Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

It very obviously does. Your whole knowledge of what happened in WW2 is only what someone else has written down. There's no objective version.

There's an irony in people complaining about rewriting history on a thread about a statue that literally rewrote history.

pblakeney

I find it amusing to present as contemporary view that the Battle of Hastings was won in 1232 and won by William of Orange.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

I find it amusing to present as contemporary view that the Battle of Hastings was won in 1232 and won by William of Orange.

😏 Could you show your workings?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

I find it amusing to present as contemporary view that the Battle of Hastings was won in 1232 and won by William of Orange.

😏 Could you show your workings?

I found the name William the Conqueror to be offensive.
And seeing how facts are fluid...

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

I find it amusing to present as contemporary view that the Battle of Hastings was won in 1232 and won by William of Orange.

😏 Could you show your workings?

I found the name William the Conqueror to be offensive.
And seeing how facts are fluid...

You've presumably heard the famous quote about it being too early to assess the impact of the French Revolution.

surrey_commuter

maybe I don't understand the term "rewriting history" but surely sometimes it is done correctly.

The Soviets did not allow western historians access to their archives until after the fall of the Berlin Wall, before that the only perspective on the Eastern Front was a German (no not Nazi) one.
If we knew then what we know now then there would have been more trials at Nuremburg and the likes of Guderian would not be seen as a "good" German

so yes as new facts present themselves then history should be rewritten

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

do you not think it odd that every historian has chosen to reinterpret them as Nazis instead of Germans?

I get why it was done but just seems a bit odd that there are not more historians objecting.

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

sounds like that hobby horse has my name on it.

Here is one to tickle out subliminal racism.

we have all heard the expression "that invention/person/tactic ended shortened the war by x years. Well no, surely the most it could have shortened it is by a couple of months as we would have dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin?

can any of us really imagine that happening? and if so why not? do they look a little too like us in a cultural as well as ethnic way? so was it racist to drop two on the Japanese?

pblakeney

Germany being too close to home regarding distance, while Japan....

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

do you not think it odd that every historian has chosen to reinterpret them as Nazis instead of Germans?

I get why it was done but just seems a bit odd that there are not more historians objecting.

Seeing as it was a one party totalitarian state, is there a material difference at that time? The Nazis also thought of 'Germany' as extending beyond the recognised borders.

blazing_saddles

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

do you not think it odd that every historian has chosen to reinterpret them as Nazis instead of Germans?

I get why it was done but just seems a bit odd that there are not more historians objecting.

Didn't David Irving make the viewpoint untenable with his unsuccessful libel case?

However, the idea that modern historians currently hold a single collective view, regardless of their own political or social leanings is fanciful in the extreme.
It's not hard to figure out why historians are reluctant to offer a different perspective, either.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

sounds like that hobby horse has my name on it.

Here is one to tickle out subliminal racism.

we have all heard the expression "that invention/person/tactic ended shortened the war by x years. Well no, surely the most it could have shortened it is by a couple of months as we would have dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin?

can any of us really imagine that happening? and if so why not? do they look a little too like us in a cultural as well as ethnic way? so was it racist to drop two on the Japanese?

Would need to be supported by evidence, but certainly plausible. Mind you, viewing the other side as lesser humans was pretty universal at that.

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

do you not think it odd that every historian has chosen to reinterpret them as Nazis instead of Germans?

I get why it was done but just seems a bit odd that there are not more historians objecting.

Didn't David Irving make the viewpoint untenable with his unsuccessful libel case?

However, the idea that modern historians currently hold a single collective view, regardless of their own political or social leanings is fanciful in the extreme.
It's not hard to figure out why historians are reluctant to offer a different perspective, either.

Alrite, name me a reputable historian who denies the holocaust?

I'll save you the effort, there aren't any.

There's a whole load of things that historians agree upon. They focus on the differences, for obvious reasons.

veronese68

Were all Germans Nazis and were all Nazis German? Wasn't Hitler born in Austria? So saying the Allies fought the Nazis may be more accurate. A lot of people seem to forget it wasn't a case of Britain standing alone against the Germans.

rjsterry

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

do you not think it odd that every historian has chosen to reinterpret them as Nazis instead of Germans?

I get why it was done but just seems a bit odd that there are not more historians objecting.

Didn't David Irving make the viewpoint untenable with his unsuccessful libel case?

However, the idea that modern historians currently hold a single collective view, regardless of their own political or social leanings is fanciful in the extreme.
It's not hard to figure out why historians are reluctant to offer a different perspective, either.

As Rick says there are bits that they disagree on, but there will be a core of ideas to which *most* subscribe, with a fringe of more radical ideas. That will of course be influenced by the prevailing political and social ideas of the time and will evolve with them.

wiznaeme

You've presumably heard the famous quote about it being too early to assess the impact of the French Revolution.

Just googled this and it appears that this quote derives from a mis-interpretation. Zhou Enlai was asked about the impact of the French Revolution whilst in conversation with Richard Nixon. However Enlai believed he was being asked about the 1968 French Commune riots and that was why he replied as he did.

rjsterry

wiznaeme said:

You've presumably heard the famous quote about it being too early to assess the impact of the French Revolution.

Just googled this and it appears that this quote derives from a mis-interpretation. Zhou Enlai was asked about the impact of the French Revolution whilst in conversation with Richard Nixon. However Enlai believed he was being asked about the 1968 French Commune riots and that was why he replied as he did.

Revisionist! 😁

surrey_commuter

veronese68 said:

Were all Germans Nazis and were all Nazis German? Wasn't Hitler born in Austria? So saying the Allies fought the Nazis may be more accurate. A lot of people seem to forget it wasn't a case of Britain standing alone against the Germans.

I am open to suggestions whereby one of the protagonists in a war have been referred to by a political ideology or anything other than a country/geography

The chap who started it seemed to be in no doubt
I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street. ... I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that, consequently, this country is at war with Germany. '

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Do the people who come up with these ways to rewrite history consider black people too stupid to understand?

*history is constantly being re-written - that is what history is. The contemporary view of the past*

As, I think SC pointed out, for the past 50 years or so, you historians have made concerted efforts to change 'Germans' to 'Nazis' when discussing who Britain fought in the war in order to alter public perception. It is a fact that we went to war with GERMANY not the Nazis. You may well have used the incorrect term on here if I could be bothered to check. Saying something repeatedly does not make it so.
As far as I can see there has not been the same effort to present Japan in a better light. Is that overt or subliminal racism?

Sigh. I mean, where to start with this.

I'm struggling to see that you understand what history is and what historians do, judging from your first sentence there.

"you historians made a concerted effort to change germans to nazis". I mean, there's so much to unpack. Are you suggesting they're like some conspiratorial body who conspire and collude to change the terms of how the public remember the past for some nefarious end?

Are they some minority you object to?

do you not think it odd that every historian has chosen to reinterpret them as Nazis instead of Germans?

I get why it was done but just seems a bit odd that there are not more historians objecting.

Didn't David Irving make the viewpoint untenable with his unsuccessful libel case?

However, the idea that modern historians currently hold a single collective view, regardless of their own political or social leanings is fanciful in the extreme.
It's not hard to figure out why historians are reluctant to offer a different perspective, either.

Alrite, name me a reputable historian who denies the holocaust?

I'll save you the effort, there aren't any.

There's a whole load of things that historians agree upon. They focus on the differences, for obvious reasons.

I'm afraid your reading comprehension has let you down again Rick.
Where did I even suggest there was a reputable historian that denied the holocaust?
In case you are unaware, David Irving tried to and crashed and burned in the process.
Doubtful he was ever considered as reputable though.

RJS got the point, although I may not totally subscribe to his/your view.

rick_chasey

Alright brag alert, I’ve had Richard Evans over for dinner multiple times.

You don’t need to explain the Irving trial to me.

blazing_saddles

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

I find it amusing to present as contemporary view that the Battle of Hastings was won in 1232 and won by William of Orange.

😏 Could you show your workings?

I found the name William the Conqueror to be offensive.
And seeing how facts are fluid...

No question: It is offensive by society's current set of rules.
It has strong imperialist undertones and by definition is "someone who wins a country in war, in order to subdue or subjugate a people."

He definitely needs a more sensitive re-branding.
How does William the Transformer sound?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

veronese68 said:

Were all Germans Nazis and were all Nazis German? Wasn't Hitler born in Austria? So saying the Allies fought the Nazis may be more accurate. A lot of people seem to forget it wasn't a case of Britain standing alone against the Germans.

I am open to suggestions whereby one of the protagonists in a war have been referred to by a political ideology or anything other than a country/geography

The chap who started it seemed to be in no doubt
I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street. ... I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that, consequently, this country is at war with Germany. '

Not sure why you think the nomenclature is significant in this instance. Germany covers a number of different geographical areas at different times. The Nazis were just one bit of it.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

veronese68 said:

Were all Germans Nazis and were all Nazis German? Wasn't Hitler born in Austria? So saying the Allies fought the Nazis may be more accurate. A lot of people seem to forget it wasn't a case of Britain standing alone against the Germans.

I am open to suggestions whereby one of the protagonists in a war have been referred to by a political ideology or anything other than a country/geography

The chap who started it seemed to be in no doubt
I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street. ... I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that, consequently, this country is at war with Germany. '

Not sure why you think the nomenclature is significant in this instance. Germany covers a number of different geographical areas at different times. The Nazis were just one bit of it.

we are debating rewriting history - this is an example

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

veronese68 said:

Were all Germans Nazis and were all Nazis German? Wasn't Hitler born in Austria? So saying the Allies fought the Nazis may be more accurate. A lot of people seem to forget it wasn't a case of Britain standing alone against the Germans.

I am open to suggestions whereby one of the protagonists in a war have been referred to by a political ideology or anything other than a country/geography

The chap who started it seemed to be in no doubt
I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street. ... I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that, consequently, this country is at war with Germany. '

Not sure why you think the nomenclature is significant in this instance. Germany covers a number of different geographical areas at different times. The Nazis were just one bit of it.

we are debating rewriting history - this is an example

Ah, fair enough. An example of subsequent events meaning that a distinction was needed between the two. I mean I thought it was obvious that each generation had a different view of the past but some seem to have an idea that there is a single objective narrative.

rick_chasey

Thing is, I don't think the example is even true.

For as long as I have studied it, it has been referred to as "Nazi Germany".

veronese68

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

veronese68 said:

Were all Germans Nazis and were all Nazis German? Wasn't Hitler born in Austria? So saying the Allies fought the Nazis may be more accurate. A lot of people seem to forget it wasn't a case of Britain standing alone against the Germans.

I am open to suggestions whereby one of the protagonists in a war have been referred to by a political ideology or anything other than a country/geography

The chap who started it seemed to be in no doubt
I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street. ... I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that, consequently, this country is at war with Germany. '

Not sure why you think the nomenclature is significant in this instance. Germany covers a number of different geographical areas at different times. The Nazis were just one bit of it.

we are debating rewriting history - this is an example

Ok, so you're problem is not with accuracy but with rewriting history. Not much can be said in that case.

rjsterry

I think the point is that contemporary documents refer to just Germany, but perhaps SC can provide more examples.

pblakeney

blazing_saddles said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

I find it amusing to present as contemporary view that the Battle of Hastings was won in 1232 and won by William of Orange.

😏 Could you show your workings?

I found the name William the Conqueror to be offensive.
And seeing how facts are fluid...

No question: It is offensive by society's current set of rules.
It has strong imperialist undertones and by definition is "someone who wins a country in war, in order to subdue or subjugate a people."

He definitely needs a more sensitive re-branding.
How does William the Transformer sound?

It has been established that any historical name can be renamed. Knock yourself out. 😉

veronese68

Wiiliam the Conqueror was a robot in disguise?