English Histree

[Two Gun Bob]

Britain stands alone against the might of the Wehrmacht.
Of course it suits the national narrative for people to believe that to be true, in some ways it is true but mostly it is untrue because History is not that simple. It is true that Britain remained alone in the West of Europe, but it wasn't alone because of the might of Empire. So in a historical context it is both true and untrue at the same time.

You mention History is a propaganda tool molded to fit what is needed. By inserting your own slant on the world as you see it could also be construed as propagandist. You write eloquently but it doesn't mean your opinion on a given subject matter is correct, just your own detailed hypothesis.

By vocalising that Britain stood alone to be mostly untrue depends on what timeline you afford. In the timeline between July 1940 and October 1940 our island people did stand alone against the the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe call them what you will.

When most islanders say we stood alone, it is mentioned in the context of the defense of our realm after Europe had fallen, and all that was left between us and them was the English channel and our brave nation. Throughout that long summer pilots and ground crews fought for freedom over the skies of England, with the assistance of around twenty per cent of foreign combatants taking part in the action. A mention in dispatches to the men of 303 squadron for their fine input.

Different timelines after the Battle Of Britain say we did not stand alone thankfully this has been penned to paper for future generations to imbibe, discuss or even dismiss. A team effort from many nations to combat the fascist menace threatening the civilized world.

As for your kind dissertation on my "erasing history" post being silly, you might want to tell that to the great unwashed who think it's fine to smash statues up and engage in criminality by tearing them down and renaming streets because it does not fit in with their narrow minded narrative.

The past is the past and we all learn from the past by moving forward together in harmony. We do not learn by criminality and imposing our will on others by scurrilous behavior. I shall say no more on the subject matter except to say that during that long summer we did stand alone and thankfully came out victorious .. bless them all. "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" Edited for syntax

 

[KPXBLN]

I think this is a good video on the subject of debates about the shameful aspects of British history.

 

[Rascal]

You mention History is a propaganda tool molded to fit what is needed. By inserting your own slant on the world as you see it could also be construed as propagandist. You write eloquently but it doesn't mean your opinion on a given subject matter is correct, just your own detailed hypothesis.

Exactly

By vocalising that Britain stood alone to be mostly untrue depends on what timeline you afford. In the timeline between July 1940 and October 1940 our island people did stand alone against the the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe call them what you will.

As i said.

When most islanders say we stood alone, it is mentioned in the context of the defense of our realm after Europe had fallen, and all that was left between us and them was the English channel and our brave nation. Throughout that long summer pilots and ground crews fought for freedom over the skies of England, with the assistance of around twenty per cent of foreign combatants taking part in the action. A mention in dispatches to the men of 303 squadron for their fine input.

It is used in a different context as i said.

Different timelines after the Battle Of Britain say we did not stand alone thankfully this has been penned to paper for future generations to imbibe, discuss or even dismiss. A team effort from many nations to combat the fascist menace threatening the civilized world.

As I said

As for your kind dissertation on my "erasing history" post being silly, you might want to tell that to the great unwashed who think it's fine to smash statues up and engage in criminality by tearing them down and renaming streets because it does not fit in with their narrow minded narrative.

Tearing does statues does not erase history, that is silly. If the statue of Churchill is torn down, he does not cease to be a figure of historical significance.

The past is the past and we all learn from the past by moving forward together in harmony. We do not learn by criminality and imposing our will on others by scurrilous behavior. I shall say no more on the subject matter except to say that during that long summer we did stand alone and thankfully came out victorious .. bless them all. "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" Edited for syntax

We did not stand alone, that is historical revisionism.

 

[Vic]

....Tearing does statues does not erase history, that is silly. If the statue of Churchill is torn down, he does not cease to be a figure of historical significance.

Pointless having a statue then.

 

[Vic]

when I studied a history module at uni we covered the Irish famine and the Irishman in the room built up into an apoplectic smouldering rage within 5 minutes when we started covering from the British perspective and was excused from the lecture, yet the following week when we sat there having to sit through the Irish perspective none of the Brits walked out. So clearly not objective over the Irish sea with whatever they're teaching over there. Still, similar with Empire and other parts of British history, just a small minority who get wound up into a rage with their narrow perspective they've been fed whilst ignoring the wider framework. One of the few countries in the world where those who are supposedly so persecuted are actually so privileged they can air these views with no repercussions.

Why on earth would you start with "the British perspective"?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzXWez1v47PsMHqDXjZsrsfw3ryK07u9uSRg&usqp=CAU

 

[Ban-jani]

You mention History is a propaganda tool molded to fit what is needed. By inserting your own slant on the world as you see it could also be construed as propagandist. You write eloquently but it doesn't mean your opinion on a given subject matter is correct, just your own detailed hypothesis.

By vocalising that Britain stood alone to be mostly untrue depends on what timeline you afford. In the timeline between July 1940 and October 1940 our island people did stand alone against the the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe call them what you will.

When most islanders say we stood alone, it is mentioned in the context of the defense of our realm after Europe had fallen, and all that was left between us and them was the English channel and our brave nation. Throughout that long summer pilots and ground crews fought for freedom over the skies of England, with the assistance of around twenty per cent of foreign combatants taking part in the action. A mention in dispatches to the men of 303 squadron for their fine input.

Different timelines after the Battle Of Britain say we did not stand alone thankfully this has been penned to paper for future generations to imbibe, discuss or even dismiss. A team effort from many nations to combat the fascist menace threatening the civilized world.

As for your kind dissertation on my "erasing history" post being silly, you might want to tell that to the great unwashed who think it's fine to smash statues up and engage in criminality by tearing them down and renaming streets because it does not fit in with their narrow minded narrative.

The past is the past and we all learn from the past by moving forward together in harmony. We do not learn by criminality and imposing our will on others by scurrilous behavior. I shall say no more on the subject matter except to say that during that long summer we did stand alone and thankfully came out victorious .. bless them all. "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" Edited for syntax

*applauds*

This bit is absolutely bang on:

By inserting your own slant on the world as you see it could also be construed as propagandist. You write eloquently but it doesn't mean your opinion on a given subject matter is correct, just your own detailed hypothesis.

 

[Two Gun Bob]

Tearing does statues does not erase history, that is silly. If the statue of Churchill is torn down, he does not cease to be a figure of historical significance.

So why engage in criminality by tearing them down in the first place. Statues, buildings, monuments are all intrinsic parts of our past. Might as well burn all the literature on Churchill because books will not cease to make him a figure of the past, they will however suppress his memory for future generations to come which I guess was the desired effect. Same with our street names and tearing them down is just silly. Do you think you can nurture and educate a populace by carrying out acts of criminality or is it best to move forward by educating ,informing and learning from the past.

 

[Two Gun Bob]

We did not stand alone, that is historical revisionism.

During the summer of 1940 Britain stood alone

 

[Saddleworth2]

So why engage in criminality by tearing them down in the first place. Statues, buildings, monuments are all intrinsic parts of our past. Might as well burn all the literature on Churchill because books will not cease to make him a figure of the past, they will however suppress his memory for future generations to come which I guess was the desired effect. Same with our street names and tearing them down is just silly. Do you think you can nurture and educate a populace by carrying out acts of criminality or is it best to move forward by educating ,informing and learning from the past.

If I can put my two bobs worth in, I can see both sides argument having some merit.
For me the whole question of history is balance. Is it taught, written about, reported on with a semblance of balance reflecting the social practices of the day even if they are at variance with todays. Do we teach and talk about the good bits which reflect us at our very best as well as the bad bits which reflect us at our worst.

I think if we did that, then all but the most radical stakeholders would feel that their positions are considered and reflected fairly and there would be no need to tear down statues. They are to quote you 'an intrinsic part of our past' as long as that past is reflected in a balanced and factual way.

My own view is that we could be a great deal more thorough at reflecting our history. For every WW2 standing against fascism there is an Irish famine. For every defeat of Napoleon there is a Kitchener setting up concentration camps in South Africa. If we were more truthful and open and respectful about the harm we have done, in my view we would be healthier for it.

 

[Rascal]

So why engage in criminality by tearing them down in the first place. Statues, buildings, monuments are all intrinsic parts of our past. Might as well burn all the literature on Churchill because books will not cease to make him a figure of the past, they will however suppress his memory for future generations to come which I guess was the desired effect. Same with our street names and tearing them down is just silly. Do you think you can nurture and educate a populace by carrying out acts of criminality or is it best to move forward by educating ,informing and learning from the past.

Even if you did burn all the books, it would still not change the fact Churchill is a figure of historical relevance.

My shed is an intrinsic part of the history of my house, it doesn't mean my shed should stand forever.

Why are people obsessed with the idea that people are trying to supress memories, memories have lived on from when humans first became able to communicate, we are species that owes much to our ability to tell stories. It is why fairy tales endure.

Why are you bothered about street names? Are they really important in the grand scheme of things. Would changing the M6 to Cunty bolloxs lane really mean you cant get the same road from Knutsford to London.