Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[BKLFox]

When do we want the history books to start on this subject, British rule comes much later in time but back in the 1400s we could say Chris Columbus an Italian laid the foundations of mass genocide in the Caribbean followed by Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro a couple of Spanish fellas then jumping nearer to British rule that French chap Napoleon wasn’t a very nice fella either, again in the Caribbean he once asked how to exterminate the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time for the least cost and use of his own manpower, some 150yrs before a little Austrian guy was trying to do it.

The Congolese not a fan of Belgium after, & quite recent in history terms, King Leopard Il regime was estimated to have killed 15million in the Congo.

 

We not touched on the Portuguese, French or Dutch yet either along with what the British did.

 

In truth History’s full of arses irrespective of Nationality 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

When do we want the history books to start on this subject, British rule comes much later in time but back in the 1400s we could say Chris Columbus an Italian laid the foundations of mass genocide in the Caribbean followed by Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro a couple of Spanish fellas then jumping nearer to British rule that French chap Napoleon wasn’t a very nice fella either, again in the Caribbean he once asked how to exterminate the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time for the least cost and use of his own manpower, some 150yrs before a little Austrian guy was trying to do it.

The Congolese not a fan of Belgium after, & quite recent in history terms, King Leopard Il regime was estimated to have killed 15million in the Congo.

 

We not touched on the Portuguese, French or Dutch yet either along with what the British did.

 

In truth History’s full of arses irrespective of Nationality 

Certainly it is.

 

What is open to interpretation, and what I believe to be the meaning of the original post, is the degree of examination of the figures described here in terms of their deeds in their home nations.

[LiberalFox]

11 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

When do we want the history books to start on this subject, British rule comes much later in time but back in the 1400s we could say Chris Columbus an Italian laid the foundations of mass genocide in the Caribbean followed by Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro a couple of Spanish fellas then jumping nearer to British rule that French chap Napoleon wasn’t a very nice fella either, again in the Caribbean he once asked how to exterminate the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time for the least cost and use of his own manpower, some 150yrs before a little Austrian guy was trying to do it.

The Congolese not a fan of Belgium after, & quite recent in history terms, King Leopard Il regime was estimated to have killed 15million in the Congo.

 

We not touched on the Portuguese, French or Dutch yet either along with what the British did.

 

In truth History’s full of arses irrespective of Nationality 

I heard King Leopard II was a bit of an animal. 

[BKLFox]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I heard King Leopard II was a bit of an animal. 

Damn that auto correct 😝 Leopold 

[Sampson]

16 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

When do we want the history books to start on this subject, British rule comes much later in time but back in the 1400s we could say Chris Columbus an Italian laid the foundations of mass genocide in the Caribbean followed by Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro a couple of Spanish fellas then jumping nearer to British rule that French chap Napoleon wasn’t a very nice fella either, again in the Caribbean he once asked how to exterminate the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time for the least cost and use of his own manpower, some 150yrs before a little Austrian guy was trying to do it.

The Congolese not a fan of Belgium after, & quite recent in history terms, King Leopard Il regime was estimated to have killed 15million in the Congo.

 

We not touched on the Portuguese, French or Dutch yet either along with what the British did.

 

In truth History’s full of arses irrespective of Nationality 

Of course this is all true. But we certainly treat Napolean as one of the biggest villains in history in the UK, probably the 2nd biggest villain in history only to Hitler in the British consciousness. And the Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson are 2 of the most iconic figures in British history for helping defeat him - with statues, road names, train stations, pubs, squares and everything names after them, as well as the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar.

 

I was referring to British history specifically and how the British treats and glorifies its own figures and ignores its own atrocities. I think we'd agree that the likes of the French, Portuguese, Austrians, Japanese and Spanish should also be teaching their people of their atrocities committed during the colonial era and even more recently just as much as we should and it's certainly true those countries probably don't. But why do we completely ignore the atrocities we have committed in our name? Yet praise Germany for teaching their atrocities. Do you not think it would give a far better well rounded view of what it means to British and what it means to be a British citizen and Britain's place in the world if we discussed our collective atrocities against the people of Ireland, Kenya, India, South Africa, several Caribbean nations etc.? Do you not think that it gives us a better understanding of how we should treat and react to other peoples if we have that knowledge and how we should strive for a society when these things don't happen again?

 

It's not even that murky past generations, UK still had concentration camps in Kenya as late as the 1960s for example, even after WW2. Still in living memory of many people.

Edited 16 April 2022 by Sampson

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Of course this is all true. But we certainly treat Napolean as one of the biggest villains in history in the UK, probably the 2nd biggest villain in history only to Hitler in the British consciousness. And the Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson are 2 of the most iconic figures in British history for helping defeat him - with statues, road names, train stations, pubs, squares and everything names after them, as well as the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar.

 

I was referring to British history specifically and how the British treats and glorifies its own figures and ignores its own atrocities. I think we'd agree that the likes of the French, Portuguese, Austrians, Japanese and Spanish should also be teaching their people of their atrocities committed during the colonial era and even more recently just as much as we should and it's certainly true those countries probably don't. But why do we completely ignore the atrocities we have committed in our name? Yet praise Germany for teaching their atrocities. Do you not think it would give a far better well rounded view of what it means to British and what it means to be a British citizen and Britain's place in the world if we discussed our collective atrocities against the people of Ireland, Kenya, India, South Africa, several Caribbean nations etc.? Do you not think that it gives us a better understanding of how we should treat and react to other peoples if we have that knowledge and how we should strive for a society when these things don't happen again?

 

It's not even that murky past generations, UK still had concentration camps in Kenya as late as the 1960s for example, even after WW2. Still in living memory of many people.

Totally agree but I’d say we’re not the only nation that does this to their own, the French still hail Napoleon and the World not just Italy still champions Christopher Columbus as a hero and great man for proving the world was round I don’t remember learning much about his murkier past.

I’d guess The 2 WW are brought up in schools due to being recent events but even this will be to long ago to care about for most children who would rather know the history of the mobile and not something that happened just 80yr ago let alone 300-800yrs ago.

The thirst for history sadly comes with age for most of us.

Edited 16 April 2022 by BKLFox

[LiberalFox]

According to my German friend, they spend about a year studying the rise of National Socialism and the evils associated with it. I would love it if we took the same approach with the British Empire. One thing would be for our children to learn how the Empire is seen by the cultures we used to oppress. This isn't about some sort of collective guilt fostering, it's about understanding our past and trying to slowly change our national culture to a more forward looking one. 

[BKLFox]

49 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

According to my German friend, they spend about a year studying the rise of National Socialism and the evils associated with it. I would love it if we took the same approach with the British Empire. One thing would be for our children to learn how the Empire is seen by the cultures we used to oppress. This isn't about some sort of collective guilt fostering, it's about understanding our past and trying to slowly change our national culture to a more forward looking one. 

Good for them but I imagine that’s  the rise of national socialism from 1920ish which is a little different than our schools going back to the 18th century onwards and try and squeeze that into a limited history syllabus.

We would be better suited doing as they have and study Nationalism from the 1900s as many parts of the UK had similar views as Germany did around that time we then get kids understanding political parties how they came about what they stand for etc etc which then puts the country in better stead going forward rather than no vote or vote x because mum and dad vote x.

They do learn a lot of pointless stuff currently 

[Tim'llFixIt]

6 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Good for them but I imagine that’s  the rise of national socialism from 1920ish which is a little different than our schools going back to the 18th century onwards and try and squeeze that into a limited history syllabus.

We would be better suited doing as they have and study Nationalism from the 1900s as many parts of the UK had similar views as Germany did around that time we then get kids understanding political parties how they came about what they stand for etc etc which then puts the country in better stead going forward rather than no vote or vote x because mum and dad vote x.

They do learn a lot of pointless stuff currently 

Pointless in what sense though?

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

Pointless in what sense though?

Probably being unfair & forgetful but just seem to remember thinking what the fudge when helping out with homework but probably  it was something not as juicy as something else that maybe floats my boat  🤷‍♂️ 
Problem is most students only cover history for 2 or 3yrs (dependent on school) and have what 2 lessons per week, there’s just not enough time to cover everything that’s happened in time.

[ozleicester]

On the topic of "evil" people... i cant recomend the "Behind the Bastards" podcast enough.  Fantastically researched and informative.

2 possible downsides ...
1) It is VERY left wing, so not for most on here.
2) It is american...  so again, most on here wont accept it

[Tim'llFixIt]

7 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Probably being unfair & forgetful but just seem to remember thinking what the fudge when helping out with homework but probably  it was something not as juicy as something else that maybe floats my boat  🤷‍♂️ 
Problem is most students only cover history for 2 or 3yrs (dependent on school) and have what 2 lessons per week, there’s just not enough time to cover everything that’s happened in time.

Oh yes I agree, mate I know now at least that the curriculum in primary school focuses on overarching themes such as migration, civilization, empire, invasion but many schools do tend to skirt around the brutalities of the English, infact we skirt around the brutalities of every one bar the Germans, even the Romans, Vikings and the Americans get shone in a very good light.

 

I think we could do a lot with helping children get used to the real world and what is out there, I wanted to go into dentistry when I was In year 10 ... I was told my a uni that I had picked the wrong GCSE options (I did history instead of triple science) and that would not be possible ..... Imagine that I had already shafted myself out of a potentially very successful career at the tender age of 13 and had to find something I was qualified for.

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

Oh yes I agree, mate I know now at least that the curriculum in primary school focuses on overarching themes such as migration, civilization, empire, invasion but many schools do tend to skirt around the brutalities of the English, infact we skirt around the brutalities of every one bar the Germans, even the Romans, Vikings and the Americans get shone in a very good light.

 

I think we could do a lot with helping children get used to the real world and what is out there, I wanted to go into dentistry when I was In year 10 ... I was told my a uni that I had picked the wrong GCSE options (I did history instead of triple science) and that would not be possible ..... Imagine that I had already shafted myself out of a potentially very successful career at the tender age of 13 and had to find something I was qualified for.

The subject of options came up a week or so on this forum, can’t remember the posters, but it brought back the minefield of trying to negotiate the fixed and floating options I had with my kids.
It seemed to me unless you did the option for all to get that higher recognition, but came with the caveat that you had to pass all of them, no child really gets the option to choose subjects they really wanted to do if you picked Peter you couldn’t pick Paul for instance.

I really think to much is placed on GCSE options for potential future employment how can just 2yrs of learning at the age of 15/16 hold so much for mapping someone’s near future.

 

On aside and whilst this chat has mainly geared around history what is it with English literature and reading those self proclaimed  “classics”?

I’m sure someone can give me an explanation that they are used to show how the written word can have many meanings which I get but most of Dickens and Austin works writes like Joey Tribbiani’s thesaurus written letter to the adoption agency (sorry non friends fans) & who talks like that anymore, I’m not saying Steven King or James Herbert should be read but surely there are newer novels that can get the message across without turning your brain to mush 😆 

[Strokes]

Xg stats and all that caper, is just a load of twaddled peddled by weirdos and nonces, it bears no real relevance and indicate less to us than a BMW driver.

[The Horse's Mouth]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Xg stats and all that caper, is just a load of twaddled peddled by weirdos and nonces, it bears no real relevance and indicate less to us than a BMW driver.

It's the ****ing yanks trying to muddy the waters of our beautiful game, people who lap it up are a disgrace 

[Fox92]

12 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

It's the ****ing yanks trying to muddy the waters of our beautiful game, people who lap it up are a disgrace 

Any stat is relevant and can be thrown any way to back up your own opinion.

 

Really don't get how people find the weirdest stat just to back their opinion up.

[RumbleFox]

Really hope Scotland gets independence when it next goes to referendum.

[bovril]

24 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Really hope Scotland gets independence when it next goes to referendum.

I am sympathetic to many of the arguments in favour. But I think it's similar to Brexit in that many of its supporters over-estimate how 'independent' you really can be from neighbouring countries in this age. 

[Strokes]

42 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Really hope Scotland gets independence when it next goes to referendum.

Me too, 

Scotland is a great country with many assets and shouldn’t need to be in any kind of political union.

 

[RumbleFox]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Me too, 

Scotland is a great country with many assets and shouldn’t need to be in any kind of political union.

 

Lived in Scotland for about 14 years and when I first heard about independence my gut feeling was “seems a shame” and that it felt divisive. But when I learned more I realised this wasn’t the case. There are so many good arguments for independence but to me it really boils down to one single fact which is you really should get the government you vote for and Scotland hasn’t voted Tory for about 30 years and still has to live under a Tory government. Not saying all will be rosy if they/we do get independence but for me it’s the right way forward. 

Edited 18 April 2022 by RumbleFox

[Sampson]

I am sympathetic to Scottish independence. If I was Scottish and had voted overwhelmingly for Remain and overwhelmingly anti-Tory and seen the country go down an entirely different path to who the Scots voted for the past generation I would probably strongly be considering independence too.

 

The biggest sticking point though would be their obvious ambitions of rejoining the EU and that conflicting with the CTA though.

 

I think the impression that most people think an independent Scotland would just essentially copy an independent Ireland. Where UK and Ireland have open borders and complete freedom of movement for its citizens and UK and Irish citizens are legally not considered foreigners in each other's countries and an Irish citizen has exactly the same rights as a British citizen in the UK and a British citizen has exactly the same rights as an Irish citizen in Ireland.

 

I think the general impression is most people think Scotland would remain in the CTA and British, Scottish and Irish citizens would remain having open borders and freedom of movement in each others countries. Which given how many families there are with Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish all mixed within them (shown by  something like 15% of the population of Great Britain, not even Northern Ireland were eligible for an Irish passport after Brexit due to having at least one Irish parent or grandparent) is something I think most of us all want in the British Isles, even if we want independent nations to be able to dictate entirely their countries policies.

 

But the UK and Ireland negotiated that the CTA stays separately with the EU back when it was still the EEC and now the EU has Schengen and legally new entrants to the EU have to join Schengen. That would mean Scotland would have to have a hard border with UK and Ireland and Scottish and UK citizens wouldn't have freedom of movement in each other's countries (they would still with Ireland as part of the EU, but EU freedom of movement rights aren't as strong as CTA rights then they have to prove they're there for a reason, like work or studies, whereas with the UK and Ireland, no proof is needed, you can just move to your family or friend's sofa in Ireland if you want as a British citizen without a passport even).

 

It would feel like it would split apart a lot of families to have a hard border between Scotland and the UK and a softer (but still a harder one than now) border between Scotland and Ireland.

Edited 18 April 2022 by Sampson

[LiberalFox]

17 minutes ago, bovril said:

I am sympathetic to many of the arguments in favour. But I think it's similar to Brexit in that many of its supporters over-estimate how 'independent' you really can be from neighbouring countries in this age. 

This is my take. I feel Scotland is less attached to Britain's imperial past. The Saltire offers a ready made replacement for the national identity while many relate to the Irish or see the UK as a primarily English entity. I'm not sure how much Scottish Independence makes sense from an economic perspective, it feels more culturally driven. I worry that an Independent Scotland will prolong the dominance of aspects of English culture I dislike inside England while the idealised vision many have for an independent Scotland is unrealistic. I have a lot more in common on values and what I would like the UK to look like with the average Indy voter than the average Unionist. I would like to move more towards a post-nationalist society so I cannot side with the SNP although I also don't feel particular attachment to the Union in its current form and we look set to stay this way for the foreseeable future. I reckon I would support Indy if I was Scottish more out of hope than faith and because I'd end up going with the more positive vision rather than the fearful one. Scottish Lib Dems are almost exclusively Unionist, but I feel this has become self selecting due to party policy rather than being a result of ideology. I know a lot of Scottish people who vote SNP or Green who were former LD voters.  

[bovril]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Me too, 

Scotland is a great country with many assets and shouldn’t need to be in any kind of political union.

 

UK is not a political union though. It's a unitary state formed by union. When states break up it tends to be painful, it's not going to be like Brexit for example which is more like a change in relationship than a divorce.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

UK is not a political union though. It's a unitary state formed by union. When states break up it tends to be painful, it's not going to be like Brexit for example which is more like a change in relationship than a divorce.

It will be fine, the kids have grown up and left now. Just split the assets, sort out a few bits and bobs and wish each other all the best.

Might even have a few romantic moments at parties in the future if it’s quite amicable. We’ve still got our looks. 

[Dahnsouff]

On the Scottish independence point, there are so many questions, as surely it’s not as simple as everything north of the border belongs to Scotland  (or south of the border belongs to England for that matter) - I am sure there would be a similar degree of horse trading as have seen with Brexit. Those imagining some romantic agreeable separation will likely be extremely disappointed.