Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
Sounds unlikely to me.
I think there will be a bifurcation, but the interesting thing to watch for will be the direction of the large states like Texas or Florida or the Democrat swing states in the midwest, where opinions are fairly evenly divided.
I would be surprised if it happens, as this November is a bit too soon, but there’s now at least a chance of O’Rourke winning in Texas , for example, when earlier this year there was next to none.
On my way home from London now (no trains yesterday). I stayed at my Russian friend’s flat in Walthamstow. Not the best grub and booze there, but they don’t seem ashamed!
Nah. It might have been true of 30 years ago but not now. There is drugs of course but no more than any other town and not generally amongst the oil workers themselves. At least not in the UK.
Constant and random drug testing both on and offshore with immediate dismissal tends to limit its use. Plus the fact that anyone known to be using will be grassed up in short order by their colleagues. Being stuck on a metal box filled with dangerous machinery and high pressure hydrocarbons tends to concentrate the mind somewhat and no one wants to be working alongside someone who might be flaky.
Except the article isn't really about oil refinery workers at all. It is about the menial workers in the town. The cashiers, the cleaners, the night time porters, the fast food cooks. People in crap jobs.
It has been a long time since I took cocaine, but my experience of it was that it was extremely democratic in that it would bring you into contact with all sorts of people - not just the typical profile of the middle class, white collar professional or media type. Plenty of people in crap jobs do coke.
From the article:
"Cocaine use is rife in night jobs. I sometimes wonder what would happen if they brought testing into the sector. I think the night-time economy would probably collapse. It is hard to keep going when the body wants to be in bed; to clean tables, scrub floors and count money, after a full shift on your feet."
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I was taught about the slave triangle at about the age of 9 but purely as a geographical-economic phenomenon - never a hint there was moral question marks over any of it
Charles is of course right. The slave trade was morally on a par with the holocaust, and wins by a country mile in terms of total human misery produced, despite the revoltingly batty Nazi death camp bad, splendid Empire death camp good mentality one quite often comes across.
He’s right if you include ALL the slave trades
My objection to the way it is taught is that total focus on the Atlantic slave trade (which was of course repulsive) at the exclusion of all the others. i was taught a lot about the slave trade at my state schools, and I was definitely taught it was bad, but if I had not gone on to read around the subject as an adult I would be blissfully unaware the the Islamic trade in slaves (African and white European) was much older, longer lasting, and considerably larger in absolute terms. And arguably even crueller (the use of automatic castration, for example)
But the Woke educators don’t want kids to know about this. They just want to teach White = Bad
So, you're objecting to the fact that a British history class focuses on the actions of the British?
Standard practice. Start with the familiar. In Scotland you'd talk about North Berwick rather than the Witchfinder General if you were teaching about the witch panic.
Though tbf the Barbary slavers would be a very relevant lesson in Devon.
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
China is far less religious than the US (albeit Singapore is rather more religious). Both are also far more authoritarian than the US is, even if Singapore is economically very capitalist.
There is no appetite on the coasts, in California and New York for an anti abortion, anti gay marriage, no restrictions on guns, anti Woke agenda.
There might be in a few southern and Midwest border states and Utah and Wyoming. However they are not the US majority, it just allows them more flexibility to be more hardline conservative
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
Given the SC also struck down a century old law in NYC regarding concealed carry, I think it is unlikely to lead to safer cities.
Unless you are one of the people who think that the more people that carry guns, the safer everyone is. (The parents in Ulvade, Texas might disagree with you.)
It’s not impossible. Conservative, gun-owning Switzerland is notably safe
If a new hyper-conservative ethos in the USA can turn its cities into Geneva and Zurich it would, I suspect, be popular, and people would tolerate the puritan morality
This is of course unlikely but not impossible. At some point America will attempt to do something about its declining cities and rampant crime and all the rest of it - rather than stoking racial resentments which just makes it worse
I see we have our very own GOP forming here in PB, wanting to roll back the clock on anything that they perceive as "woke" even if it is just people asking to be treated decently and not as sub-humans.
The "Conservative" right in the USA and UK is getting nastier and more intolerant which is why I would expect Priti Patel to be in the running for Boris's replacement.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
The strange thing is, the private schools apparently have it worse than state schools. My older daughter has just finished her GCSEs at a very good London comp. It’s Wokeness is, so far, quite modest (albeit growing). Ditto my other daughter at another good state school near Sydney, Oz
Contrast that with an experience like ex-PBer Charles, and now you, in the private sector
Are there really enough horribly Woke Viz-style “Modern Parents” to sustain this? The point about private education is that you CAN choose, and I reckon most parents will choose No
The point is too the Ivy League and Oxbridge are ultra woke as are most of the top global universities and they are the entry point to the top professions.
The bigger the corporation also the more Woke it is. The private schools recognise this and are becoming more Woke as the wealthiest parents want their children to learn the values of the new western liberal elite
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Nah. It might have been true of 30 years ago but not now. There is drugs of course but no more than any other town and not generally amongst the oil workers themselves. At least not in the UK.
Constant and random drug testing both on and offshore with immediate dismissal tends to limit its use. Plus the fact that anyone known to be using will be grassed up in short order by their colleagues. Being stuck on a metal box filled with dangerous machinery and high pressure hydrocarbons tends to concentrate the mind somewhat and no one wants to be working alongside someone who might be flaky.
Except the article isn't really about oil refinery workers at all. It is about the menial workers in the town. The cashiers, the cleaners, the night time porters, the fast food cooks. People in crap jobs.
It has been a long time since I took cocaine, but my experience of it was that it was extremely democratic in that it would bring you into contact with all sorts of people - not just the typical profile of the middle class, white collar professional or media type. Plenty of people in crap jobs do coke.
From the article:
"Cocaine use is rife in night jobs. I sometimes wonder what would happen if they brought testing into the sector. I think the night-time economy would probably collapse. It is hard to keep going when the body wants to be in bed; to clean tables, scrub floors and count money, after a full shift on your feet."
This rings entirely true to me.
Also - the way it reads, she's *been* to Aberdeen, and has moved with her unfinished TS to a 'Northern' refinery town - which I take to mean somewhere between Tweedmouth and the Wash. The article, however, does briefly disciss cocaine use on oil platforms, but to the effect that the testing means it's low except perhaps for senior management (eh?? - but I imagine they are not the ones with the spanners and hoist controls).
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I was taught about the slave triangle at about the age of 9 but purely as a geographical-economic phenomenon - never a hint there was moral question marks over any of it
Charles is of course right. The slave trade was morally on a par with the holocaust, and wins by a country mile in terms of total human misery produced, despite the revoltingly batty Nazi death camp bad, splendid Empire death camp good mentality one quite often comes across.
He’s right if you include ALL the slave trades
My objection to the way it is taught is that total focus on the Atlantic slave trade (which was of course repulsive) at the exclusion of all the others. i was taught a lot about the slave trade at my state schools, and I was definitely taught it was bad, but if I had not gone on to read around the subject as an adult I would be blissfully unaware the the Islamic trade in slaves (African and white European) was much older, longer lasting, and considerably larger in absolute terms. And arguably even crueller (the use of automatic castration, for example)
But the Woke educators don’t want kids to know about this. They just want to teach White = Bad
So, you're objecting to the fact that a British history class focuses on the actions of the British?
If it is used as a Guilty Stick with which to beat White British kids then Yes, definitely
We were supposed to have some friends visit us this week from Switzerland but their flights have been cancelled, stupidly they booked an indirect via Schiphol and 1/5 flights out of there have been cancelled, mostly European ones to save the long haul revenues. Airport operators have really fucked it. Our friends are currently attempting to get the train from Zurich to London.
Hopefully our flight to Palermo for September will be fine and they resolve these capacity issues by then.
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
Given the SC also struck down a century old law in NYC regarding concealed carry, I think it is unlikely to lead to safer cities.
Unless you are one of the people who think that the more people that carry guns, the safer everyone is. (The parents in Ulvade, Texas might disagree with you.)
It’s not impossible. Conservative, gun-owning Switzerland is notably safe
If a new hyper-conservative ethos in the USA can turn its cities into Geneva and Zurich it would, I suspect, be popular, and people would tolerate the puritan morality
This is of course unlikely but not impossible. At some point America will attempt to do something about its declining cities and rampant crime and all the rest of it - rather than stoking racial resentments which just makes it worse
You do realise that Switzerland has self ID on gender identification, right?
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
People obviously are interested because it gets endlessly dissected and discussed when something does dribble out.
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
Sounds unlikely to me.
I think there will be a bifurcation, but the interesting thing to watch for will be the direction of the large states like Texas or Florida or the Democrat swing states in the midwest, where opinions are fairly evenly divided.
I would be surprised if it happens, as this November is a bit too soon, but there’s now at least a chance of O’Rourke winning in Texas , for example, when earlier this year there was next to none.
But the overturning of Roe means Dems will not shun the Red States - either by not migrating there, or actually fleeing
One iof the many consequences of this profound decision will be yet more polarisation. GOP states will go more GOP and vice versa
BTW autocorrect just turned Vice Versa into Violent Versace. It has a curious mind of its own
Given the SC also struck down a century old law in NYC regarding concealed carry, I think it is unlikely to lead to safer cities.
Unless you are one of the people who think that the more people that carry guns, the safer everyone is. (The parents in Ulvade, Texas might disagree with you.)
Why do you think the school shootings keep happening in the suburbs rather than the inner cities where the 9-year-olds are more likely to have a concealed firearm.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
The strange thing is, the private schools apparently have it worse than state schools. My older daughter has just finished her GCSEs at a very good London comp. It’s Wokeness is, so far, quite modest (albeit growing). Ditto my other daughter at another good state school near Sydney, Oz
Contrast that with an experience like ex-PBer Charles, and now you, in the private sector
Are there really enough horribly Woke Viz-style “Modern Parents” to sustain this? The point about private education is that you CAN choose, and I reckon most parents will choose No
The point is too the Ivy League and Oxbridge are ultra woke as are most of the top global universities and they are the entry point to the top professions.
The bigger the corporation also the more Woke it is. The private schools recognise this and are becoming more Woke as the wealthiest parents want their children to learn the values of the new western liberal elite
Not woke. Just correct. In my stuident days the behaviour and attitudes of the right-wing students would (rightly) get a lot of them arrested today. And they would carry those over into their work. Being told very early on that those are not on is very good value for money.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I was taught about the slave triangle at about the age of 9 but purely as a geographical-economic phenomenon - never a hint there was moral question marks over any of it
Charles is of course right. The slave trade was morally on a par with the holocaust, and wins by a country mile in terms of total human misery produced, despite the revoltingly batty Nazi death camp bad, splendid Empire death camp good mentality one quite often comes across.
He’s right if you include ALL the slave trades
My objection to the way it is taught is that total focus on the Atlantic slave trade (which was of course repulsive) at the exclusion of all the others. i was taught a lot about the slave trade at my state schools, and I was definitely taught it was bad, but if I had not gone on to read around the subject as an adult I would be blissfully unaware the the Islamic trade in slaves (African and white European) was much older, longer lasting, and considerably larger in absolute terms. And arguably even crueller (the use of automatic castration, for example)
But the Woke educators don’t want kids to know about this. They just want to teach White = Bad
White=Bad is ridiculous. But the Atlantic trade took things to new levels of evil (just as there was no shortage of pogroms before the 1930s and 40s), and we don't teach the good points of the Nazi regime. The Raj on the other hand...
I learned absolutely nothing about the British Empire at school (turned 18 in 2010).
Chose the science side at 14, so dropped history! What happened after the Glorious Revolution?
Everything was marvellous.
Quite. There's even a term for that attitude - the Whig View of History. To call a historian Whiggish is a deadly insult today. Annd here's a whole book taking the piss out of the WVOH - 1066 and all that.
The horrible irony about Roe is that the left used to staunchly defend women’s rights and particularly abortion rights; now they won’t even refer to “women” when those rights are taken away, preferring “pregnancy-capable people”. The Right wanted Roe overturned, but the Left let them get away with it, and for this they deserve as much, if not more, blame for betraying women. Trump got into power in part because hard Left types let him, voting for joke candidates over Hilary Clinton because she wasn’t woke enough for them.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
The strange thing is, the private schools apparently have it worse than state schools. My older daughter has just finished her GCSEs at a very good London comp. It’s Wokeness is, so far, quite modest (albeit growing). Ditto my other daughter at another good state school near Sydney, Oz
Contrast that with an experience like ex-PBer Charles, and now you, in the private sector
Are there really enough horribly Woke Viz-style “Modern Parents” to sustain this? The point about private education is that you CAN choose, and I reckon most parents will choose No
The point is too the Ivy League and Oxbridge are ultra woke as are most of the top global universities and they are the entry point to the top professions.
The bigger the corporation also the more Woke it is. The private schools recognise this and are becoming more Woke as the wealthiest parents want their children to learn the values of the new western liberal elite
A hypothesis: rich people who send kids to exclusive schools are more likely to be triggered by woke.
Sad news from Ukraine overnight, a number of missiles launched from Belarus into Ukraine, targeting cities including Kiev, and hitting residential buildings - places where things had started to return to some sense of normality, even as war continues to rage in the East of the country. https://t.me/dtpkiev/297578
The missiles were, of course, Russian.
It’s a pretty obvious attempt by Russia to provoke Ukrainian retaliation and so draw Belarus into the war, which it has so far largely avoided, despite Lukashenko’s cooperation with Putin.
Yes, the Russians are trying to get Ukraine to draw Belarus into the war, which Lukashenko is trying not to do directly. Random missile attacks also draw Ukranian attention and military resources away from the Donbass battleground, where the Russians are losing men.
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
No, to be fair to Leon there's no shortage of scholarly output saying that all white people are inherently supremacist even if they think they aren't. No shortage at all.
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
I disagree. The Guardian uses "white" in its homepage opinion headlines every few days, as a signifier that the subject of the opinion piece is bad, and you should think it's bad too. It's one of the most-read online news sources, so I don't think white as shortcut for evil is a fringe loony position.
I see we have our very own GOP forming here in PB, wanting to roll back the clock on anything that they perceive as "woke" even if it is just people asking to be treated decently and not as sub-humans.
The "Conservative" right in the USA and UK is getting nastier and more intolerant which is why I would expect Priti Patel to be in the running for Boris's replacement.
I think there are two different threads being pulled. For all that Leon foams on about woke this and woke that, even I think he has a point. There IS a little too much pushing of agendas in some places - and yes that includes schools.
I am massively in favour of human rights - including the ability to identify as whatever you want and be accepted as that. But that also needs to balance against the rights of others. So I don't think Leon wants to remove my rights to divorce Mrs RP and marry Mr RP2 (not that I plan to). Just that he doesn't think the "lets all embrace equality!" virtue signalling is appropriate.
That is very different from the russian troll who in his micktrain guise was saying that LGBT rights shouldn't exist. The problem with the Leon thread is that once it starts being pulled it can be turned into the more extreme version. Any historian can give us examples of that progression.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
The strange thing is, the private schools apparently have it worse than state schools. My older daughter has just finished her GCSEs at a very good London comp. It’s Wokeness is, so far, quite modest (albeit growing). Ditto my other daughter at another good state school near Sydney, Oz
Contrast that with an experience like ex-PBer Charles, and now you, in the private sector
Are there really enough horribly Woke Viz-style “Modern Parents” to sustain this? The point about private education is that you CAN choose, and I reckon most parents will choose No
My daughters private schools have succeeded in inoculating them against the whole unthinking-herd-cancel-culture thing - they have complex debates about the issues, and instantly categorise the follow-the-party-line stuff as bullshit. So yay for Black Lives Matter - but the clowns who’ve jumped on the bandwagon can go away…
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
No, to be fair to Leon there's no shortage of scholarly output saying that all white people are inherently supremacist even if they think they aren't. No shortage at all.
The only people who read this “scholarly” output are paranoid right-wing whoppers.
The rest of us wokeys just get on with life hating Tories and complaining about petrol prices
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle, as a Left Winger!
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
I disagree. The Guardian uses "white" in its homepage opinion headlines every few days, as a signifier that the subject of the opinion piece is bad, and you should think it's bad too. It's one of the most-read online news sources, so I don't think white as shortcut for evil is a fringe loony position.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
Save your money - you don't get that in most state secondary schools these days. And as for "the council can set the agenda" - nonsense. 80% of secondary schools are academies or free schools, where the council has no power whatsoever. And in the remaining 20%, councils don't have any real say. It's not like the LEAs of the 1980s. If state schools are too 'woke', blame the DfE, not the councils.
Yes, true. I'd instinctively expect private schools to be the least woke, followed by those run by academy trusts, followed by those run by councils. But the evidence so far doesn't seem to bear this out.
To follow on from my comments aboit the Texas law, whilst many anti-abortion laws have exceptions for "the life of the mother" the actual defining of what that means is very, very vague with unlimited fines and a decade in jail if a doctor gets it wrong. Manu doctors wont take the personal risk. It is designed to stop all abortions whilst giving cover of "respectability"
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
I disagree. The Guardian uses "white" in its homepage opinion headlines every few days, as a signifier that the subject of the opinion piece is bad, and you should think it's bad too. It's one of the most-read online news sources, so I don't think white as shortcut for evil is a fringe loony position.
Can you point us to the most egregious example of this from the last 2 weeks just so we can see what you're getting at?
The case against the Supreme Court. The Court was the midwife of Jim Crow, the right hand of union busters, the dead hand of the Confederacy, and now is one of the chief architects of America’s democratic decline.
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
Given the SC also struck down a century old law in NYC regarding concealed carry, I think it is unlikely to lead to safer cities.
Unless you are one of the people who think that the more people that carry guns, the safer everyone is. (The parents in Ulvade, Texas might disagree with you.)
I would also suggest that if you look at the cheerleaders for these policies, they are very unlikely to build a highly functional, centralised state. A disfunctional shitpile is much more likely.
A rerun of the late 50s - Churchill, Eden and Macmillan.
Who wants to carry the can for Boris and lead the Tories to defeat? Not a hugely compelling prospect for a new leader. They might consider themselves better off waiting until after the election and being the one to rebuild the party in their image.
I'm still far from convinced:
1. That Johnson would lose a General Election; and 2. That an alternative leader would as well.
The polling has been poor for the Conservatives, but we are midterm and the two national opposition parties are not getting the polling you would hope for at this stage. Leads of between 3 and 10%? Probably not enough. The Conservatives need to lose AT LEAST 50 seats to lose their majority, and really need to lose 80 (or even 90) for Labour to supplant them as the largest party. (depends on LD gains obviously)
I know people on here rightly dislike Johnson and want his government gone. I'm one of them. But being in sunny Bootle, I have lovely perspective on tribal voting. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Come a GE, it doesn't matter who the leader is, it doesn't matter what the policies are, some people... a huge amount of people... will vote for the same party they've always voted for.
My mother in law is as happy voting for Tony Blair's Labour as she is for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour. As she would do for a Labour party led by Joseph Stalin, or Margaret Thatcher. She will vote. She will vote Labour.
I know there are shades of Tribalism.... my brother.... Labour voter normally, HATES the Tories! Baby eating Tories! But he's prepared to flirt. He's voted UKIP and Reform. He likes that nice Nigel fella. And finally my mum. Very similar to my mother in law.... but whisper in quietly... she didn't vote Labour... or anyone else.. in 2019.
Finally, there are your traditional auditors out there. No idea what's going on. Don't really care. But they vote.... for the party they voted for last time.
I cannot believe that all the above isn't true for the Conservatives as well. What's the Conservatives floor on voting (at least post war)? 30.7% at 1997. That's more than than Brown, Foot AND Miliband achieved. It's only 0.1% less than Kinnock managed in 1987. And it isn't a huge amount less than Corbyn achieved in 2019.
Sure, there is always a chance of a 'SNP 2015' type wipeout.... but I just don't think it'll happen.
Tribalism.... that's what'll save the Conservatives next time. Bar stewards.......
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
I disagree. The Guardian uses "white" in its homepage opinion headlines every few days, as a signifier that the subject of the opinion piece is bad, and you should think it's bad too. It's one of the most-read online news sources, so I don't think white as shortcut for evil is a fringe loony position.
You see what you want to see
From a Google search of the last seven days: "Glastonbury so white", "My kind of hero: a brown girl in a big white world", criticism of artists who "pander to white tastes", and any number of bad guys who are "white male".
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
No, to be fair to Leon there's no shortage of scholarly output saying that all white people are inherently supremacist even if they think they aren't. No shortage at all.
The only people who read this “scholarly” output are paranoid right-wing whoppers.
The rest of us wokeys just get on with life hating Tories and complaining about petrol prices
OK so you are illiterate and happy to stay that way
I'll happily accept that the Guardian is mostly appealing to white people who fetishise what they see as more "authentic" ethnicities - i.e. actual "pandering to white tastes". But still, the intellectual shortcut is: see the word, know it's bad.
At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger.
While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.”
Labour’s victory in Wakefield matches internal polling that shows most, if not all, of the 2019 Tory gains would be wiped out at the next general election. “If Boris Johnson is still Tory leader, these seats are going to go the same way as Wakefield. Most of them won’t even be close. It’s no surprise Tory MPs want to jump ship,” the source added.
Shit stirring. I could imagine a few 'blue wall' Conservatives might consider the Lib Dems, especially if they are still Remain (or secretly Remain - or at least pro EFTA+/EEA) but there won't be many of those.
Can't see it really. Many of them can't write a letter. They're not going to defect to Labour.
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
To follow on from my comments aboit the Texas law, whilst many anti-abortion laws have exceptions for "the life of the mother" the actual defining of what that means is very, very vague with unlimited fines and a decade in jail if a doctor gets it wrong. Manu doctors wont take the personal risk. It is designed to stop all abortions whilst giving cover of "respectability"
I'm sure it was based on the Irish example, where this wording led to a de facto prohibition.
I'll happily accept that the Guardian is mostly appealing to white people who fetishise what they see as more "authentic" ethnicities - i.e. actual "pandering to white tastes". But still, the intellectual shortcut is: see the word, know it's bad.
Yes. Try and find a guardian article where the race-word “white” is used POSITIVELY. It’s either dubiously neutral, or definitely negative
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
Sadly, there's probably a market for it amongst certain well-off guardianista types.
It's quite simple for me: I'll pull my daughter out of any school that tries to pull shit like that on her.
Have you managed to find one that doesn't?
Yes
Private or state? Not that I'm looking for a recommendation, since IIRC you live in Devon, so I'd be rather out of catchment area. Perhaps I'll move to Exeter. I hear Topsham is nice.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
And Prince William is even more woke than his father.
I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.
I’m a Scottish republican and a Swedish monarchist. The difference between how the two institutions function is significant. The Bernadottes behave in ways which make it easy to like them.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
And Prince William is even more woke than his father.
I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.
I’m a Scottish republican and a Swedish monarchist. The difference between how the two institutions function is significant. The Bernadottes behave in ways which make it easy to like them.
Like this?
SLOVAKIA hosted a royal hunt during the second weekend of January, when King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden arrived for a private hunt, the Hospodárske Noviny daily wrote.
The king and an entourage of friends, bodyguards and Slovak hunters went hunting for pheasants in âifáre, close to Levice. He shot about 70 pheasants, the Nov˘ âas daily reported.
The head of the Swedish royal family is known for his passion for hunting and is reputed to be a good shot.
So, Johnson considered response to losing two by-elections is to start a discuss about what he will do in his third term?
A level of delusion that requires the flap of white coats I think.
Has it been discussed, is this his FIRST term or his SECOND? It's not obvious when a PM comes in mid term. He only served for five months of the fag end of 2017-2019. Does that count as a term or not?
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
The US right might think it leads to 'safer education.... etc' but given a lot of the US right are also the fat ones (in fact most of them are) then they're in danger of getting rid of themselves at the same time.
I don't know where the SC thinks its going. Potentially to oblivion if they keep playing such silly games.
I'll happily accept that the Guardian is mostly appealing to white people who fetishise what they see as more "authentic" ethnicities - i.e. actual "pandering to white tastes". But still, the intellectual shortcut is: see the word, know it's bad.
Yes. Try and find a guardian article where the race-word “white” is used POSITIVELY. It’s either dubiously neutral, or definitely negative
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
I see we have our very own GOP forming here in PB, wanting to roll back the clock on anything that they perceive as "woke" even if it is just people asking to be treated decently and not as sub-humans.
The "Conservative" right in the USA and UK is getting nastier and more intolerant which is why I would expect Priti Patel to be in the running for Boris's replacement.
I think there are two different threads being pulled. For all that Leon foams on about woke this and woke that, even I think he has a point. There IS a little too much pushing of agendas in some places - and yes that includes schools.
I am massively in favour of human rights - including the ability to identify as whatever you want and be accepted as that. But that also needs to balance against the rights of others. So I don't think Leon wants to remove my rights to divorce Mrs RP and marry Mr RP2 (not that I plan to). Just that he doesn't think the "lets all embrace equality!" virtue signalling is appropriate.
That is very different from the russian troll who in his micktrain guise was saying that LGBT rights shouldn't exist. The problem with the Leon thread is that once it starts being pulled it can be turned into the more extreme version. Any historian can give us examples of that progression.
Exactly, but if it is allowed to become normalised then you have the Tea Party and its various offspring.
Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
Haven’t you hear, indy is over, Sturgeon is off as soon as and there won’t be a referendum till the 2030s, if ever. What would be the point of polling?
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
And Prince William is even more woke than his father.
I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.
Not on the right, but have swung pretty firmly from leaning republican to openly so. The Queen has been a dedicated and faithful servant of her country. And when she passes it is time to wind the Firm up and remove all this hereditary and chivalry nonsense.
Something else I agree with you on. I am full of admiration for the queen, and the likes of Edward and Anne who seem to just serve. But I do think it is time to draw it to a close, liquidate the assets and move forward.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
But you’re not “normal”. You’re in your 20s and you comment on PB. And you go to pantomimes as an adult, without kids, BECAUSE YOU ENJOY THEM
Maybe he didn't get to see then as a kid? Had to complete his education. I watched my way through the Thunderbirds when I was in my early 30s. (Admittedly partly cos they were the ideal thing to watch on the return home from work and M&S - sling the chicken pie in the oven and the peas on the stove, open a beer/cider, and collapse on the sofa. But I was genuinely interested in the making of the things - the techniques, the hidden assumptions ...)
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
A lot of people were agricultural labourers, no land or tenancy, and diminishing employment all the way to the Second World War.
The bbc write up of the G7 talks is pretty depressing.
Not because of the realistic talk of the difficulties of maintaining unity amid allies fatigue and populations worried about cost of living. Nor even the talk about some saying better the war end even if it means ceding territory - that is a prospect even if we'd not like it and people rush into the idea.
No, the depressing bit for me was it describing some thinking 'punishing' Russia should not be a focus.
Helping Ukraine fight Russia is hardly punishing Russia. That people think responding in the moment is punishment, that even responding is essentially too much provocation, is sad.
I'll happily accept that the Guardian is mostly appealing to white people who fetishise what they see as more "authentic" ethnicities - i.e. actual "pandering to white tastes". But still, the intellectual shortcut is: see the word, know it's bad.
Yes. Try and find a guardian article where the race-word “white” is used POSITIVELY. It’s either dubiously neutral, or definitely negative
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
Haven’t you hear, indy is over, Sturgeon is off as soon as and there won’t be a referendum till the 2030s, if ever. What would be the point of polling?
Phew, what a relief! I dont know why I was so anxious.
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
But you’re not “normal”. You’re in your 20s and you comment on PB. And you go to pantomimes as an adult, without kids, BECAUSE YOU ENJOY THEM
Maybe he didn't get to see then as a kid? Had to complete his education. I watched my way through the Thunderbirds when I was in my early 30s. (Admittedly partly cos they were the ideal thing to watch on the return home from work and M&S - sling the chicken pie in the oven and the peas on the stove, open a beer/cider, and collapse on the sofa. But I was genuinely interested in the making of the things - the techniques, the hidden assumptions ...)
My favourite is still the nuclear powered rain forest logging machine which runs amok.
“White = Bad” only exists in the paranoia-riddled minds of the likes of @Leon. No normal “woke” 20something thinks like that.
But you’re not “normal”. You’re in your 20s and you comment on PB. And you go to pantomimes as an adult, without kids, BECAUSE YOU ENJOY THEM
Maybe he didn't get to see then as a kid? Had to complete his education. I watched my way through the Thunderbirds when I was in my early 30s. (Admittedly partly cos they were the ideal thing to watch on the return home from work and M&S - sling the chicken pie in the oven and the peas on the stove, open a beer/cider, and collapse on the sofa. But I was genuinely interested in the making of the things - the techniques, the hidden assumptions ...)
My favourite is still the nuclear powered rain forest logging machine which runs amok.
I have a very soft spot for the airfield runway which is actually a rotating LP turntable ... and visibly so.
I only ever feel guilty for the things I have done or failed to do.
I have absolutely no responsibility for what my ancestors did and am not going to be burdened with responsibility or shame for what they did or make apologies for their actions. This seems to me quite as evil as the way Jews were blamed for being Christ-killers and this used to justify the horrible things done to them throughout the ages. I am certainly interested in what people in the past did and why and in reading as much history as possible from different perspectives.
Interestingly, all 3 of my children have pushed back against agendas that are too obvious or simplistic or pushed at them. While we do not agree on everything, I am delighted to see that they think for themselves and are open to listening to different arguments. One regularly sends me amusing piss-takes of some of the more solemnly pompous articles he reads in the press (the Guardian features prominently as do many at the other end of the political spectrum). They are much more entertaining than the papers themselves.
As for Boris - if his Marie Antoinette tribute act (£150k tree houses for toddlers, for God's sake) doesn't persuade Tory MPs that he's away with the fairies, what will?
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
The US right might think it leads to 'safer education.... etc' but given a lot of the US right are also the fat ones (in fact most of them are) then they're in danger of getting rid of themselves at the same time.
I don't know where the SC thinks its going. Potentially to oblivion if they keep playing such silly games.
The risk people take when acting under religious imperative.
I'll happily accept that the Guardian is mostly appealing to white people who fetishise what they see as more "authentic" ethnicities - i.e. actual "pandering to white tastes". But still, the intellectual shortcut is: see the word, know it's bad.
Yes. Try and find a guardian article where the race-word “white” is used POSITIVELY. It’s either dubiously neutral, or definitely negative
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
The monarch is popular because she doesn't get involved in politics in the slightest. The rest of the royals don't seem to understand that crucial point.
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
I don’t think the enclosures ‘helped’!
Yes, but could the British population have been supported without the enclosures? What would have happened had the enclosures not happened? I would guess England's ability to support its population would have been severely compromised.
I'll happily accept that the Guardian is mostly appealing to white people who fetishise what they see as more "authentic" ethnicities - i.e. actual "pandering to white tastes". But still, the intellectual shortcut is: see the word, know it's bad.
I think this is a fair point personally, about fetishisation.
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
I don’t think the enclosures ‘helped’!
Or the rise of cheap corn from the 'colonies'.
AIUI Welsh (at least) agriculture went into a depression after the Napoleonic Wars.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
The monarch is popular because she doesn't get involved in politics in the slightest. The rest of the royals don't seem to understand that crucial point.
Quite. And we have the spectacle of the Unionist parties attacking the SG for not publishing the Duke of Ro'say's "private" correspondence with the SG.
Is it woke to be against the Holocaust? If not, what is different about the slave trade? Other than skin colour. And the historical consequences of the slave trade are why the world's greatest democracy is in the shit it is in today, whereas the consequences of the holocaust are a few history lessons. I know a few German-till-2-generations-back Jews and they don't live lives of second class deprivation and have to go about protesting that Jewish Lives Matter
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Some of my distant ancestors apparently worked in dreadful conditions in the coal mines of South Wales but I'm not quite sure how I should be how far I should be resentful of the mine-owners. Other, of course, than on principle as a left winger!
I don't think you should, *unless their defenders go about celebrating the unqualified wonderfulness of everything they did.*
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with your view; it was the prevailing economic conditions that forced my ancestors into that situation.
Victorian coal mines sound bloody awful. Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why? Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful? In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
I don’t think the enclosures ‘helped’!
Or the rise of cheap corn from the 'colonies'.
AIUI Welsh (at least) agriculture went into a depression after the Napoleonic Wars.
Southern England too - was subsidised from (local) taxation, very nice for the landowners. Rather like today.
[Edit: I'm sure also the rest of the country, as far as arable was concerned, but don't know enough about the highland zone which was mainly pastoral.]
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
People obviously are interested because it gets endlessly dissected and discussed when something does dribble out.
Quite so.
And what would happen to magazines without the royals? Every time I pass the rack in the store Kate is staring out at me.
I only ever feel guilty for the things I have done or failed to do.
I have absolutely no responsibility for what my ancestors did and am not going to be burdened with responsibility or shame for what they did or make apologies for their actions. This seems to me quite as evil as the way Jews were blamed for being Christ-killers and this used to justify the horrible things done to them throughout the ages. I am certainly interested in what people in the past did and why and in reading as much history as possible from different perspectives.
Interestingly, all 3 of my children have pushed back against agendas that are too obvious or simplistic or pushed at them. While we do not agree on everything, I am delighted to see that they think for themselves and are open to listening to different arguments. One regularly sends me amusing piss-takes of some of the more solemnly pompous articles he reads in the press (the Guardian features prominently as do many at the other end of the political spectrum). They are much more entertaining than the papers themselves.
As for Boris - if his Marie Antoinette tribute act (£150k tree houses for toddlers, for God's sake) doesn't persuade Tory MPs that he's away with the fairies, what will?
Yes. nobody has to apologise, but equally nobody should deny.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
I learned absolutely nothing about the British Empire at school (turned 18 in 2010).
Whereas I had a major module on British Foreign Policy from 18th century to WW2 with a hefty focus on the development of Empire. I left school in 2005.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
Canada as a distinct unit did not exist in the 18th century. The act against slavery passed in 1791 by the province of Upper Canada did not ban or end slavery outright but was a beginning of the process. Upper Canada was of course a British colonial possession and this was well before confederation or dominion status so any act passed was a British act. Upper Canadians were British subjects.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
Comments
I think there will be a bifurcation, but the interesting thing to watch for will be the direction of the large states like Texas or Florida or the Democrat swing states in the midwest, where opinions are fairly evenly divided.
I would be surprised if it happens, as this November is a bit too soon, but there’s now at least a chance of O’Rourke winning in Texas , for example, when earlier this year there was next to none.
Though tbf the Barbary slavers would be a very relevant lesson in Devon.
There is no appetite on the coasts, in California and New York for an anti abortion, anti gay marriage, no restrictions on guns, anti Woke agenda.
There might be in a few southern and Midwest border states and Utah and Wyoming. However they are not the US majority, it just allows them more flexibility to be more hardline conservative
It’s not impossible. Conservative, gun-owning Switzerland is notably safe
If a new hyper-conservative ethos in the USA can turn its cities into Geneva and Zurich it would, I suspect, be popular, and people would tolerate the puritan morality
This is of course unlikely but not impossible. At some point America will attempt to do something about its declining cities and rampant crime and all the rest of it - rather than stoking racial resentments which just makes it worse
The "Conservative" right in the USA and UK is getting nastier and more intolerant which is why I would expect Priti Patel to be in the running for Boris's replacement.
The bigger the corporation also the more Woke it is. The private schools recognise this and are becoming more Woke as the wealthiest parents want their children to learn the values of the new western liberal elite
It's also not the case that slavery was a necessary solution to a labour problem. Slavery created the whole unnecessary edifice in which fortunes could be made in GB out of the fact that people were partial to a cup of tea with one lump or two in it, and that in its own way is easily as evil as running death camps because Jews cause inflation or whatever. British wealth and power was built on the foundation of these unfortunate facts, and if my ancestors were treated that way and consequently I and my children were treated the way they now are, I would as a minimum want the truth acknowledged, not glossed over by a parcel of harrumphing gammons
Hopefully our flight to Palermo for September will be fine and they resolve these capacity issues by then.
But the overturning of Roe means Dems will not shun the Red States - either by not migrating there, or actually fleeing
One iof the many consequences of this profound decision will be yet more polarisation. GOP states will go more GOP and vice versa
BTW autocorrect just turned Vice Versa into Violent Versace. It has a curious mind of its own
Annd here's a whole book taking the piss out of the WVOH - 1066 and all that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/25/america-headed-another-civil-war-where-one-side-has-vanquish/
I am massively in favour of human rights - including the ability to identify as whatever you want and be accepted as that. But that also needs to balance against the rights of others. So I don't think Leon wants to remove my rights to divorce Mrs RP and marry Mr RP2 (not that I plan to). Just that he doesn't think the "lets all embrace equality!" virtue signalling is appropriate.
That is very different from the russian troll who in his micktrain guise was saying that LGBT rights shouldn't exist. The problem with the Leon thread is that once it starts being pulled it can be turned into the more extreme version. Any historian can give us examples of that progression.
But you’re not “normal”. You’re in your 20s and you comment on PB. And you go to pantomimes as an adult, without kids, BECAUSE YOU ENJOY THEM
The rest of us wokeys just get on with life hating Tories and complaining about petrol prices
I'd instinctively expect private schools to be the least woke, followed by those run by academy trusts, followed by those run by councils. But the evidence so far doesn't seem to bear this out.
@andrew_lilico
·
50m
It feels like barely a day goes by without Boris doing something that makes things worse.
The Court was the midwife of Jim Crow, the right hand of union busters, the dead hand of the Confederacy, and now is one of the chief architects of America’s democratic decline.
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/25/23181976/case-against-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states
… There have only been three justices in American history who were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote, and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half the country.
All three of them sit on the Supreme Court right now….
1. That Johnson would lose a General Election; and
2. That an alternative leader would as well.
The polling has been poor for the Conservatives, but we are midterm and the two national opposition parties are not getting the polling you would hope for at this stage. Leads of between 3 and 10%? Probably not enough. The Conservatives need to lose AT LEAST 50 seats to lose their majority, and really need to lose 80 (or even 90) for Labour to supplant them as the largest party. (depends on LD gains obviously)
I know people on here rightly dislike Johnson and want his government gone. I'm one of them. But being in sunny Bootle, I have lovely perspective on tribal voting. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Come a GE, it doesn't matter who the leader is, it doesn't matter what the policies are, some people... a huge amount of people... will vote for the same party they've always voted for.
My mother in law is as happy voting for Tony Blair's Labour as she is for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour. As she would do for a Labour party led by Joseph Stalin, or Margaret Thatcher.
She will vote. She will vote Labour.
I know there are shades of Tribalism.... my brother.... Labour voter normally, HATES the Tories! Baby eating Tories! But he's prepared to flirt. He's voted UKIP and Reform. He likes that nice Nigel fella.
And finally my mum. Very similar to my mother in law.... but whisper in quietly... she didn't vote Labour... or anyone else.. in 2019.
Finally, there are your traditional auditors out there. No idea what's going on. Don't really care. But they vote.... for the party they voted for last time.
I cannot believe that all the above isn't true for the Conservatives as well.
What's the Conservatives floor on voting (at least post war)? 30.7% at 1997.
That's more than than Brown, Foot AND Miliband achieved. It's only 0.1% less than Kinnock managed in 1987. And it isn't a huge amount less than Corbyn achieved in 2019.
Sure, there is always a chance of a 'SNP 2015' type wipeout.... but I just don't think it'll happen.
Tribalism.... that's what'll save the Conservatives next time. Bar stewards.......
Compare the situation of contemporary Germans or Japanese: It is equally wrong for them to deny Auschwitz or Nanking, and for others to taunt them about those episodes.
"Glastonbury so white", "My kind of hero: a brown girl in a big white world", criticism of artists who "pander to white tastes", and any number of bad guys who are "white male".
Fair enough
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/01/14/4-myths-about-white-supremacy-that-allow-it-to-continue/
I could imagine a few 'blue wall' Conservatives might consider the Lib Dems, especially if they are still Remain (or secretly Remain - or at least pro EFTA+/EEA) but there won't be many of those.
Can't see it really. Many of them can't write a letter. They're not going to defect to Labour.
I am severely ABNORMAL and proud of it!
Not that I'm looking for a recommendation, since IIRC you live in Devon, so I'd be rather out of catchment area.
Perhaps I'll move to Exeter. I hear Topsham is nice.
SLOVAKIA hosted a royal hunt during the second weekend of January, when King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden arrived for a private hunt, the Hospodárske Noviny daily wrote.
The king and an entourage of friends, bodyguards and Slovak hunters went hunting for pheasants in âifáre, close to Levice. He shot about 70 pheasants, the Nov˘ âas daily reported.
The head of the Swedish royal family is known for his passion for hunting and is reputed to be a good shot.
Čítajte viac: https://spectator.sme.sk/c/20028124/king-of-sweden-goes-hunting-in-slovakia.html
It's not obvious when a PM comes in mid term. He only served for five months of the fag end of 2017-2019. Does that count as a term or not?
"You try to remove me? Well in that case ill be here 10 years. No, 100!"
I don't know where the SC thinks its going. Potentially to oblivion if they keep playing such silly games.
Yet plenty of people went down them voluntarily, in preference to other options. Why?
Was Victorian rural life similarly awful? It does look it - but presumably starving to death was not unlikely, whereas despite the unpleasantness of the mines food was assured. And was starving to death more likely in Victorian times than 100 years earlier? Was it a symptom of excess population/insufficient land? Or was rural life always awful?
In the North West, of course, we had countless refugees from the famine in Ireland who accepted almost any working conditions. We are still living with the legacy of this now.
I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.
Not because of the realistic talk of the difficulties of maintaining unity amid allies fatigue and populations worried about cost of living. Nor even the talk about some saying better the war end even if it means ceding territory - that is a prospect even if we'd not like it and people rush into the idea.
No, the depressing bit for me was it describing some thinking 'punishing' Russia should not be a focus.
Helping Ukraine fight Russia is hardly punishing Russia. That people think responding in the moment is punishment, that even responding is essentially too much provocation, is sad.
I once went on a date to a Pantomime. Mother Goose with Danny La Rue. It was okay.
I have absolutely no responsibility for what my ancestors did and am not going to be burdened with responsibility or shame for what they did or make apologies for their actions. This seems to me quite as evil as the way Jews were blamed for being Christ-killers and this used to justify the horrible things done to them throughout the ages. I am certainly interested in what people in the past did and why and in reading as much history as possible from different perspectives.
Interestingly, all 3 of my children have pushed back against agendas that are too obvious or simplistic or pushed at them. While we do not agree on everything, I am delighted to see that they think for themselves and are open to listening to different arguments. One regularly sends me amusing piss-takes of some of the more solemnly pompous articles he reads in the press (the Guardian features prominently as do many at the other end of the political spectrum). They are much more entertaining than the papers themselves.
As for Boris - if his Marie Antoinette tribute act (£150k tree houses for toddlers, for God's sake) doesn't persuade Tory MPs that he's away with the fairies, what will?
Which is why I said “race-word” not “word”
I mean the word “white” in a racial context. Not vests
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
‘They phoned him to make sure it was aired.’
https://twitter.com/innealadair/status/1174738207503781888?s=21&t=p4YgJnrnPNpPkLd-tm2xUg
Teeny bit of comfort that an article of faith, that he is a self absorbed twat, is confirmed.
"Sir, can you please be more normal?" Heard often enough probably leads to a good understanding of normal:)
[Edit: I'm sure also the rest of the country, as far as arable was concerned, but don't know enough about the highland zone which was mainly pastoral.]
And what would happen to magazines without the royals? Every time I pass the rack in the store Kate is staring out at me.
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2022/06/jacob-rees-mogg-sparks-industry-concern-with-sparkling-wine-plastic-bottle-plan/
Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
@TimesRadio
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817
====
Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?
My awe is justified:
“The world's largest airport terminal building under a single roof”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Airport
Nothing on the 17th century civil war though.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see