English Histree

One thing that History tells us, is that no matter the age, the society, the context, man has a propensity for great good and great evil.
When carrying out evil, there is also a propensity to justify it as ‘good’.

Depending on who writes the history a far greater % is spent on the ’good’ bits than the ‘bad’.
 
Irish tribes and kingdoms were running riot across Britain in the time after the Romans left, slaughtering and pillaging the Brits and even set up kingdoms in Wales and Scotland.

That’s when the Britons formed an alliance with the Germanic mercenaries from tribes and kingdoms on mainland Europe, to come over and help out with their swords for money. The only thing was, some of these Germanic warriors/mercenaries weren’t being paid for their work in keeping the Irish in check which was when the problems between the Germanics and the Britons started.
Imagine living coastally, for pretty much 95% of human history you're susceptible to being slaughtered by invaders. Madness. One morning out of the mist some boats rock up and that's potentially your lot.
 
Yeah, that is well paraphrased.

I don't think we should celebrate or even vindicate our past, nor should we try and cover up our past, but we can learn from our past as long as it is in the right context.

Take Germany for instance, would they countenance a statue of Hitler, he was of course an important historical figure who we should definitely learn from, but there is no need for a statue to do that.

I was really conflicted by this to be honest because one of my pet subjects is the American Civil War and I have a great admiration for General Robert E Lee, there is a statue of him and his horse Traveller in Charlottesville. I wouldn't want his statue defaced despite him leading the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, whilst there is also a statue of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in Nashville that I would have no problems being melted down and thrown on a rubbish dump because he was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK.

We should of course learn from both, but the way I personally feel about them both is very different.

Are my feelings though important or is the historical context more important. That is the question really.
This is the most sensible thing you’ve posted in years.
 
Yeah, that is well paraphrased.

I don't think we should celebrate or even vindicate our past, nor should we try and cover up our past, but we can learn from our past as long as it is in the right context.

Take Germany for instance, would they countenance a statue of Hitler, he was of course an important historical figure who we should definitely learn from, but there is no need for a statue to do that.

I was really conflicted by this to be honest because one of my pet subjects is the American Civil War and I have a great admiration for General Robert E Lee, there is a statue of him and his horse Traveller in Charlottesville. I wouldn't want his statue defaced despite him leading the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, whilst there is also a statue of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in Nashville that I would have no problems being melted down and thrown on a rubbish dump because he was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK.

We should of course learn from both, but the way I personally feel about them both is very different.

Are my feelings though important or is the historical context more important. That is the question really.
guess we should cancel birthdays, Christmas, Easter and anniversaries then.
 
guess we should cancel birthdays, Christmas, Easter and anniversaries then.
I would have no problem with cancelling all religious celebrations. Celebrating fantastical events like immaculate conception and rising from the death is just fucking bizarre. We don't celebrate an Alice in Wonderland day.

Birthdays are alright, but do they really matter, they only signify how the earth rotates around the sun and gives us numbers and an excuse to go and get pissed. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they were cancelled.
 
I would have no problem with cancelling all religious celebrations. Celebrating fantastical events like immaculate conception and rising from the death is just fucking bizarre. We don't celebrate an Alice in Wonderland day.

Birthdays are alright, but do they really matter, they only signify how the earth rotates around the sun and gives us numbers and an excuse to go and get pissed. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they were cancelled.
All “religious” festivals’ roots go back to the seasons and the Sun, or fertility or food. The fantastical elements came much later.

Birthdays - pre-Christian, the day that celebrates individuals, especially those important to you like your family, show your appreciation for them while they’re alive (of course they matter!).
Valentines Day - pre-Christian and was about fertility, not a Saint. Fertility is important because without it, there’s no continuation of life.
Pancake Day - pre-Christian, they baked flat cakes to offer to their gods for thanks that Winter is coming to an end and Summer is on the way, the pancake signifies the Sun.
Lent - the word’s roots are from the old Northern European word for Spring (eg Lencten in Old English) or literally “lengthening of days” (Langitinaz in West Germanic).
Easter - the word literally means “where the Sun rises” and it goes back to proto-Indo-European language (ie very old!). Related to the Vernal Equinox as that’s when the Sun rises at exactly 0° due-East. And not forgetting eggs and that link to fertility again.
Whitsun - taken as the birth of the Christian church and celebrated 7 weeks after Easter. The idea of celebrating a period of time after Easter/Vernal Equinox was the pre-Christian Cétshamhain (“first of Summer”) in the British Isles, halfway between the VEquinox and Summer Solstice or 6½ weeks after the VEquinox.
All Hallows/Saints’ Eve - Samhain (“last of Summer”), where the dead in your family are remembered and honoured, not Saints.
Harvest festivals - as old as the Neolithic Revolution itself. Celebration of food, “thanksgiving”(much older than the USA) to the Earth and the Sun for providing populations with that food that will keep them going through the Winter.
Christmas - Winter Solstice, the season of the end of one year and the start of another (festivities of this season start around 12 days before the Solstice with the earliest sunset of the year, to about 12 days after the solstice with the latest sunrise of the year), the birth/resurrection of the Sun, the evergreen symbolism in your home is again related to fertility.

As someone who spends a lot of time outdoors walking/hiking/running/cycling the seasons are important to me. I like the colder months because they’re refreshing (and I like the fashions!) but I’m always glad when the warmer weather returns. The importance of seasons still matters to people who work on the land and make their living outdoors, even gardeners find the changing of seasons important. Every time you put food in your mouth, when and where it’s grown is dependent on the seasons and the weather. But the history of this island and where it is latitudinally, it should be remembered about how hard and harsh the Winters would have been for the people who forged the history and identity of this island/these islands. It’s not about religion, it’s about astronomy, phenology, history and tradition.

Remove tradition and you remove culture. Remove culture and you’re left with dullness and lifelessness. It’s like removing the beautiful flower beds at Piccadilly Gardens and putting a big grey wall up in its place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, that is well paraphrased.

I don't think we should celebrate or even vindicate our past, nor should we try and cover up our past, but we can learn from our past as long as it is in the right context.

Indeed, we can and we must learn. The past should be there as a reminder to all of how we must conduct our-self in the here and now. We absorb, we inwardly digest, we learn from our frailties. The past can be celebrated in the right context and we should feel free to vindicate at our pleasure via peaceful means and discussion.

Take Germany for instance, would they countenance a statue of Hitler, he was of course an important historical figure who we should definitely learn from, but there is no need for a statue to do that.

I don't think the German people were all that fond of their leader who caused untold misery and death before and during WW2. The German people also suffered dreadfully during his reign of terror.

I was really conflicted by this to be honest because one of my pet subjects is the American Civil War and I have a great admiration for General Robert E Lee, there is a statue of him and his horse Traveller in Charlottesville. I wouldn't want his statue defaced despite him leading the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, whilst there is also a statue of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in Nashville that I would have no problems being melted down and thrown on a rubbish dump because he was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. We should of course learn from both, but the way I personally feel about them both is very different.

I am not engaging for civil unrest, so if you don't wish to answer this one then feel free to dismiss. If you do wish to answer then a civil reply would be appreciated. Genuinely interested.

You said of Winston Churchill and I quote
"I have no problem with Churchill, he was the right man at the right time, but that does not make him a good man because he wasn't, he was flawed, he was a racist, he was a ****"

What I am struggling to comprehend is how you show admiration for General Lee when he was a slave owner. The treatment metered out to his plantation workers is well documented and barbaric. So my question respectfully, is what is the difference between your disdain for Churchill and your great admiration for General Robert E Lee . He was of course a brilliant field commander and that too is very well documented.

A letter From Lee
The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race,
& I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary
is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”


Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington, Virginia, plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a slave revolt,
in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death,
and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property,
one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

The Norris case
In 1859, three of the Arlington slaves—Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin of theirs—fled for the North,
but were captured a few miles from the Pennsylvania border and forced to return to Arlington. On June 24, 1859,
the anti-slavery newspaper New York Daily Tribune published two anonymous letters (dated June 19, 1859[46] and June 21, 1859[47]), each claiming to have heard that Lee had the Norrises whipped, and each going so far as to claim that the overseer refused to whip the woman but that Lee took the whip and flogged her personally. Lee privately wrote to his son Custis that "The N. Y. Tribune has attacked me for my treatment of your grandfather's slaves, but I shall not reply.

Wesley Norris himself spoke out about the incident after the war, in an 1866 interview printed in an abolitionist newspaper, the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Norris stated that after they had been captured, and forced to return to Arlington, Lee told them that "he would teach us a lesson we would not soon forget." According to Norris, Lee then had the three of them firmly tied to posts by the overseer, and ordered them whipped with fifty lashes for the men and twenty for Mary Norris.

Norris claimed that Lee encouraged the whipping, and that when the overseer refused to do it, called in the county constable to do it instead. Unlike the anonymous letter writers, he does not state that Lee himself whipped any of the slaves. According to Norris, Lee "frequently enjoined [Constable] Williams to 'lay it on well,' an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done

Are my feelings though important or is the historical context more important. That is the question really.

Your feelings are important and the historical context is as equally important. If history is taken into context we can see that the world used to be a very different place and it's how we learn going forward that's important, because we cannot change the past.

Addendum: His horse "Traveller" was a wonderful beast and richard adams novel is available for around a fiver on kindle and I have read snippets. Told through his own eyes or should I say straight from the horses mouth. Have you read it?

Interesting little read.


 
Last edited:
You cannot look at English history without the context of all the other home nations. These inter relationship connections informed and created all our history.
Our history is a sanitised version of truth. It's the unsanitised version I prefer. The truth. Our Empire. Our hand in slavery, our militaristic crimes. Our contributions, our advances that helped the world. All unvarnished and not diluted. It's amazing and at times disconcerting. I have only recently discovered the real truth about Scotland's role in the slave trade. We were a shower of bastards. Well, the rich cunts were.
History can only be portrayed to us as a sanitised version of the truth. People talking about that like it’s a negative seem to fail to understand that, if it wasn’t, kids at school would be in history class for 25 hours a week with 15 hours of history homework at weekend, and on television there would be 24 hours of history every day on every channel, and you’d still not be able to delve into it all properly.

Being given a sanitised version of history is only like being taught that ‘1 + 1 = 2’ in Mathematics. Nobody seems to have a problem with that being taught in schools. But when you really research and learn about Maths, you learn that 1+1 can equal a number of things from 0, to 1, to numbers in their thousands.

Nothing is sanitised in the historical record. It’s when you research history (and mostly anything you ever want to know is there in the historical record) you get to know the depth and breadth of the brilliance and barbarity of our history.

But that’s the same with any subject.

It’s the same with what you touched in in your post - Scotland/Britain’s role in the American Slave Trade. It only the same as most of the major empires of Africa. Britain didn’t go to Africa and capture people into slavery, they bought slaves from the major African empires who were the ones who’d already conquered and enslaved them. That never seems to get a mention in this new kind of ‘slave trade shaming’ history that’s been coming out over recent years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the Empire.

I was reading about how the Scots did incredibly well in the colonising of India, well the rich ones as you put it.

The thing to remember is, everyone was at it, during those times, Britain just did it bigger and better than anyone else.

Does that make it right? Absolutely no.

However, all the horrible things Britain did during that time are happening right now, in other parts of the world.

It is why this whole “white guilt” thing doesn’t wash as far as I’m concerned, there’s no nation on Earth that can look at its past and see morality throughout history.
That's whataboutery. We need to own our past, good and evil. And there was plenty of both. Thix, well everybody else did the same, doesn't give it a bye, it means they have to own theirs too. And for us as Scots? We were right in there with both great things, all our inventions, and the bad. We can't be proud on one hand without accepting the other side happened. Well I can't.
 
That's whataboutery. We need to own our past, good and evil. And there was plenty of both. Thix, well everybody else did the same, doesn't give it a bye, it means they have to own theirs too. And for us as Scots? We were right in there with both great things, all our inventions, and the bad. We can't be proud on one hand without accepting the other side happened. Well I can't.
Not whataboutism, just context.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.