Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Rewriting History -

Recommended Posts

Trevor Phillips (Chair of the Race Relations Commission) is suggesting we rewrite history to show the contribution made to British History by other Nations and Ethnicities. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psssst, Obs, it's now the CRE (Commission for Racial Equality).

 

But don't let any concerns about accuracy get in the way of a good rant.

 

Could you post a link for this so that we can make up our own minds as to whether anyone's trying to rewrite history, or would you prefer thatwe take you at your word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, that didn't take long, here's a couple of links:

 

British history 'needs rewrite'

 

Why race chief wants to sink our role in the Armada

 

Most historians I know stress the importance of source material in examining the past, I'd say it also helps to stimulate debate on forums such as this.

 

Looks like if the Turks did have a role it was only minor, and Mr Phillips may be being a tad disingenuous. History, though, is constantly being re-written, a big part of its function is to examine and re-examine the past.

 

I don't always agree with Trevor Phillips, but I do agree with some of his comments in the BBC link:

 

...not that we have to re-write what we are but sometimes we have to go back into the tapestry and insert some threads that were lost."

 

Mr Phillips said he had also been persuaded of the need for a written constitution...

 

And I'm sure you'll agree with this:

 

he said it was important that new arrivals learned English.

 

Isn't Google wonderful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has also criticised the notion od "multi-culturalism"; so I don't have a problem with him per se; merely that history is as accurately retold as possible; and a sense of proportion exercised. EG; some women actually sailed with the Navy at Trafalgar, acting as powder monkeys. However, how many? What proportion of the RN crews? I suspect a really low proportion - but "feminist" re-writers will no doubt portray their contribution as significant. Likewise, this buisiness about the Turks - presumably, they were at war with Spain and engaged in naval warfare in the Meditterranean? I'm not aware of any significant intervention against the Armada; and certainly not in defence of England. So is Trevor suggesting PC distortion, to re-programme youngsters? The irony being, that most youngsters these days seem to know precious little about History anyway! :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my reading there is no evidence that it played any part in delaying the armada by a single day.

I don,t think I am racist in any way, but it strikes me this is another case of people having to justify their own job and staffing.

Too many "industries" like this of non industrial type.

(The turks were at war with Persia at that time)

Shoot me down if you will. Best wishes Happy days

 

[ 27.09.2007, 14:21: Message edited by: harry hayes ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this come about as the result of all the new naval documents found (at Cardiff?). I understand that a container was found at a naval bace that was full of historic documents Nelsons log books etc Ships logs, service documents going back hundreds of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the truth is that history was written for and about white males - I see no reason why all the other races and gender should be excluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Trev is trying to give ethnic groups a sense of history = belonging etc.

 

Why do you have such a problem with this idea, Obs? Do you not think that "they" should have one?

 

This is his job. Like I said, it seems like he picked a bad example, but surely it's a sound sentiment? There's nothing new about this.

 

If this idea of historical inclusion helped towards bringing about a greater sense of social responsibility (assuming historical accuracy was maintained, of course), wouldn't you think it was a positive move?

 

Don't wish to pigeonhole, but just to give me a clue: are you more of a Powell than a Bevan, or vice versa? (given the constraints of a talkboard, it's hard to tell sometimes).

 

Oh, and of course, Mary's right, that's why you're getting so chippy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I teach history I include all the people that are involved. Ken Burns - a well known documentarist over here, did a thing on WWII veterans - he left out a huge population of Latino and Native Americans when he did it(seems to me if it had not been for one specific Native American tribe we would had a lot more trouble with codes).

 

Many people are up in arms, he did white men and black men and that was it. What about the women and the rest of the people involved???

 

What is wrong with telling the whole truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it right that the Japanese ignore the atrocities that they did during WW2?

Or is it right that all American films take the credit for English successes?

 

I would be interested on HL's take on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope WW, I don't support "historical inclusion" for it's own sake, rather than as part of an overall truth, and in proportion to relevence and context. EG; Battle of Britain: no women amongst the front line pilots; however, women ferried the supply of aircraft and helped build them, and personed the control systems etc. Special Ops: (espionage) even greater use of women and foreign nationals, but a small percentage of the overall front line commitment. If your considering the history of Britain (as an Island); it's about our "national" history; so by definition will largely feature British Nationals; however if your teaching World History, of course it will will feature ethnic content, depending on which geographical area is under discussion. :(

 

[ 28.09.2007, 12:49: Message edited by: observer ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope WW, I don't support "historical inclusion" for it's own sake...

 

Nor do I.

 

...rather than as part of an overall truth, and in proportion to relevence and context.

 

We're saying the same thing then, so long as we understand "truth" to be an uncertainty in a historical context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi from NY.

 

Just wish to say that History should be about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the belief that the truth is objectively out there- in all topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by GUNNER:

Hi from NY.

 

Just wish to say that History should be about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the belief that the truth is objectively out there- in all topics.

Amen :D

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×