Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Reasonable point, but I am not sure what your case is either. If it is racism as part of mainstream 18th century intellectual thought - it wasn't particularly. I had no idea till yesterday about Hume's beliefs about "negroes" despite having studied the man with reasonable diligence at university, but I did know a fair bit about Francis Barber - Samuel Johnson's black servant to whom he left all his books and papers, suggesting that Johnson thought a bit differently. If it is merely general folk belief, why go back to C18th Edinburgh when in our own lifetime it was legal to put "no blacks" in any kind of contract and to call people n*ggers? And frankly I really don't detect any deeply ingrained hereditary taint of racism in myself, and there is no point in telling me I have an unconscious bias because I think by now it would have manifested itself in my actions, and it hasn't.
Ok. But my case is more a reactive one in this instance. I'm opposing the view that any attempt to look critically at our colonial past, and maybe act on it sometimes with taking a statue down or renaming a building, is at best futile or at worst the ushering in of a deeply sinister Orwellian year zero exercise whereby we seek to "cancel" the past.
As the nation awaits the televised pronouncements of the Prime Minister (once again), I've read Starmer's speech to the virtual Labour Conference.
It's impressive particularly the middle section and it's exactly the sort of speech an Opposition leader should be giving at this time of the Parliament - there'll be time later for policy details, for now it's about setting the vision and it's an articulated with which few could seriously disagree.
I'm a long way from being a Labour supporter but I would have no worry about a future Labour Government under Starmer if the vision today was the ethos of that Government. That said, the detail to follow will be the issue but I'm delighted it's forward-thinking and looking at the Britain of the mid to late 2020s and beyond. Parties which can paint a convincing and optimistic vision of the future often do very well especially against governing parties which look tired, out-of-touch and bereft of ideas.
From tomorrow, the boozer is shutting early, please work from home if you can and you are going to need to cancel those mid week indoor 5 a side games...now don't be a dick, hand, face, space so we don't kill grannie, good night.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
Most Britons are neither proud nor ashamed of their Empire, the only nation where most are proud of their Empire is the Netherlands.
In Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany more are ashamed than proud of their Empires
Look on the bright side, just imagine how bad it would be if we didn't hold all the cards.
To be fair, imagine how much worse this would be if Raab had not finally realised that Calais-Dover is an important trade crossing for the UK.....credit where credit is due, he really did his homework on this one.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Oddly enough, Biden is doing disproportionately well in red state strongholds. Polls in Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Indiana and Mississippi have all shown swings of 4-7% to Biden which is greater than that suggested by national polling.
Trump is oddly enough doing better than the national polls in safe blue states. The Vermont poll is a 1.5% swing to Trump in a state he lost by thirty last time. I recall a similar small pro-Trump swing in a California poll the other day.
I've seen South Carolina polls showing Trump up by 6 in a state he won by 14 last time so that's a 4% swing to Biden. In Georgia, it's a tie but Trump only won by 5 last time so that's a 2.5% swing to Biden. The Senate race is also very tight with Perdue leading Ossoff 47-45.
Trump won Iowa by 10 so another tie means a 5% swing to Biden. Iowa and Georgia are 22 EC votes so significant for those playing the spreads.
Another Michigan poll this time from MRG but not so good for Biden with only a 5-point lead (46-41) compared to some higher recent numbers. It's a poll of 600 voters with a 4% Margin of Error. The Senate race has Peters leading James 42-40 so that's a bit tighter than some other recent polls.
Yes, I'd noticed that, Stodge, but didn't like to say anything for fear of provoking a volcanic eruption from Mount Hyufd. I think it was Quinnipiac's poll of Kenticky that caught my eye. Trump up 20 in a state he won by 30 points last time. It rather reassured me that Biden's advantage wasn't localised or patchy.
One by one I've been ticking off the possible ways Trump could yet spring a surprise.
No doubt you saw the excellent Monmouth piece on Shy-Trumpers? Seems they are unlikely to make any difference this time.
The polls do not indicate irregular pile-ups of useless votes where you don't need them.
A remaining concern is that in a few swing States Trump is hanging tough, but generally the news has been middling to good for Biden and with voting already under way I'm convinced he's one of the best 4/5 shots ever to go to post.
Mrs Stodge and I ventured into central London for the first time in 6 months today. Lunch at Din Tai Fung in Covent Garden and while the food was excellent, Covent Garden was incredibly quiet. Many businesses closed and while some imaginative street re-design had allowed for more external tables (and these had no doubt done well in the EOtHO times) the thought was with the weather closing in that in come stream wasn't going to be so helpful for all it was another glorious day.
The tubes both ways were very quiet and we managed to maintain social distancing. Only one person on the two trains NOT wearing a ask though a few others not wearing them very well.
It felt more like a Sunday morning than a Tuesday lunchtime in London with few office workers and a scattering of tourists. Clearly, some businesses won't return but some have - it's not what it was but it's far from dead.
From tomorrow, the boozer is shutting early, please work from home if you can and you are going to need to cancel those mid week indoor 5 a side games...now don't be a dick, hand, face, space so we don't kill grannie, good night.
You've missed out the "world-beating" references to this and that (not killing grannies, hopefully), which should fill another few minutes.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
No, just an ability to distinguish process from substance. Orwell's position was not that falsifying history is really really bad, but ok in a good cause. And if you are claiming him as a lefty you have misunderstood, or not read, every word he ever wrote.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Oddly enough, Biden is doing disproportionately well in red state strongholds. Polls in Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Indiana and Mississippi have all shown swings of 4-7% to Biden which is greater than that suggested by national polling.
Trump is oddly enough doing better than the national polls in safe blue states. The Vermont poll is a 1.5% swing to Trump in a state he lost by thirty last time. I recall a similar small pro-Trump swing in a California poll the other day.
I've seen South Carolina polls showing Trump up by 6 in a state he won by 14 last time so that's a 4% swing to Biden. In Georgia, it's a tie but Trump only won by 5 last time so that's a 2.5% swing to Biden. The Senate race is also very tight with Perdue leading Ossoff 47-45.
Trump won Iowa by 10 so another tie means a 5% swing to Biden. Iowa and Georgia are 22 EC votes so significant for those playing the spreads.
Another Michigan poll this time from MRG but not so good for Biden with only a 5-point lead (46-41) compared to some higher recent numbers. It's a poll of 600 voters with a 4% Margin of Error. The Senate race has Peters leading James 42-40 so that's a bit tighter than some other recent polls.
Yes, I'd noticed that, Stodge, but didn't like to say anything for fear of provoking a volcanic eruption from Mount Hyufd. I think it was Quinnipiac's poll of Kenticky that caught my eye. Trump up 20 in a state he won by 30 points last time. It rather reassured me that Biden's advantage wasn't localised or patchy.
One by one I've been ticking off the possible ways Trump could yet spring a surprise.
No doubt you saw the excellent Monmouth piece on Shy-Trumpers? Seems they are unlikely to make any difference this time.
The polls do not indicate irregular pile-ups of useless votes where you don't need them.
A remaining concern is that in a few swing States Trump is hanging tough, but generally the news has been middling to good for Biden and with voting already under way I'm convinced he's one of the best 4/5 shots ever to go to post.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
IF the British Empire was so glorious and such a great deal for all HM's subjects, then WHY did it ditch the E-word in favor of British Commonwealth?
Reason for switch is obvious. Empire - evil. Commonwealth - good (or at least better).
Re: re-writing history, ponder this gem, from "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" by Don E. Fehrenbacher:
"The racist implications of the decisions were fiercely denounced . . . . it was as a response to the Dred Scott decision that black abolitionist organized a celebration of "Crispus Attucks Day" on March 5, 1858, in Boston's cradle of liberty, Faneuil Hall. This spectacular meeting honoring the Negro killed in the Boston Massacre was "a feast of sight and sound," repeated every year until ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870."
To mix two current PB discussions, old win is ALWAYS being poured into new bottles. And sometimes visa versa.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
No, just an ability to distinguish process from substance. Orwell's position was not that falsifying history is really really bad, but ok in a good cause. And if you are claiming him as a lefty you have misunderstood, or not read, every word he ever wrote.
I'm claiming him as a democratic socialist, yes. I did my dissertation on him, so I've read pretty much every word. Like all of us, he deviates from time to time, but his core values/beliefs shine through in the end.
No, just an ability to distinguish process from substance. Orwell's position was not that falsifying history is really really bad, but ok in a good cause. And if you are claiming him as a lefty you have misunderstood, or not read, every word he ever wrote.
Orwell was such an interesting and perceptive writer, defying categorisation. I'm surprised that Burmese Days isn't better known. It's a superb novel of the Empire, much better IMO than A Passage to India which is much more famous and covers a somewhat similar theme.
The Tories have had four and a half years to plan for every eventuality and to ensure that all the Is and Ts are properly dotted and crossed in good time. What could go wrong?
It only took a couple of years to plan and execute D Day, after all.
At my parents place watching bozza, mention of "too many are breaking the rules" my dad says "including your adviser your arse". Cummings is still a factor.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
His essays on his time in the Burmese Police in the twenties, and his book "Burmese Days" are pretty clear that he hated Imperialism and the Empire. A recurring theme is how the experience of colonisation was as destructive of the good in the British as the Burmese and Indians.
At my parents place watching bozza, mention of "too many are breaking the rules" my dad says "including your adviser your arse". Cummings is still a factor.
Nope. Zero cut-through. Just a Westminster bubble story. According to @BluestBlue anyway.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
Most Britons are neither proud nor ashamed of their Empire, the only nation where most are proud of their Empire is the Netherlands.
In Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany more are ashamed than proud of their Empires
At my parents place watching bozza, mention of "too many are breaking the rules" my dad says "including your adviser your arse". Cummings is still a factor.
I've never heard anyone talking about Cummings in the pubs. Maybe it's a very middle-class thing.
Yes, I'd noticed that, Stodge, but didn't like to say anything for fear of provoking a volcanic eruption from Mount Hyufd. I think it was Quinnipiac's poll of Kenticky that caught my eye. Trump up 20 in a state he won by 30 points last time. It rather reassured me that Biden's advantage wasn't localised or patchy.
One by one I've been ticking off the possible ways Trump could yet spring a surprise.
No doubt you saw the excellent Monmouth piece on Shy-Trumpers? Seems they are unlikely to make any difference this time.
The polls do not indicate irregular pile-ups of useless votes where you don't need them.
A remaining concern is that in a few swing States Trump is hanging tough, but generally the news has been middling to good for Biden and with voting already under way I'm convinced he's one of the best 4/5 shots ever to go to post.
Yes, the Monmouth piece did seem to cut down some of the myths on here about Trump polling.
The polling has been remarkably consistent - apart from a couple of outliers, I'd say we had three classes of State:
1) Safe Blue states where Trump is doing a little better than 2016. 2) Safe Red states where Biden is doing a lot better than Clinton in 2016. 3) The battleground, swing or marginal states (delete as appropriate).
Working on the 270towin.com map I have 258-144 for Biden with 136 in the TCTC column. I think Biden will win Michigan and Wisconsin and I've assumed Trump will hold Ohio. I've put Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maine 2 in the TCTC column though I think Trump will hold most of these but not all.
Put a gun to my proverbials and I end up 289-249 to Biden. As you say, there are worse 4/5 shots but a 1/16 shot got turned over at Leicester yesterday so there's no such thing as a certainty.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
He was both of those things - which was my exact point in an earlier post. That such an enlightened and progressive figure held such views emphasizes how deeply embedded racism was in our past and thus how naive or complacent it is to believe that its legacy is not still with us today and requiring attention.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Reasonable point, but I am not sure what your case is either. If it is racism as part of mainstream 18th century intellectual thought - it wasn't particularly. I had no idea till yesterday about Hume's beliefs about "negroes" despite having studied the man with reasonable diligence at university, but I did know a fair bit about Francis Barber - Samuel Johnson's black servant to whom he left all his books and papers, suggesting that Johnson thought a bit differently. If it is merely general folk belief, why go back to C18th Edinburgh when in our own lifetime it was legal to put "no blacks" in any kind of contract and to call people n*ggers? And frankly I really don't detect any deeply ingrained hereditary taint of racism in myself, and there is no point in telling me I have an unconscious bias because I think by now it would have manifested itself in my actions, and it hasn't.
Ok. But my case is more a reactive one in this instance. I'm opposing the view that any attempt to look critically at our colonial past, and maybe act on it sometimes with taking a statue down or renaming a building, is at best futile or at worst the ushering in of a deeply sinister Orwellian year zero exercise whereby we seek to "cancel" the past.
I just don't get on with the statues and renaming stuff except in very clear cases like the Jimmy Savile tower. I am absolutely with you on the importance of accurately representing our slaving history, but but I would rather we did that by studying history and writing and televising the results than by cost-free gesturing. Its like those Tristrams at Cambridge reacting to the suggestion that turning down the heating is a more effective way of combating warming, than making ostentatiously wankerish demands about disinvestment in BP.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
Most Britons are neither proud nor ashamed of their Empire, the only nation where most are proud of their Empire is the Netherlands.
In Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany more are ashamed than proud of their Empires
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
At my parents place watching bozza, mention of "too many are breaking the rules" my dad says "including your adviser your arse". Cummings is still a factor.
I've never heard anyone talking about Cummings in the pubs. Maybe it's a very middle-class thing.
I have heard it from our receptionists in the staff room. Not Islingtonites by a long way!
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Oddly enough, Biden is doing disproportionately well in red state strongholds. Polls in Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Indiana and Mississippi have all shown swings of 4-7% to Biden which is greater than that suggested by national polling.
Trump is oddly enough doing better than the national polls in safe blue states. The Vermont poll is a 1.5% swing to Trump in a state he lost by thirty last time. I recall a similar small pro-Trump swing in a California poll the other day.
I've seen South Carolina polls showing Trump up by 6 in a state he won by 14 last time so that's a 4% swing to Biden. In Georgia, it's a tie but Trump only won by 5 last time so that's a 2.5% swing to Biden. The Senate race is also very tight with Perdue leading Ossoff 47-45.
Trump won Iowa by 10 so another tie means a 5% swing to Biden. Iowa and Georgia are 22 EC votes so significant for those playing the spreads.
Another Michigan poll this time from MRG but not so good for Biden with only a 5-point lead (46-41) compared to some higher recent numbers. It's a poll of 600 voters with a 4% Margin of Error. The Senate race has Peters leading James 42-40 so that's a bit tighter than some other recent polls.
Yes, I'd noticed that, Stodge, but didn't like to say anything for fear of provoking a volcanic eruption from Mount Hyufd. I think it was Quinnipiac's poll of Kenticky that caught my eye. Trump up 20 in a state he won by 30 points last time. It rather reassured me that Biden's advantage wasn't localised or patchy.
One by one I've been ticking off the possible ways Trump could yet spring a surprise.
No doubt you saw the excellent Monmouth piece on Shy-Trumpers? Seems they are unlikely to make any difference this time.
The polls do not indicate irregular pile-ups of useless votes where you don't need them.
A remaining concern is that in a few swing States Trump is hanging tough, but generally the news has been middling to good for Biden and with voting already under way I'm convinced he's one of the best 4/5 shots ever to go to post.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
I thought the main conclusion was that phone and on-line polls produced almost identical results, suggesting that there was no Shy-Trumper effect.
Looking at the detail, there was some 'churn' going on, so there was some evidence of high-income shy-Trumpers but in negligible numbers, especially when netted against their mirror-image, low-income shy-Biden voters.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
No, just an ability to distinguish process from substance. Orwell's position was not that falsifying history is really really bad, but ok in a good cause. And if you are claiming him as a lefty you have misunderstood, or not read, every word he ever wrote.
So a guy who volunteered to fight for the Loyalists in Spain and wrote for Tribune was NOT a lefty?
Certainly he was anti-communist as well as anti-fascist. But from a democratic socialist perspective.
On 1st Jan, COVID and Brexit are going to converge in one enormous clusterf*ck singularity, aren’t they?
Oh, I don't think the timing works for that. I think we'd have to be on the downswing from peak number two by that point, or in the trough following.
I'm not sure - remember the flattening the curve graph back in March, but onset was too quick so we had to stop everything. Well, flattening the curve is precisely what we are doing now.
If we carry on averahing R to around 1.15 (around 20 day doubling) by Christmas that would be 1.5 million cases per week and, clearly we have enough people to sustain that in winter conditions. If higher peak is likely earlier, if lower, which we want, possibly later.
Anyway the chance of being near peak in January with current profile is very possible.
And the chance of large rotating queues of infected people trawling the supermarkets for basic provisions, Russia style, is also possible.
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
On 1st Jan, COVID and Brexit are going to converge in one enormous clusterf*ck singularity, aren’t they?
Oh, I don't think the timing works for that. I think we'd have to be on the downswing from peak number two by that point, or in the trough following.
I'm not sure - remember the flattening the curve graph back in March, but onset was too quick so we had to stop everything. Well, flattening the curve is precisely what we are doing now.
If we carry on averahing R to around 1.15 (around 20 day doubling) by Christmas that would be 1.5 million cases per week and, clearly we have enough people to sustain that in winter conditions. If higher peak is likely earlier, if lower, which we want, possibly later.
Anyway the chance of being near peak in January with current profile is very possible.
And the chance of large rotating queues of infected people trawling the supermarkets for basic provisions, Russia style, is also possible.
Releasing everybody for Christmas may not play well.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
His essays on his time in the Burmese Police in the twenties, and his book "Burmese Days" are pretty clear that he hated Imperialism and the Empire. A recurring theme is how the experience of colonisation was as destructive of the good in the British as the Burmese and Indians.
Am excitedly waiting for the inevitable 'Orwell was actually quite keen on the Empire' response.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
He was both of those things - which was my exact point in an earlier post. That such an enlightened and progressive figure held such views emphasizes how deeply embedded racism was in our past and thus how naive or complacent it is to believe that its legacy is not still with us today and requiring attention.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
That's a non-sequitur. Just because it was a commonly held view in the past doesn't mean that's the reason we still have (some) issues today, nor that raking over that history (or burying it) will make things better.
I don't think you understand the British Empire very well. It was driven by economic and political interests, not racist ideology. To the extent racial attitudes existed they were a correlation not a causation. The peak of scientific racist attitudes (from the 1880s to the 1940s) is the only period for which you could really credibly make that case, and even then it was realpolitik "The Great Game" to protect against Russia, Fashoda incident (France) and oil interests in the middle-east drove its expansion.
I fundamentally disagree with you that it was a malign enterprise. That implies the world would be much better off had it never existed, and there I strongly disagree.
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
1. He's not a "British racist" - he's a leading Scottish philosopher of the enlightenment who held views on that subject that were typical of the time 2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this) 3. Yes, you are. 4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
Most Britons are neither proud nor ashamed of their Empire, the only nation where most are proud of their Empire is the Netherlands.
In Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany more are ashamed than proud of their Empires
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
His essays on his time in the Burmese Police in the twenties, and his book "Burmese Days" are pretty clear that he hated Imperialism and the Empire. A recurring theme is how the experience of colonisation was as destructive of the good in the British as the Burmese and Indians.
Am excitedly waiting for the inevitable 'Orwell was actually quite keen on the Empire' response.
Really? Not heard that. His worst mistake, other than the one about Billy Bunter, was his "There's more to Kipling than imperialist shit" essay. There isn't.
Yes, I'd noticed that, Stodge, but didn't like to say anything for fear of provoking a volcanic eruption from Mount Hyufd. I think it was Quinnipiac's poll of Kenticky that caught my eye. Trump up 20 in a state he won by 30 points last time. It rather reassured me that Biden's advantage wasn't localised or patchy.
One by one I've been ticking off the possible ways Trump could yet spring a surprise.
No doubt you saw the excellent Monmouth piece on Shy-Trumpers? Seems they are unlikely to make any difference this time.
The polls do not indicate irregular pile-ups of useless votes where you don't need them.
A remaining concern is that in a few swing States Trump is hanging tough, but generally the news has been middling to good for Biden and with voting already under way I'm convinced he's one of the best 4/5 shots ever to go to post.
Yes, the Monmouth piece did seem to cut down some of the myths on here about Trump polling.
The polling has been remarkably consistent - apart from a couple of outliers, I'd say we had three classes of State:
1) Safe Blue states where Trump is doing a little better than 2016. 2) Safe Red states where Biden is doing a lot better than Clinton in 2016. 3) The battleground, swing or marginal states (delete as appropriate).
Working on the 270towin.com map I have 258-144 for Biden with 136 in the TCTC column. I think Biden will win Michigan and Wisconsin and I've assumed Trump will hold Ohio. I've put Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maine 2 in the TCTC column though I think Trump will hold most of these but not all.
Put a gun to my proverbials and I end up 289-249 to Biden. As you say, there are worse 4/5 shots but a 1/16 shot got turned over at Leicester yesterday so there's no such thing as a certainty.
Thanks, Stodge. Pretty much with you there. I think Biden will win Arizona and Pennsylvania; most of the rest I give to Trump, which produces an outcome very close to yours.
1/16 eh? Truly remarkable, and they don't even have ballot-rigging at Leicester!
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
No, just an ability to distinguish process from substance. Orwell's position was not that falsifying history is really really bad, but ok in a good cause. And if you are claiming him as a lefty you have misunderstood, or not read, every word he ever wrote.
So a guy who volunteered to fight for the Loyalists in Spain and wrote for Tribune was NOT a lefty?
Certainly he was anti-communist as well as anti-fascist. But from a democratic socialist perspective.
Absolutely. Many people seem to think his views in Animal Farm and 1984 are all that he's about - against totalitarianism. But his democratic socialism shines through in, for example, the Road to Wigan Pier, Homage to Catalonia, and many of his essays.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
It’s almost as if footballers don’t like anyone telling them what to do, seem to enjoy risky behaviours more than most of us and can usually solve problems by throwing money at them. Who’d have thunk it?
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
And Ben Franklin would reply: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
If you're re-evaluating them by today's standards, in order to decide whether to continue to commemorate them or not, then you're absolutely judging them.
But not in the sense of getting them on Jeremy Kyle and jeering at them. It's not personal like that. The idea is to re-evaluate with an honest and critical eye our colonial past with a view to improving race relations today. To making ethnic minorities feel truly at home here. You may think such an exercise is counterproductive. Fine. I recall your thoughtful header on it. But do not doubt the benign intent of it. It is NOT an attempt to cancel Britain, to sap it of self-confidence and bring it to its knees. Quite the opposite. It's about making Britain great.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
So did every other pollster but the fact they got Clinton's national lead right made them closest
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
I am struggling to decide whether most I want Biden to win: a) because the future of America depends on it, or: b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
IIRC notion that some voters are prevaricating to pollsters stems mainly from 1982 California governor's race, where Democratic Tom Bradley, an African American, led in polling but lost the election.
Theory back then was that this was NOT because voters were afraid to tell their neighbors that they were NOT voting for the Black guy, but instead that they didn't want to tell Black people on the other end of the phone line, who were making the calls for the pollsters.
Personally think "Bradley effect", shy voter syndrome is mostly BS used by pollsters and others to explain late shifts in voter opinion that polls & pundits failed to pick up on.
All it suggests is it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the EC this time, though I am still of the view Trump will scrape home in the EC.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
We have had ONE poll from ONE pollster giving Trump a lead of one point. Every other poll in the past 8-10 days has shown Biden leading 5-9 points.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
Given Rasmussen and Google were the only pollsters to correctly predict Clinton would win the national popular vote by 2% in 2016 I will stick with Rasmussen and as you say Rasmussen currently has Trump ahead in the national popular vote by 1%
Rasmussen got their vote shares wrong though.
So did every other pollster but the fact they got Clinton's national lead right made them closest
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Yes, the way that the populist (far) right currently try to use Orwell is fascinating; there seems to be a lot of this about in recent months. If they'd read Orwell properly, they would realise that he would have had no time for their views at all. A classic example of cultural (mis)appropriation?
No, just an ability to distinguish process from substance. Orwell's position was not that falsifying history is really really bad, but ok in a good cause. And if you are claiming him as a lefty you have misunderstood, or not read, every word he ever wrote.
So a guy who volunteered to fight for the Loyalists in Spain and wrote for Tribune was NOT a lefty?
Certainly he was anti-communist as well as anti-fascist. But from a democratic socialist perspective.
Absolutely. Many people seem to think his views in Animal Farm and 1984 are all that he's about - against totalitarianism. But his democratic socialism shines through in, for example, the Road to Wigan Pier, Homage to Catalonia, and many of his essays.
His anti-Communism became quite a strong feature of his writing after his time in Spain, particularly having seen the Communists suppressing other groups in Barcelona, but he is full of praise for the earlier Republicans, Trotskyites and Anarchists. 1984 is as based on his time in Attlee's austerity and the BBC as it is on Stalinism.
He was a man of his times though, and wrote some quite homophobic bits in his novels, the non-white characters in "Burmese Days" are not very PC, and he openly admits to wrestling with middle class distaste for the working class. A complex character indeed.
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
And Ben Franklin would reply: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Well that will go down well with most of the public I expect but badly with libertarians and Farage and a number of Tory backbenchers but he stresses it is to avoid another full lockdown.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
So he is saying we should give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety from the virus?
I'd say it's more like:
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
The people who quote this are usually adamant that it doesn’t count in circumstances where they think temporarily giving up some essential liberties for security were correct. Such as during the Blitz and WWII when a bunch of liberties were given up.
I think it causes a clash in their minds between two incompatible beliefs which they think both have to be true.
Comments
2. The "British Empire" was very complex and multifaceted, and mainly built around real-politick and trading interests, and the need to defend those interests - not racist ideology (our experiences of Nazi Germany in WWII and its pursuit of scientific racism have coloured our views in hindsight on this)
3. Yes, you are.
4. Yes, it is.
It's still unclear to me what good comes of this. I see no evidence our curriculum is "colonised" - we haven't taught kids to have pride in how much of the world is painted red since at least the 1960s - and my Oxford's Children's History volumes (published 1983 - which I checked to be sure yesterday) have lots of material on the slave trade and sugar plantations.
A better argument would be that the British Empire simply isn't prominent enough in today's history syllabus, which is true, but I'd be concerned that putting it back in again today couldn't be done without heavily politicising it - a true account would list its benefits, reforms and progress in liberal democracy *and* its crimes and exploitation, whilst putting both in the context of the times.
I think we both know that wouldn't happen.
As the nation awaits the televised pronouncements of the Prime Minister (once again), I've read Starmer's speech to the virtual Labour Conference.
It's impressive particularly the middle section and it's exactly the sort of speech an Opposition leader should be giving at this time of the Parliament - there'll be time later for policy details, for now it's about setting the vision and it's an articulated with which few could seriously disagree.
I'm a long way from being a Labour supporter but I would have no worry about a future Labour Government under Starmer if the vision today was the ethos of that Government. That said, the detail to follow will be the issue but I'm delighted it's forward-thinking and looking at the Britain of the mid to late 2020s and beyond. Parties which can paint a convincing and optimistic vision of the future often do very well especially against governing parties which look tired, out-of-touch and bereft of ideas.
From tomorrow, the boozer is shutting early, please work from home if you can and you are going to need to cancel those mid week indoor 5 a side games...now don't be a dick, hand, face, space so we don't kill grannie, good night.
https://twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1308448262853210112
In Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany more are ashamed than proud of their Empires
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1298536844158738434?s=20
One by one I've been ticking off the possible ways Trump could yet spring a surprise.
No doubt you saw the excellent Monmouth piece on Shy-Trumpers? Seems they are unlikely to make any difference this time.
The polls do not indicate irregular pile-ups of useless votes where you don't need them.
A remaining concern is that in a few swing States Trump is hanging tough, but generally the news has been middling to good for Biden and with voting already under way I'm convinced he's one of the best 4/5 shots ever to go to post.
(Have I got that right?)
The tubes both ways were very quiet and we managed to maintain social distancing. Only one person on the two trains NOT wearing a ask though a few others not wearing them very well.
It felt more like a Sunday morning than a Tuesday lunchtime in London with few office workers and a scattering of tourists. Clearly, some businesses won't return but some have - it's not what it was but it's far from dead.
The main finding from Monmouth was the shy Trumps are most concentrated in high turnout rich voters
Reason for switch is obvious. Empire - evil. Commonwealth - good (or at least better).
Re: re-writing history, ponder this gem, from "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" by Don E. Fehrenbacher:
"The racist implications of the decisions were fiercely denounced . . . . it was as a response to the Dred Scott decision that black abolitionist organized a celebration of "Crispus Attucks Day" on March 5, 1858, in Boston's cradle of liberty, Faneuil Hall. This spectacular meeting honoring the Negro killed in the Boston Massacre was "a feast of sight and sound," repeated every year until ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870."
To mix two current PB discussions, old win is ALWAYS being poured into new bottles. And sometimes visa versa.
It only took a couple of years to plan and execute D Day, after all.
https://twitter.com/DouglasLloydUK/status/1308482132495536130
The polling has been remarkably consistent - apart from a couple of outliers, I'd say we had three classes of State:
1) Safe Blue states where Trump is doing a little better than 2016.
2) Safe Red states where Biden is doing a lot better than Clinton in 2016.
3) The battleground, swing or marginal states (delete as appropriate).
Working on the 270towin.com map I have 258-144 for Biden with 136 in the TCTC column. I think Biden will win Michigan and Wisconsin and I've assumed Trump will hold Ohio. I've put Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maine 2 in the TCTC column though I think Trump will hold most of these but not all.
Put a gun to my proverbials and I end up 289-249 to Biden. As you say, there are worse 4/5 shots but a 1/16 shot got turned over at Leicester yesterday so there's no such thing as a certainty.
And of course the Empire is a complex matter with many aspects worth studying and discussing. But so what? That is the case for most such things. History is nuanced and complicated. This is why it's interesting and important. But let's not pretend the British Empire was not, at heart, an exploitative undertaking, informed by a racist sense of the superiority of the white "us" over the various non-white others in faraway lands. It is perfectly possible to cope with complexity - and not make offensive comparisons of Empire with Nazi Germany - but at the same time see the wood from the trees.
Re, school curriculum, let's teach it this way. A fundamentally malign enterprise but not as malign in intent as many other similar undertakings, and although most of the benefits were for Britain and the British, there was some collateral benefit too for the peoples and nations colonized.
Still hopes for vaccine and mass testing by the Spring
Looking at the detail, there was some 'churn' going on, so there was some evidence of high-income shy-Trumpers but in negligible numbers, especially when netted against their mirror-image, low-income shy-Biden voters.
At least according to @Gallowgate anyway.
Certainly he was anti-communist as well as anti-fascist. But from a democratic socialist perspective.
If we carry on averahing R to around 1.15 (around 20 day doubling) by Christmas that would be 1.5 million cases per week and, clearly we have enough people to sustain that in winter conditions. If higher peak is likely earlier, if lower, which we want, possibly later.
Anyway the chance of being near peak in January with current profile is very possible.
And the chance of large rotating queues of infected people trawling the supermarkets for basic provisions, Russia style, is also possible.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1308470353044398081?s=19
If only he’d thought of that in February or early March.
Yes, sensibly.
A "Thank-you for your support on during this very difficult period" wouldn't have gone amiss at the end there.
@Peter_the_Punter makes the not unreasonable assumption on the weight of polling evidence, 4/5 Biden to win the popular vote doesn't look a bad bet. That doesn't mean that's what WILL happen but at this point, as a betting man (and this is a betting website in case you hadn't noticed) it looks a good bet.
Your view is Trump will do better in 2020 than in 2016 in terms of the popular vote (which he lost 48-46 last time) and that's a view to which you are entitled but the evidence at this time suggests backing Trump to win the popular vote at the odds available doesn't represent value.
There isn't the volume of undecided voters there was last time - yes, Trump will no doubt try so achieve some form of "October surprise" to move the polls and he may succeed but you need that to happen or for every other pollster other than Rasmussen to be wrong which isn't inconceivable but at the odds on offer doesn't represent an attractive bet.
I don't think you understand the British Empire very well. It was driven by economic and political interests, not racist ideology. To the extent racial attitudes existed they were a correlation not a causation. The peak of scientific racist attitudes (from the 1880s to the 1940s) is the only period for which you could really credibly make that case, and even then it was realpolitik "The Great Game" to protect against Russia, Fashoda incident (France) and oil interests in the middle-east drove its expansion.
I fundamentally disagree with you that it was a malign enterprise. That implies the world would be much better off had it never existed, and there I strongly disagree.
"...we should temporarily give up some liberty, to purchase safety from the virus in the interim."
1/16 eh? Truly remarkable, and they don't even have ballot-rigging at Leicester!
Sturgeon's speech was no great shakes but it was a level above Boris's.
a) because the future of America depends on it, or:
b) to see @HYUFD's smug assertions demolished.
Marginally b) I think.
IIRC notion that some voters are prevaricating to pollsters stems mainly from 1982 California governor's race, where Democratic Tom Bradley, an African American, led in polling but lost the election.
Theory back then was that this was NOT because voters were afraid to tell their neighbors that they were NOT voting for the Black guy, but instead that they didn't want to tell Black people on the other end of the phone line, who were making the calls for the pollsters.
Personally think "Bradley effect", shy voter syndrome is mostly BS used by pollsters and others to explain late shifts in voter opinion that polls & pundits failed to pick up on.
He was a man of his times though, and wrote some quite homophobic bits in his novels, the non-white characters in "Burmese Days" are not very PC, and he openly admits to wrestling with middle class distaste for the working class. A complex character indeed.
I think it causes a clash in their minds between two incompatible beliefs which they think both have to be true.
I’d be impressed to read the manifesto commitments of any party on the 2020 Covid pandemic.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/19/toothless-parliament-betraying-animating-principles-brexit/