Queen Elizabeth has passed away.

[Fergie 307]

Thanks for sharing this, Marc. Although I had heard or read some of the info before, it is often tricky to find this stuff in the UK.

Maybe time more of us 'woke' up to the fuller picture of global history told from all sides, rather than just euro- or UK- centric.

I am all for getting all sides of the story. The only way to really try and make a judgement. Unfortunately there are many, on both sides of any argument, who are prepared to accept any account that supports their own pre concieved views, as being necessarily truthful. Any account that contradicts it must therefore be, of course, a tissue of lies. In reality is is often very difficult to find any account that tells the absolute truth. Every writer is biased in some way, whether deliberately or otherwise and so may incluude or omit certain facts, statistics or whatever accotrdingly.

 

[Marc Shaw]

I am all for getting all sides of the story. The only way to really try and make a judgement. Unfortunately there are many, on both sides of any argument, who are prepared to accept any account that supports their own pre concieved views, as being necessarily truthful. Any account that contradicts it must therefore be, of course, a tissue of lies. In reality is is often very difficult to find any account that tells the absolute truth. Every writer is biased in some way, whether deliberately or otherwise and so may incluude or omit certain facts, statistics or whatever accotrdingly.

I'm sure the "facts" that fellow in the video came out with can be researched. It's pretty obvious that if the natives are precluded from any office in a "colony" and the coloniser beats a hasty withdrawal you'll not only have power vacuums but nobody with elected or political experience to run the place. Add that to a bunch of wealthy upper class sociopaths drawing lines on a map to create countries out of former colonies with no concern or respect for the local's feelings, and further if there are any pickings left in a country we see interference from western countries in trying to select a favourable ruler. Happened in South America, many parts of Africa, the Persian countries and even the late Queen stuck the knife into a lefty who got to be Australian PM in the 50s(i think) . Not that Australia can quite be lumped into the turmoil that some countries suffered. I'm sure they were all complicated affairs... but it's not just an "account" or an "opinion" on what was done, It's a matter of record.

 

[Fergie 307]

I'm sure the "facts" that fellow in the video came out with can be researched. It's pretty obvious that if the natives are precluded from any office in a "colony" and the coloniser beats a hasty withdrawal you'll not only have power vacuums but nobody with elected or political experience to run the place. Add that to a bunch of wealthy upper class sociopaths drawing lines on a map to create countries out of former colonies with no concern or respect for the local's feelings, and further if there are any pickings left in a country we see interference from western countries in trying to select a favourable ruler. Happened in South America, many parts of Africa, the Persian countries and even the late Queen stuck the knife into a lefty who got to be Australian PM in the 50s(i think) . Not that Australia can quite be lumped into the turmoil that some countries suffered. I'm sure they were all complicated affairs... but it's not just an "account" or an "opinion" on what was done, It's a matter of record.

The problem being that they are not facts, or matters of record. He implies that the breaking of looms and amputation of thumbs was a policy pursued by the British Empire. This is factually incorrect. These accusations were levelled at the East India Company. Even then many contemporary accounts doubted the veracity of the claims, including the French who at the time were very keen to point out any misdeeds by the company. As for the cutting of thumbs the truth is actually even more bizarre in that in reality some artisan silk weaver's actually cut off their own thumbs. The reason being that they didn't want to work in the silk factories being set up by the company, who sought to suppress production of silk outside their control. No contemporary accounts suggest that this cutting of thumbs was widespread, more a protest by relatively few individuals, there is no contemporary evidence that the company or it's officials ever engaged in the practice. listening to the video you would be forgiven for coming away with the impression that it was the British that cut off people's thumbs in great numbers, not the case at all. If you doubt the veracity of this then perhaps you would accept Gandhi himself as an authoritative source, and familiarise yourself with his comments on the subject. So a classic case of the gentleman in the video massaging the "facts" to support the argument he is making. Exactly the issue I was alluding to. So perhaps rather than making glib statements to the effect that you are sure that the "facts" quoted are verifiable you should ask yourself how you can possibly know that unless you have actually verified them.

 

[Marc Shaw]

The problem being that they are not facts, or matters of record. He implies that the breaking of looms and amputation of thumbs was a policy pursued by the British Empire. This is factually incorrect. These accusations were levelled at the East India Company. Even then many contemporary accounts doubted the veracity of the claims, including the French who at the time were very keen to point out any misdeeds by the company. As for the cutting of thumbs the truth is actually even more bizarre in that in reality some artisan silk weaver's actually cut off their own thumbs. The reason being that they didn't want to work in the silk factories being set up by the company, who sought to suppress production of silk outside their control. No contemporary accounts suggest that this cutting of thumbs was widespread, more a protest by relatively few individuals, there is no contemporary evidence that the company or it's officials ever engaged in the practice. listening to the video you would be forgiven for coming away with the impression that it was the British that cut off people's thumbs in great numbers, not the case at all. If you doubt the veracity of this then perhaps you would accept Gandhi himself as an authoritative source, and familiarise yourself with his comments on the subject. So a classic case of the gentleman in the video massaging the "facts" to support the argument he is making. Exactly the issue I was alluding to. So perhaps rather than making glib statements to the effect that you are sure that the "facts" quoted are verifiable you should ask yourself how you can possibly know that unless you have actually verified them.

So, you seize on a thumb... one point?

 

[Fergie 307]

I should be clear that I don't seek to be an apologist for the excesses of empire. Merely to observe that there is more than enough material to work with without embellishment.
Another thing to be wary of is how nonsense can become accepted "fact" merely through repetition. An example, which you could argue is of no great consequence, but makes the point rather well, is the V1 flying bomb. Many people believe that these flew along until they ran out of fuel, whereupon the engine cut out and they fell to earth. This has been repeated so often, even by such eminent historians as Max Hastings and others, that it has become accepted " fact". The reality is that is is complete nonsense. They were actually controlled by an airflow powered odometer, once the present distance was reached a catch was released causing the tailplane to drop and sending it into a dive, which incidentally cut off the fuel supply to the engine.

 

[Adam W.]

Nice fact....Truly.

 

[Fergie 307]

So, you seize on a thumb... one point?

So, having seen that one thing he says is wrong or exaggerated, you have no concerns at all about the veracity of his other statements?

 

[Marc Shaw]

So, having seen that one thing he says is wrong or exaggerated, you have no concerns at all about the veracity of his other statements?

Are you saying his figures are not true or the country didn't end up... buggered? "excesses " ... pfft!

 

[Fergie 307]

I have no idea whether his other figures are true, I haven't researched it. Have you? If you haven't then how can you possibly know?

 

[Fergie 307]

Great books I agree. Series on Amazon excellent too

Not seen that. I always worry with these things that they may not live up to expectations, or you find yourself mystified by the casting. Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher for example. I shall have to have a look, thanks.

 

[Fergie 307]

I find voiceovers can sometimes fall a bit flat as well. I remember watching the Narnia films with my children. Very disappointed with the voice of Aslan. I would have cast Brian Blessed. He has the sort of voice I can imagine a lion might have, and would have been Very good at any roaring required

 

[Jacob]

I am all for getting all sides of the story. The only way to really try and make a judgement. Unfortunately there are many, on both sides of any argument, who are prepared to accept any account that supports their own pre concieved views, as being necessarily truthful. Any account that contradicts it must therefore be, of course, a tissue of lies. In reality is is often very difficult to find any account that tells the absolute truth. Every writer is biased in some way, whether deliberately or otherwise and so may incluude or omit certain facts, statistics or whatever accotrdingly.

So what?
There is no such thing as absolute truth but many do aim to get at the best possible account of things.
What do you think of Howard Zinn's book? A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia
Or Black and British by David Olusoga review – reclaiming a lost past
The reviewer here thinks is is not radical enough and pulls it's punches.
Or The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists - Wikipedia just fiction?
Or
A.L. Morton - A People's History of England?
https://resolutereader.blogspot.com/2014/11/al-morton-peoples-history-of-england.html

 

[GweithdyDU]

1. I shouldn't have made such an assumption. When I was in Australia, 'mate' was a standard term of acknowledgement of another human. Clearly not where you live. Apologies, sir.
2. Yep

ha ha. Yes the informality of Aussie speech does sometimes seem at odds with Brits. That and the massive overuse of "awesome" make me chuckle and grimace in equal measures lol. I had an Aussie visitor that with a completely straight face said in a slow Aussie drawl, "there's more than one way of killing a cat than (insert expletive related to procreation) it to death". He couldn't understand why I was doubled up in hysterical laughter. G'day!

 

[Fergie 307]

So what?
There is no such thing as absolute truth but many do aim to get at the best possible account of things.
What do you think of Howard Zinn's book? A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia
Or Black and British by David Olusoga review – reclaiming a lost past
The reviewer here thinks is is not radical enough and pulls it's punches.
Or The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists - Wikipedia just fiction?
Or
A.L. Morton - A People's History of England?
https://resolutereader.blogspot.com/2014/11/al-morton-peoples-history-of-england.html

Jacob, you really rather make my point for me. The problem is that it is human nature to prefer an account of any subject which supports any pre conceived idea you may have. This should be guarded against. The next step is to then actually confine your "research" only to sources that you know are likely to reflect your own views, as you do. This is not a good way to get at the truth. It inevitably leads to a situation where you are prepared to discard or completely ignore certain information, not because you have any logical basis for doubting it, but because it doesn't fit your narrative. So you end up in a position where you seek out only that information which supports the position you already have, and unquestioningly believe it. Equally you risk becoming prepared to ignore, or dismiss as rubbish, anything that might cast your existing views into doubt. Mr Spock would not be impressed. Let me give you an analogy of the position taken by Marc as an example. Let us suppose that you have a meeting with a financial advisor regarding your pension arrangements. They recommend a number of investments for you to consider. You subsequently discover that one of their recommendations is a real lame duck, and if you were to put any money into it you would probably lose the lot. Do you then hand over your money to this person to put into the other investments they recommended, because they still sound really good, even though you haven't actually looked into them at all? Or do you perhaps think that if the advice they have given you in one case has turned out to be suspect, it might be prudent to look into their other recommendations in a bit more detail before believing them?

 

[Noel]

Not seen that. I always worry with these things that they may not live up to expectations, or you find yourself mystified by the casting. Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher for example. I shall have to have a look, thanks.

Cruise wasn’t great but his replacement (cause Child wanted somebody taller) isn’t that good.
As for Bosch the series is very good and reflects Connelly’s books very well with Titus Welliver as Bosch. 4 series so far I think.

 

[AJB Temple]

I dipped into a couple of video links above. Dreadful presenter. Keeps lifting his right arm up in a little punching gesture, which is distracting, and he states things with excessive emphasis at the end of most sentences so all I hear is that, not what he is saying. He makes a lot of assertions not backed up by evidence.

Hindu and Musli differences defy logic. In exactly the same way that Muslim and Christian ones do. Religions have different beliefs with Hindus favouring a polytheistic system that believes in cycles of rebirth....for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Muslims are monotheistic and follow sharia law (interpreted very widely in a multitude of different ways) and believe in a god....for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Christians believe in the same god ....for which there is no evidence whatsoever. All of these religious groups share one necessity: they must have faith as that is the only alternative in the absence of evidence. All of the groups are somewhat controlled by religious leaders who perpetrate the faith stories and reinforce the differences between them. Then these groups fall out over whose entirely un-evidenced belief is best.

Then we get news outlets analysing it, completely disregarding the made up and unproven elements of the faith concept.

You couldn't make it up. Except we did.

 

[AJB Temple]

Quite often young men in shops call me mate. I am old enough to be at least their father. Usually I say "when did we become mates?" Sometimes I say "we are not mates - I am a customer". I realise that some people will regard this as arrogant or whatever, but I think we are very much in danger of levelling down in this country with respect to vocabulary, manners and behaviour.

 

[Keith Cocker]

I dipped into a couple of video links above. Dreadful presenter. Keeps lifting his right arm up in a little punching gesture, which is distracting, and he states things with excessive emphasis at the end of most sentences so all I hear is that, not what he is saying. He makes a lot of assertions not backed up by evidence.

Hindu and Musli differences defy logic. In exactly the same way that Muslim and Christian ones do. Religions have different beliefs with Hindus favouring a polytheistic system that believes in cycles of rebirth....for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Muslims are monotheistic and follow sharia law (interpreted very widely in a multitude of different ways) and believe in a god....for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Christians believe in the same god ....for which there is no evidence whatsoever. All of these religious groups share one necessity: they must have faith as that is the only alternative in the absence of evidence. All of the groups are somewhat controlled by religious leaders who perpetrate the faith stories and reinforce the differences between them. Then these groups fall out over whose entirely un-evidenced belief is best.

Then we get news outlets analysing it, completely disregarding the made up and unproven elements of the faith concept.

You couldn't make it up. Except we did.

When I was younger I was pretty sure that religion was dying out. As I reach the latter stages of my existence I’m sorry to realise I was wrong.

 

[Jameshow]

1. I shouldn't have made such an assumption. When I was in Australia, 'mate' was a standard term of acknowledgement of another human. Clearly not where you live. Apologies, sir.
2. Yep

It's all right love, you'll be fine love!
Don't worry duck we all use different ways of describing a freind or not even a freind.
I dropped my China plate off at the rub a dub last night....
So there you have it mush I've told you as it is butt....

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, you really rather make my point for me. The problem is that it is human nature to prefer an account of any subject which supports any pre conceived idea you may have. This should be guarded against. The next step is to then actually confine your "research" only to sources that you know are likely to reflect your own views, as you do. This is not a good way to get at the truth. It inevitably leads to a situation where you are prepared to discard or completely ignore certain information, not because you have any logical basis for doubting it, but because it doesn't fit your narrative. So you end up in a position where you seek out only that information which supports the position you already have, and unquestioningly believe it. Equally you risk becoming prepared to ignore, or dismiss as rubbish, anything that might cast your existing views into doubt. Mr Spock would not be impressed. Let me give you an analogy of the position taken by Marc as an example. Let us suppose that you have a meeting with a financial advisor regarding your pension arrangements. They recommend a number of investments for you to consider. You subsequently discover that one of their recommendations is a real lame duck, and if you were to put any money into it you would probably lose the lot. Do you then hand over your money to this person to put into the other investments they recommended, because they still sound really good, even though you haven't actually looked into them at all? Or do you perhaps think that if the advice they have given you in one case has turned out to be suspect, it might be prudent to look into their other recommendations in a bit more detail before believing them?

You seem to be saying that it is impossible to know anything.