Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
I was at the petrol station waiting in the queue to fill up when the lady in front decided to reverse in order to move pumps and ran in to me. When I renewed my insurance and mentioned this my premium went up. When I queried this they said even though I had been in an accident which was not my fault the algorithm said I was more likely to have another accident.monkimark said:That makes no sense, by thay logic, increased no claims should result in higher premiums?
pinno said:Insurance companies have traditionally balanced duration of insurance with risk. i.e: the longer you go without a claim, the more likely you are to make a claim.
0 -
Exactly the same happened to the OH. A few weeks later she wasn't even in the car and a delivery driver reversed into the rear tail lights and dented the boot. Got the car fixed by the insurance and white van man hit every panel down one side while it was parked outside the house ! Statistics don't lie ! 🤣webboo said:
I was at the petrol station waiting in the queue to fill up when the lady in front decided to reverse in order to move pumps and ran in to me. When I renewed my insurance and mentioned this my premium went up. When I queried this they said even though I had been in an accident which was not my fault the algorithm said I was more likely to have another accident.monkimark said:That makes no sense, by thay logic, increased no claims should result in higher premiums?
pinno said:Insurance companies have traditionally balanced duration of insurance with risk. i.e: the longer you go without a claim, the more likely you are to make a claim.
0 -
Well if you had a claim, it would push your premium up. The rule is for renewal quotes where there was no claim.
I'm not making this up:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2021/10/martin-lewis--the-big-insurance-rule-change-on-1-jan-2022/seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Hurrah, a loop hole.pinno said:Well if you had a claim, it would push your premium up. The rule is for renewal quotes where there was no claim.
I'm not making this up:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2021/10/martin-lewis--the-big-insurance-rule-change-on-1-jan-2022/0 -
Oranges.
Too many variables - taste/sweetness, pips, juiciness, chewiness, thickness of skin - and you can never tell from the outside if they are going to be any good. At least most apples give a bit more of a clue.0 -
Agree, messy and too much work. An easy-peeler satsuma is far safer.briantrumpet said:Oranges.
Too many variables - taste/sweetness, pips, juiciness, chewiness, thickness of skin - and you can never tell from the outside if they are going to be any good. At least most apples give a bit more of a clue.0 -
Self-appointed people in professional football who decided when a goal is an 'own-goal'.0
-
But you’re comparing apples to oranges there.briantrumpet said:Oranges.
Too many variables - taste/sweetness, pips, juiciness, chewiness, thickness of skin - and you can never tell from the outside if they are going to be any good. At least most apples give a bit more of a clue.4 -
Just cut them in half and squeeze them into juice. Sod that peeling and getting into a sticky mess malarkey.briantrumpet said:Oranges.
Too many variables - taste/sweetness, pips, juiciness, chewiness, thickness of skin - and you can never tell from the outside if they are going to be any good. At least most apples give a bit more of a clue.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
...oh and Apples don't give much away contrary to your belief. I have 7 apple trees (5 varieties). You can have lovely red skin and a bitter taste or you can have green skin and a superb flavour.
I have 'Reverend Wilks' which is a late developer up here and the apples are a pale green. In a good year, they are stunning which is not very often.
I also have 'Sunset' which always look good but they are a lottery.
My favourite is 'James Grieves' which have a yellow/red skin and it has to be an exceptional year for them to be good but they always look so so tempting.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
He has an undergrad degree in English, fwiw
Science is for scientists, everyone thinks they can do history.0 -
Sure if by scientist you mean "I watched a YouTube video"rick_chasey said:He has an undergrad degree in English, fwiw
Science is for scientists, everyone thinks they can do history.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lol you should read this RJS (sincerely) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Defence-History-Richard-J-Evans/dp/1783784598/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?adgrpid=77112538964&hvadid=360247452866&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=9044909&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=9190360752170270017&hvtargid=kwd-314413061987&hydadcr=13660_1820720&keywords=richard+evans+in+defence+of+history&qid=1681651986&sr=8-1
As he wouldn’t agree with you.
(He’s the guy they made that film Denial about, where a holocaust denier sues a Jewish writer for calling him that, as he argues there is no such thing as a historical fact and so his interpretation of the past is valid. The defence gets Mr Evans as an expert witness to prove there is such a thing)
He argues that there are in fact, historical facts, and there are dangerous implications if you take the postmodernist view that there is no such thing as historical fact.
I don’t buy it fully and I’m a signed up postmodernist but it’s a good case (obviously)0 -
Sorry, I realise I am treading on your toes here. I'll have a look when I have made more of a dent in my reading pile. Obviously there are events which objectively did occur but for the vast majority we either have only a second hand account at best and some sparse archaeological evidence. History within living memory (or just outside) is a little different in that there are vastly more sources to compare but even things like Partygate are heavily disputed.
I suppose another way of putting it is that there are facts but our ability to discern them is limited.
Having got quite into early mediaeval history, I've found it quite surprising how many 'facts' that we are all taught at school, come from a single mention in a manuscript.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
People in (running) races who come past and have random conversations with everyone they overtake. I assume they are trying to show how easily they are overtaking you but ultimately they still aren’t fast runners and would be better putting their efforts into doing the best they can. I like it on longer races when I go back past them later.0
-
It was one of my favourite topics but I’m so rusty 15 years out, so you’re not treading on any toesrjsterry said:Sorry, I realise I am treading on your toes here. I'll have a look when I have made more of a dent in my reading pile. Obviously there are events which objectively did occur but for the vast majority we either have only a second hand account at best and some sparse archaeological evidence. History within living memory (or just outside) is a little different in that there are vastly more sources to compare but even things like Partygate are heavily disputed.
I suppose another way of putting it is that there are facts but our ability to discern them is limited.
Having got quite into early mediaeval history, I've found it quite surprising how many 'facts' that we are all taught at school, come from a single mention in a manuscript.0 -
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
-
Read some of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle and tell me they aren't imposing their contemporary morality on historical events. Or Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Or in fact any work of historypinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
Yes Partygate may well be a trivial example but even with extensive photographic and documentary evidence, a police enquiry and a Civil Service enquiry, people are still looking at the event from their point of view - you yourself have dismissed it as trivial despite it involving some of the greatest restrictions on personal freedom in the last century.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
whilst I would agree that WW2 starting on 7th July 1937 is an objective fact you would be amazed how many people would disagree and say 3rd September 1939 or even December 7th 1941.pinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
To me the parts of history that are objective facts are things like the date GB/France declared war on Germany.
Where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff.1 -
Pinno deeply objects to offering a judgement on the past using today's values (if I understand his argument correctly - he calls it "contemporary moralism")surrey_commuter said:
whilst I would agree that WW2 starting on 7th July 1937 is an objective fact you would be amazed how many people would disagree and say 3rd September 1939 or even December 7th 1941.pinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
To me the parts of history that are objective facts are things like the date GB/France declared war on Germany.
Where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff.
So he feels that you can only judge the actions of someone according to the values of the time, or indeed, not judge the values at all.
I think you can do it all. It gets testy when the thing you're judging is in living memory.
We've clashed a lot on the assessment of the British Empire.0 -
Yes, essentially.rick_chasey said:
Pinno deeply objects to offering a judgement on the past using today's values (if I understand his argument correctly - he calls it "contemporary moralism")surrey_commuter said:
whilst I would agree that WW2 starting on 7th July 1937 is an objective fact you would be amazed how many people would disagree and say 3rd September 1939 or even December 7th 1941.pinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
To me the parts of history that are objective facts are things like the date GB/France declared war on Germany.
Where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff.
So he feels that you can only judge the actions of someone according to the values of the time, or indeed, not judge the values at all.
Although the term I use is 'moral relativism' . Contemporary moralism is the morals to which we agree to either written or unwritten.
I entirely agree with SC's point 'where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff'.
I have had a long standing argument with a historian about the 1st WW. Which I did not win. I ended up agreeing with him.
My objection to it was the sheer loss of life. However, we live in an era of individualism, freedom of choice and expression. The Edwardian era and post Edwardian era was an era of self sacrifice, subservience and hierarchy.
There really wasn't the objection to the slaughter that would have occurred in more modern times. Hence the few mutinies and lack of protest. There was an acceptance amongst society, the press and government that the [obscene] loss of life was just a necessary thing. That is why we find that war so objectionable. Lloyd George's objections to it almost lost him the premiership.
You can take the different perspective that strategically, this loss of life was un-necessary and futile: we should have dug ourselves in and not bothered trying to regain land by sending men over the top to their deaths. There was little land gain over 4 years when the naval blockade was instrumental in ending the war by starving Germany of resources. The land campaign was lead by British and French Generals who were inept* and coldly dismissive** to the loss of life.
**Field Marshall French reported on a minor push where over 700 men were sent over the top and only a handful survived: '...the men had fought gallantly...' and he was 'very proud of them'. To which we find abhorrent but we live in times where life is precious.
*Ludendorff said to Hindenburg: "The British, they fight like lions" to which Hindenburg replied "Yes but they are lead by donkeys".
So the subjective stuff is very interesting and my view above ^ is subjective but jumping up and down a lot about the huge (and unnecessary) loss of life is actually, although intolerable in our eyes, immaterial to arguments against the 1st WW.
If you brought Haig back to life and put him in a court of law, what would you charge him with? You could only charge him with the laws that were present in that era. The UN, the Hague international court of human rights, Amnesty international, the Geneva convention etc are all post WW1 conventions/organisations. However, you could charge him with ineptitude. That continuous ineptitude one could argue, was at the centre of the loss of life.
The British Empire was formed when there was no global consensus or legal framework regarding the value of life, any concepts of freedom and the rights of man and we can go back to before the Greeks when empires were not being created before drawing a very ambiguous imaginary line. Therefore, it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to occupy foreign territories viewed through a modern perspective but it was quite acceptable then.
This does not sit comfortably amongst those intent on feeling guilty about past events and are perfectly willing to proffer disempowering sympathy, commit self flagellation and ultimately, pay recompense for historical events that we had no part of. They occurred when the moral ground was either non existent, founded on skewed religious beliefs* or presumptive and arrogant. Perhaps the journalist in question is suggesting just that in his sentiment.
*The Conquistadors, the Belgians, Victorian attitudes towards ethnic groups, a few examples off the top of my head.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
As someone else put it, guilt is the wrong word. Nobody needs to feel personally guilty over their ancestors' behaviour. That said, various individuals and organisations are sitting on wealth that was directly generated by an industry that required slave labour because the work was so horrific that no-one would do it willingly.pinno said:
Yes, essentially.rick_chasey said:
Pinno deeply objects to offering a judgement on the past using today's values (if I understand his argument correctly - he calls it "contemporary moralism")surrey_commuter said:
whilst I would agree that WW2 starting on 7th July 1937 is an objective fact you would be amazed how many people would disagree and say 3rd September 1939 or even December 7th 1941.pinno said:
[Thank you]rjsterry said:pinno said:
Can someone copy/paste that please as I do not have nor want a Times subscription.rjsterry said:FFS.
No mate. You've just fundamentally misunderstood what history is.Tony Judt was a wonderful historian who has a lot to teach us now, when too often the past is treated simply as polemic. The war in Ukraine prompted me last week to pick up Thinking the Twentieth Century, a series of conversations Judt had with another Europe expert, the US historian Timothy Snyder. Judt received a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a variant of motor neurone disease) in 2008 and the book was conceived and executed before his death two years later.
Yet one of its keenest insights was not about an aspect of eastern European history but about the study of history itself. Politically progressive, Judt was worried about “progressive” teaching. For him, the purpose was to pass on knowledge; to “provide children with a mental map — stretching back across time — of the world they inhabited”. He believed it a “grave error to replace data-laden history with the intuition that the past was a set of prejudices in need of correction”.
Before we can say the British Empire was an evil endeavour or that it resulted in wonderful achievements, let us at least have a solid knowledge of what happened back then. This should be true of other contentious areas of history.
A generation of young people is growing up without a common set of historical references, and the historian’s task, Judt argued, is “to supply the dimension of knowledge and narrative without which we cannot be a civic whole”.
There are no such things as objective historical facts. Whenever someone talks about historical facts what they mean is history the way they would like to see it.
There are objective facts. King Henry the 8th was born on the... . The second world war started on the... etc etc
I agree with him in his sentiment and whilst historians will comment on past events idiosyncratically (that's unavoidable), so many Historical events are now viewed with contemporary moralism.
Partygate is short of facts and in the scheme of things globally, is negligible and will be forgotten about. It's a bad example.
To me the parts of history that are objective facts are things like the date GB/France declared war on Germany.
Where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff.
So he feels that you can only judge the actions of someone according to the values of the time, or indeed, not judge the values at all.
Although the term I use is 'moral relativism' . Contemporary moralism is the morals to which we agree to either written or unwritten.
I entirely agree with SC's point 'where it gets interesting is the subjective stuff'.
I have had a long standing argument with a historian about the 1st WW. Which I did not win. I ended up agreeing with him.
My objection to it was the sheer loss of life. However, we live in an era of individualism, freedom of choice and expression. The Edwardian era and post Edwardian era was an era of self sacrifice, subservience and hierarchy.
There really wasn't the objection to the slaughter that would have occurred in more modern times. Hence the few mutinies and lack of protest. There was an acceptance amongst society, the press and government that the [obscene] loss of life was just a necessary thing. That is why we find that war so objectionable. Lloyd George's objections to it almost lost him the premiership.
You can take the different perspective that strategically, this loss of life was un-necessary and futile: we should have dug ourselves in and not bothered trying to regain land by sending men over the top to their deaths. There was little land gain over 4 years when the naval blockade was instrumental in ending the war by starving Germany of resources. The land campaign was lead by British and French Generals who were inept* and coldly dismissive** to the loss of life.
**Field Marshall French reported on a minor push where over 700 men were sent over the top and only a handful survived: '...the men had fought gallantly...' and he was 'very proud of them'. To which we find abhorrent but we live in times where life is precious.
*Ludendorff said to Hindenburg: "The British, they fight like lions" to which Hindenburg replied "Yes but they are lead by donkeys".
So the subjective stuff is very interesting and my view above ^ is subjective but jumping up and down a lot about the huge (and unnecessary) loss of life is actually, although intolerable in our eyes, immaterial to arguments against the 1st WW.
If you brought Haig back to life and put him in a court of law, what would you charge him with? You could only charge him with the laws that were present in that era. The UN, the Hague international court of human rights, Amnesty international, the Geneva convention etc are all post WW1 conventions/organisations. However, you could charge him with ineptitude. That continuous ineptitude one could argue, was at the centre of the loss of life.
The British Empire was formed when there was no global consensus or legal framework regarding the value of life, any concepts of freedom and the rights of man and we can go back to before the Greeks when empires were not being created before drawing a very ambiguous imaginary line. Therefore, it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to occupy foreign territories viewed through a modern perspective but it was quite acceptable then.
This does not sit comfortably amongst those intent on feeling guilty about past events and are perfectly willing to proffer disempowering sympathy, commit self flagellation and ultimately, pay recompense for historical events that we had no part of. They occurred when the moral ground was either non existent, founded on skewed religious beliefs* or presumptive and arrogant. Perhaps the journalist in question is suggesting just that in his sentiment.
*The Conquistadors, the Belgians, Victorian attitudes towards ethnic groups, a few examples off the top of my head.
If you are fortunate enough to benefit from that wealth, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask yourself how comfortable you feel about making use of that money.
I also think 'different times; different morals' is a bit of a cop out. There are plenty of examples of contemporary campaigns against slavery. It being generally accepted by the majority provided it is not happening on our doorsteps is no defence either, as amply demonstrated by the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. The common factor is less skewed religious beliefs than money and power, which hasn't really changed ever.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
P1ss1n about with hindsight. That annoys me. Life is just too damn short.
To the moon!1 -
Looking back is what stopped the Comet airliners from dropping out of the sky. And what went wrong with the shuttle. And Apollo 13.focuszing723 said:P1ss1n about with hindsight. That annoys me. Life is just too damn short.
To the moon!1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Looking back with hindsight can be very important and stop accidents and things.rjsterry said:
Looking back is what stopped the Comet airliners from dropping out of the sky. And what went wrong with the shuttle. And Apollo 13.focuszing723 said:P1ss1n about with hindsight. That annoys me. Life is just too damn short.
To the moon!0 -
I struggle to see how pinno’s position doesn’t let a load of wrongun’s off the hook.
We gonna sit here and say yeah, the holocaust was just the ideology of the Nazis at the time and so acceptable to them, good grief.0
