Originally Posted by contracycle

Exactly so. And hence, any study of history which actually looks at the suffering has to be forbidden.

Not necessarily. Distance is enough. As I said, I don't think Italians are unaware that Romans were cruel bastards. Still, thanks to their cruelty, they CONQUERED the entire Mediterranean basin for centuries! Something to be pretty proud of, I'd say.

Quote:

And again, who actually does that? I mean this is typical about complaints of "political correctness" - its always about allegedly intended meaning, not actual action. So where is there an example of anyone teaching anyone that they should personally be ashamed of slavery?

Branded like beasts who feel no pain
And all for Merrye Englande's gain

But England's Changing-Rearranging
Only we can clear our Name

Growing! Knowing! Trade Winds are blowing!
Things'll nevva be the same."

Quote:

Instead what there is is people teaching about the reality of slavery, and than other people objecting that this sense of shame is what it is supposed to inculcate. Thus knowing = shame, and so to prevent shame we mustn't know.

I was raised in Africa. I visited l'ile de Goree [ Gorée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]. I don't know about the other kids but it didn't exactly inculcate much shame in me, although I did cry at the idea of humans going through so much suffering. It was powerful but it didn't change my point of view on France...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I was raised in Africa. I visited l'ile de Goree [ Gorée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]. I don't know about the other kids but it didn't exactly inculcate much shame in me, although I did cry at the idea of humans going through so much suffering. It was powerful but it didn't change my point of view on France...

Yes but that's my point - the idea that history is taught in a manner intended to create shame is a total straw man, and what it really means is that any acknowledgement of the nasty side should be repressed.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Well what exactly is impressive about using massive technical supremacy to massacre fuzzywuzzies? This is not at all clear to me.

Well, it wasn't just fuzzywuzzies. Irish were whites. The English didn't always have the technological edge. Napoleonic wars were pretty balanced, overall.

As to the fuzzywuzzies, they may not have had the technology but, boy, there were a lot of them!

C'mon, where is your sense of adventure? Going into the deep dark jungle or desert or whatnot, conquering your fears, risking your life, killing your enemies and coming back with spices, furs, silks and tea! Richard Burton and Francis Drake are like a real life Indiana Jones! Only better!

Quote:

Sure. I've got no problem describing it as the most technically advanced force at the start of the war, and have done so on many occasions. But thats not the same as singing Deutschland Uber Alles.

Not just the most technologically advanced. They were smarter and better than everyone else too.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Well what exactly is impressive about using massive technical supremacy to massacre fuzzywuzzies? This is not at all clear to me.

Actually I was thinking in administrative terms.

Quote:

Sure. I've got no problem describing it as the most technically advanced force at the start of the war, and have done so on many occasions. But thats not the same as singing Deutschland Uber Alles.

I didn't propose doing that. And I'd go rather further than saying that they won because they had better kit.

Quote:

Yes but that's my point - the idea that history is taught in a manner intended to create shame is a total straw man, and what it really means is that any acknowledgement of the nasty side should be repressed.

I don't think history should be split into nice and nasty, certainly.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Well, it wasn't just fuzzywuzzies. Irish were whites. The English didn't always have the technological edge. Napoleonic wars were pretty balanced, overall.

"The niggers of Europe", as they were called. Backward, rustic, and Popeish. In fact the conquest if Ireland is precisely what created the imperial blueprint that England then rolled out elsewhere. The Napoleonic wars have little to do with the empire as such.

Quote:

C'mon, where is your sense of adventure? Going into the deep dark jungle or desert or whatnot, conquering your fears, risking your life, killing your enemies and coming back with spices, furs, silks and tea! Richard Burton and Francis Drake are like a real life Indiana Jones! Only better!

Well sure that's fine and all, only of course they're not uniquely English activities. Nor have I ever claimed that the history of empire is one of unremitting horror. But I don't see, for example, that we should be afraid of mentioning Drake's trading in slaves for fear of creating "shame". But if you do mention it you'll inevitably be accused of trying to undermine a national hero.

Quote:

Not just the most technologically advanced. They were smarter and better than everyone else too.

Veritable ubermenschen, eh?

Originally Posted by contracycle

"The niggers of Europe", as they were called. Backward, rustic, and Popeish. In fact the conquest if Ireland is precisely what created the imperial blueprint that England then rolled out elsewhere. The Napoleonic wars have little to do with the empire as such.

The history of England isn't limited to the Empire. You guys have been fighting since well before. Heck, we all have. Hence my point.

Quote:

Well sure that's fine and all, only of course they're not uniquely English activities. Nor have I ever claimed that the history of empire is one of unremitting horror. But I don't see, for example, that we should be afraid of mentioning Drake's trading in slaves for fear of creating "shame". But if you do mention it you'll inevitably be accused of trying to undermine a national hero.

Well, he was a pirate too. But I still would say that makes him more of a national hero than less. Slave trading seems to be a bizarrely british raw nerve. French traded in slaves too and we don't have the same hung-up. Sure, it's nothing to be proud of but those were just the days where this was morally okay.

I remember deconstructing the arguments both in my History class and in my French literature class.

It still wasn't taught in a way that made it such a trigger point as in the UK.

Quote:

Veritable ubermenschen, eh?

Nope. Just like the Romans before or the Napoleonic troops, they were better trained, better motivated, better led.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

The history of England isn't limited to the Empire. You guys have been fighting since well before. Heck, we all have. Hence my point.

Sure, obviously not. But it is specifically empire that the likes of Gove weant to celebrate as inspirational.

Quote:

Well, he was a pirate too. But I still would say that makes him more of a national hero than less. Slave trading seems to be a bizarrely british raw nerve. French traded in slaves too and we don't have the same hung-up. Sure, it's nothing to be proud of but those were just the days where this was morally okay.

Well its becuase so much of the slave trade was handled by English, including the illegal import of slaves to Spanish colonies, and that so much of the wealth of empire and hence the industrial revolution was created by it, and despite the fact that slavery was in fact illegal in England, and had been for centuries.

A lot of the sensitivity has to do with slavery being a counterpoint to the jingoism of empire, and because the UK was then tangentially involved in the US civil war, with many English people sending assistance to the South.

Quote:

Nope. Just like the Romans before or the Napoleonic troops, they were better trained, better motivated, better led.

But ultimately proved to be neither smarter nor better.

Originally Posted by contracycle

But ultimately proved to be neither smarter nor better.

It's hard to keep ahead forever. Usually, at some point, you slip. And your Empire goes join all the others in the dusty bin of History. That's what so cool about it. How boring would it be if the Romans had never ever lost and we were still living under a unified Roman rule...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.