The 2016 Brexit debate in a nutshell............ oh wait sorry its how did WW1 start lol

[The perfect fumble]

The interpretation as I read it was the futility of going to war over a sausage factory in Tanganyika. That is the genius of Blackadder, it takes an obviously huge subject and narrows it down to a microcosm.

Its analogous, for sausage factory read Togoland, German South West Africa. Kiribati.

The question as to whether this country should've fought the First World War is poisoned by Blackadder, because of how funny it is, you might not want to see it this way, but it is insidious and plays into this kind of bullshit...

This thread is clever. Brexit was all about perception, who we are as a nation, our relationship with Europe, particularly Germany and Blackadder played its part.

This little englander bullshit holds us back as a nation and as a people, it distorts history, rubbishes the sacrifices of the troops, fuels xenophobia and the myth of British exceptionalism.

I'm a member of the Western Front Association, I've lost count of the number of times historians from the Imperial War Museum and elsewhere mention Blackadder as the single biggest obstacle they face in getting people to understand the First World War as it really was.

 

[Rascal]

The question as to whether this country should've fought the First World War is poisoned by Blackadder, because of how funny it is, you might not want to see it this way, but it is insidious and plays into this kind of bullshit...

This thread is clever. Brexit was all about perception, who we are as a nation, our relationship with Europe, particularly Germany and Blackadder played its part.

This little englander bullshit holds us back as a nation and as a people, it distorts history, rubbishes the sacrifices of the troops, fuels xenophobia and the myth of British exceptionalism.

I'm a member of the Western Front Association, I've lost count of the number of times historians from the Imperial War Museum and elsewhere mention Blackadder as the single biggest obstacle they face in getting people to understand the First World War as it really was.

Fair enough, I certainly do not see myself as a Little Englander and my Grandads brother died at Ypres, I would never purposely rubbish the sacrifice of any troops in any cause anywhere. I interpreted Blackadder differently, maybe its the historians who want to glorify the war and that is how they interpret it. Who I am though to argue against Imperial War Museum historians, after all I do not know there motives and are they not the ones who through this glorification have added to the little Englander cause de celebre. Can we really rely on historians who have a vested interest as much of their output has fuelled British exceptionalism, it has come from somewhere and the myths created by false historical output are as much to blame as any of todays populists. They feed the myths as much as you claim Blackadder does. Has any historian to your knowledge ever disputed myths such as the Blitz spirit, or the brave Tommy. It is these historians who miss out the sacrifices of Commonwealth troops, it is these historians who claim the Battle of Jutland as a victory, because each and every one of them interprets history in their own way as none of them were there.

 

[Vic]

The question as to whether this country should've fought the First World War is poisoned by Blackadder, because of how funny it is, you might not want to see it this way, but it is insidious and plays into this kind of bullshit...

This thread is clever. Brexit was all about perception, who we are as a nation, our relationship with Europe, particularly Germany and Blackadder played its part.

This little englander bullshit holds us back as a nation and as a people, it distorts history, rubbishes the sacrifices of the troops, fuels xenophobia and the myth of British exceptionalism.

I'm a member of the Western Front Association, I've lost count of the number of times historians from the Imperial War Museum and elsewhere mention Blackadder as the single biggest obstacle they face in getting people to understand the First World War as it really was.

How was it, really?

 

[The perfect fumble]

How was it, really?

If you're really interested I can point you in the right direction.

Try this on whether we should've fought at all.




And you can make your own mind up.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Fair enough, I certainly do not see myself as a Little Englander and my Grandads brother died at Ypres, I would never purposely rubbish the sacrifice of any troops in any cause anywhere. I interpreted Blackadder differently, maybe its the historians who want to glorify the war and that is how they interpret it. Who I am though to argue against Imperial War Museum historians, after all I do not know there motives and are they not the ones who through this glorification have added to the little Englander cause de celebre. Can we really rely on historians who have a vested interest as much of their output has fuelled British exceptionalism, it has come from somewhere and the myths created by false historical output are as much to blame as any of todays populists. They feed the myths as much as you claim Blackadder does. Has any historian to your knowledge ever disputed myths such as the Blitz spirit, or the brave Tommy. It is these historians who miss out the sacrifices of Commonwealth troops, it is these historians who claim the Battle of Jutland as a victory, because each and every one of them interprets history in their own way as none of them were there.

Come on mate.

Motives? You'll be questioning Dr Fauci next.

As for not being there! Then we'd better pack up studying history beyond the lifespan of the oldest living human.

The interpretation of historical events changes over time as more is known and in light of subsequent events, but history as propaganda is easily discerned if you have at least an inkling of the basics (that's why Max Hastings struggles with informed audiences). If you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of the two world wars then Blackadder and Oh What A Lovely War is all you have for the First and The Great Escape, Dads Army and The Battle of Britain for the Second.

PS: I get the distinct impression that you believe everything you read and hear from any "establishment" source has an agenda, and that agenda is always the justification and perpetuation of capitalism.

That way madness lies.

 

[BrianW]

History is all about interpretation and is constantly being reinterpreted, which is why we have new books being written all the time.

There are different interpretations of WW1, and a lot of the discussion is ultimately linked to politics because you cannot divorce historical interpretation from political philosophy. This does not mean that anyone fails to recognise the sacrifice in lives, the courage of the (mainly citizen) soldiers, and so on.

Having said that, my grandfather, who never lived to see Blackadder and who rarely had a bad word for anyone, always called F.M. Haig 'that Bloody Fool, Haig.' So a negative view of WW1 and the tactics used did not originate with a comedy programme. BTW, he also said that the Boer War was about 'stealing the Boers' diamonds' and nothing more. Probably not everyone agrees with that analysis either.

 

[Vic]

If you're really interested I can point you in the right direction.

Try this on whether we should've fought at all.




And you can make your own mind up.

I think you've missed my point.

Whether we should have gone to war is irrelevant. I'm still trying to work out what "lie" Blackadder invented / perpetuated. What about the lie about how sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country?

And I don't have much time for historical associations formed decades after the events telling us "how it was really", or (however enlightening) debates about the casus belli. (As my father was quite old when I was born, I may be the only Bluemooner whose father was in WW1.... but he had "a good war" and never saw action.)

 

[patrickkinney]

I'm a member of the Western Front Association, I've lost count of the number of times historians from the Imperial War Museum and elsewhere mention Blackadder as the single biggest obstacle they face in getting people to understand the First World War as it really was.

Can I first of all say a couple of things: i) this thread has gone off on a bit of a weird tangent! and ii) I hate to see City fans get really upset with one another, so lets not....

However, can I pick up on a couple of points? I was very interested to read what I have quoted above, perfectfumble, I can see why you have got so cheesed off by Blackadder IV now. I actually work in education (with the older primary children) and consequently this opinion is of interest. Can I assure you we don't just stick on Episode 6 of Blackadder Four and then sit back and think WWI - tick. We do much much more, including in Year 5 a lot of work on the Christmas truce of 1914 (thought I'd mention that as this is a football site).

However, I have used the last ten minutes of that Blackadder programme in the classroom and I don't regret it, obviously with much discussion before and after it is shown. Interestingly, I saw a documentary about the making of that sequence. When it was originally completed the crew and actors were crapping it - the BBC budget did not exactly allow a 'Saving Private Ryan' type scene and it looked terrible. But someone had the idea to really slow it down, play the music differently and then fade to a field of poppies and.... it works.

In addition, as much as I would like to show Peter Jackson's 'They Shall Not Grow Old', if I did I would be out of a job the next day. It is rated 15. We have shown 'War Horse' in the past (it's a 12) but letters have to sent home first and the option given to allow a pupil to do something else instead - it's a bloody minefield (no pun intended) 'cos if one parent complains and the rules haven't been followed, it all goes to pot.

Can I just say a couple of other things: around the time of the recent Euros when Germany were lined up to play England, there was some discussion about the media and to put it bluntly: that "Achtung Surrender" headline from the 1996 tournament would not have appeared in 2021 - things have moved on.

Finally, to return to the Dad's Army v Blackadder IV debate, its important to remember that Blackadder aired in 1989 so some 70 years after the events it portrays. Dad's Army started in 1968 so only about 25 years after its setting and many of the people making that show will have been involved in World War 2. Adder was written by 'alternative' comedian Ben Elton (with Richard Curtis) Dad's Army was much more traditional - or 'cozy' as someone said. These are some of the reasons why the tone is different, but they are both good in their own ways.

 

[west didsblue]

Saying that my grandkid likes dancing around in a gestapo uniform

Thank you very much Mel Brookes.

Isn’t that more to do with seeing you dressed up like Blakey for work?

 

[lefty goldblatt]

Saying that my grandkid likes dancing around in a gestapo uniform

So did ex Prince Harry, but that might upset a few