero and top gentleman and was savagely murdered by wild Hawaiian savages behaving savagely. I was also taught as a kid that he didn't murder anyone in New Zealand, but recently we learned that his first direct encounter with Maori was indeed fatal for some of the Maori, but for none of Cook's crew, and it was Cook's crew who acted in aggression. I'm curious about how Cook's adventures in the pacific are taught in the UK, if at all, in schools. We definitely got a sanitised version up until very recently.

Probably not the thing you learn as a kid, but did you know that Cook and his crew also probably brought syphillis and gonorrhoea to the pacific islands they visited.

 

[mormont]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

How does a govt justify legislating how a non-govt entity reacts to speech? There must already be laws that require for cause termination of employment or similar contractual relationships, or there are termination conditions within such contracts that are agreed by both parties, some of which may be challengable as grossly unfair in court. So there are already mechanisms in place for protecting speech to a certain degree. But govt can't possibly legislate to prevent any consequences for speech in private relationships, so the legislation will need to be some convoluted determination of what is and isn't acceptable speech in a large variety of circumstances. Seems like a harder thing to achieve than a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland. it's a nonsense really. Govt should just stick to regulating itself when it comes to imposing consequences for speech, and leave everything else to the market place of ideas and the courts.

There are, to a large extent. You can't be discriminated against for holding a 'philosophical belief' - that's already law. There are criteria you have to demonstrate to qualify - it must a belief and not an opinion, be genuinely held, concern a 'weighty' aspect of human behaviour, be 'worthy of respect in a democratic society', and be cogent and coherent.

A lot of those complaining about their 'free speech' being 'inhibited' don't take action under this protection, and I leave it to the reader to conclude whether that is because they fear they wouldn't qualify under these protections. But the 'no platform' policy applied by NUS, for example, which is for some reason a particular bugbear of the Tory party, pretty much exclusively applies to groups who wouldn't qualify under the 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' bit, because they advocate violence against people who disagree with them. We're talking here of groups linked with terrorism, the majority actually being listed as terrorist organisations by the government.

ETA - the complete list, for those interested:

• Al-Muhajiroun
• British National Party
• English Defence League
• Hizb-Ut-Tahir
• Muslim Public Affairs Committee
• National Action

For the rest, it's all about our old friend, that moving target, 'cancel culture'. A tiny handful of examples, mostly misrepresented in the media, used to justify sweeping restrictions on universities and particularly students' unions (which many senior Tory politicians have always had a grudge against, going back to their own student days). It will achieve nothing but friendly headlines in the Tory press. I predict no successful legal action will result, because there are simply no cases out there that aren't already covered by existing legislation. It is, to borrow a different amorphous phrase, nothing but virtue signalling.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Probably not the thing you learn as a kid, but did you know that Cook and his crew also probably brought syphillis and gonorrhoea to the pacific islands they visited.

 

That's a given, though unlike smallpox blankets I'm guessing those fun loving lads weren't particularly motivated on passing on their maladies, they just wanted to show the native lasses what a bit of good old British pork sausage was like. Though perhaps Cook had a notion that passing on those diseases to the natives would be advantageous to the Empire. Speculative musing of course, I don't want to unfairly besmirch his reputation by making claims with no proof. His reputation is already low among non-colonial descendants due to actions for which there is ample evidence.

52 minutes ago, mormont said:

For the rest, it's all about our old friend, that moving target, 'cancel culture'. A tiny handful of examples, mostly misrepresented in the media, used to justify sweeping restrictions on universities and particularly students' unions (which many senior Tory politicians have always had a grudge against, going back to their own student days). It will achieve nothing but friendly headlines in the Tory press. I predict no successful legal action will result, because there are simply no cases out there that aren't already covered by existing legislation. It is, to borrow a different amorphous phrase, nothing but virtue signalling.

Surely 'tis only the left who engages in virtue signalling.

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Surely 'tis only the left who engages in virtue signalling.

I know you jest, but here's the thing: we're in the middle of a pandemic, universities are bleeding money, layoffs of academic staff (mostly those on short term contracts, meaning disproportionate numbers of women and minority staff) are certain to result. Students are paying rent on accommodation they are told they can't live in, and the term-time job market on which many of them depend to pay that rent has all but disappeared. Teaching is mostly online and most students haven't met their tutors or their peers in person more than a handful of times all year. Student extracurricular activities are just about dead. Academic research has been impacted.

And Gavin Williamson's priority is a couple of people who've been disinvited to debates attended by mostly well off students at mostly wealthy institutions.

Telling, I think.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

I know you jest, but here's the thing: we're in the middle of a pandemic, universities are bleeding money, layoffs of academic staff (mostly those on short term contracts, meaning disproportionate numbers of women and minority staff) are certain to result. Students are paying rent on accommodation they are told they can't live in, and the term-time job market on which many of them depend to pay that rent has all but disappeared. Teaching is mostly online and most students haven't met their tutors or their peers in person more than a handful of times all year. Student extracurricular activities are just about dead. Academic research has been impacted.

And Gavin Williamson's priority is a couple of people who've been disinvited to debates attended by mostly well off students at mostly wealthy institutions.

Telling, I think.

I'm assuming that under this "free speech" mandate, the restrictions on anti-capitalist groups or pro-Palestinian groups being invited to speak at universities will be lifted as well?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

[The Anti-Targ]

16 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I'm assuming that under this "free speech" mandate, the restrictions on anti-capitalist groups or pro-Palestinian groups being invited to speak at universities will be lifted as well?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

Not a rhetorical question: Those groups have tried to speak on campuses and been denied in the past?

[mormont]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Not a rhetorical question: Those groups have tried to speak on campuses and been denied in the past?

The claims here are about the same as those from the right: that is, they're often overblown, misinformed, and based more on misunderstandings or conjecture than fact. Protests about people speaking are not censorship, neither are events being cancelled because the group didn't fill out the right paperwork, even if the people involved really sincerely believe that they were being censored.

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Not a rhetorical question: Those groups have tried to speak on campuses and been denied in the past?

Yes. In fact, 250 academics signed an open letter to the government condemning attempts to silence campus discussion about Palestine and Israel in 2017.

Schools were also told last year not to use resources from organisations which are sceptical of the future of capitalism, and the DfE has categorised anti-capitalism (which seems to be defined with a very broad brush) as extremism on a par with antisemitism. The government agreed to review the wording of the guidance after it was pointed out it skirted closed to breaching free speech and racism laws, especially since it suggested not discussing the relationship between labour and historical exploitation of various groups.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Forget Keith Richards, how is Prince Phillip still alive? Anyway, he has been taken to hospital as a precautionary measure. Wouldnt have pegged him as a 99 year old, but there you have it.