English Histree

I wonder how many people who bang on about how evil we Brits were in the 1700-1800's they should have a read about the North African slave traders.

Africa’s slave trade was a long established slave trade long before Britain got involved in it.

The first time Britain got involved was when the Roundhead Parliamentarians sold their captured Cavalier Royalist prisoners into the African Slave Trade after they’d won the English Civil War. But it had been going a long time before that.
 
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.
Example of history sanitised. Our Slavers were called, Tobacco Lords as after dropping off the slaves, they brought back baccy. They were savers, whose sideline was tobacco. That's sanitising in anybody's book.
 
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.
Why gives anyone the right to cancel religious holidays and festivals?

If you don’t like Christianity and you don’t want to celebrate Easter, then don’t.

I do and I will celebrate the resurrection of the Lord and the saving of humanity. You can do what you want.

I don’t happen to like Islam, shock, but Muslims are free to celebrate Eid and take time off work and do as they please. It’s none of my business if I don’t like it, I just don’t celebrate it.
 
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 - Winter is coming to an end, 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.
1613762099500.gif

Ive got a lot of time for you as a poster mate, and we’ve done this to death but if anyone is reading the first 3/4 of this... it’s not correct.

Anyway... carry on lasses and lads, history is very important.
 
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.


The last time Britain was invaded nears its anniversary. It was the February 22, 1797 a landing of French forces near Fishguard in what quickly became a spectacular fiasco.

You could probably fit all the French or English historians who regularly think about the Battle of Fishguard in a couple of double decker buses but this incident has never been forgotten in Wales – and it deserves a much wider telling.

It’s not just the fantastic human detail that makes this story resonate over the centuries – although the tale of how cobbler Jemima Nicholas (aka Jemima Fawr) single-handedly rounded up 12 of the invaders would make a brilliant TV drama.

The Battle of Fishguard is an international story about the power of ideas, early globalisation and the complex nature of national identity. If ever there was an event with special relevance in the age of Brexit, this is it

The invading force was launched under the French Revolutionary government known as the Directory. The plan was to first sack Bristol and then head into Wales – where the locals might prove friendly – while bigger forces landed in Ireland to support a rising by the United Irishmen.

This was a moment when the world was ablaze with incendiary ideas about liberty. France was in the throes of revolution; romantics, idealists and zealots across Ireland dreamed of ousting the British; and the uprising in American colonies had demonstrated that the forces of the Crown could be overthrown.

It was in this febrile atmosphere that the invasion plot was hatched, with the Irish-American Colonel William Tate leading his 1,400 troops from La Legion Noire. These men were not an elite fighting force; they were a ragtag assortment of ex-prisoners and decidedly unimpressive soldiers whom Napoleon had declined to take him on his own adventures

Everything went to pot. The Irish landings never happened, the wind kept the warships far away from Bristol; a shot of cannon fire was enough to prevent a docking in Fishguard itself so the troops went onshore at Carreg Wastad.

Tales are still told of the drunken looting that followed. The hungry and ill soldiers did not inspire a Welsh uprising and after initial skirmishes and an attempt at negotiation the French realised the game was up and surrendered unconditionally.

So ended the last invasion of mainland Britain. We can be thankful that the events of February 1797 climaxed without mass bloodshed – most of the invading forces were able to return home as part of a prisoner exchange – but the memory of this episode should be kept alive.

The French demonstrated how ideological fervour and a false confidence that a people’s sense of identity could be easily manipulated spurred a government to embark on a disastrous foreign escapade. The Welsh did not embrace the chance to join in a revolt, and Ireland would not achieve independence until the 20th century.

Then as now, governments need people in place who can press the pause button on military strikes that are all too likely to end in ignominy. It would have required guts and clout for someone to have stopped La Legion Noire from setting sail, but there must have been a mid-level bureaucrat who reckoned this plan was too cunning by half.
 
"I, Burnum Burnum, being a nobleman of ancient Australia do hereby take possession of England on behalf of the Aboriginal people." Dover 26.01.1988

images
 
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.
Lee didn't own slaves, although this is much debated, his family did and evidence can be sourced either way depending on where you look and who you believe. The same can be said of U.S. Grant, again according to sources he did and he didn't.

My admiration for Lee works the same way as my admiration for Churchill. I said Churchill was the right man at the right time, a brilliant war leader but my disdain comes from when he was not that man. My admiration for Lee was he was the right man at the right time for the Confederacy, he was indeed a brilliant General, one of the finest in history. What I admire though is he took the hard choice of refusing to take overall command of the Union Army because his state was part of the Confederacy and he chose to fight with his people, Virginian's.

Both were noble in time of war.

I did also say I found it very conflicting that I could hold these views, so I am a little unsure at what point you are trying to make.
 

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.