ThunderDragon Blog

Even 593 years after their defeat, the French still haven’t got over it:

The French are using the anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt to accuse England’s men of acting like ‘war criminals’…

Academics will suggest that the extent of the feat of arms was massively exaggerated, with claims that the English were hugely outnumbered a lie.

More controversially still, they will say that the foreign invaders used numerous underhand tactics against an honourable enemy. (The Telegraph)

Here, these French historians have committed the cardinal sin of historical study - casting back modern perceptions on to past events. Using the term “war criminals” in relation to Agincourt is absurd, since such a concept didn’t and couldn’t even exist at the time.

Let’s have a brief look at the context of the Battle of Agincourt: it took place in the middle of the Hundred Years War - even though the period was greater than a century, and the number of years fighting smaller - where the French and England were fighting over territory. At Agincourt itself, it is universally accepted that the French outnumbered the English, though estimates range from 8 to 1 to around 2 to 1.

Yet the English still won the battle, even though they eventually lost the war.

What these French historians are trying to do is re-write history to support their nationalism. Even though the English army are said to have killed prisoners, it was because they saw what they believed to be a second attack coming and so killed the less illustrious prisoners [as they had little in the way of a ransom price] to prevent them picking up weapons and rejoining the fight, something which the French at the time did not critcise them for.

So these historians want to re-classify what happened under a modern interpretation of the rules of warfare, which would have been as out of place there as theirs would now.

What serves to even further undermine these claims is that no English historian was invited to their conference on Agincourt. Real, serious historians try to find the truth, not just what best suits their opinions. These historians have failed the very basic tests.

So I’m going to show them the two-fingered salute, which unfortunately doesn’t actually come from the archers at Agincourt even though it is a popular myth.

Teaching about slavery is to become a compulsory subject in secondary school history classes.

Schoolchildren will learn about the roles of William Wilberforce, the MP who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, and Olaudah Equiano, a former slave who drew attention to the horrors of the trade after buying his freedom and writing an autobiography.

They will also be taught about the origins of the empire, with one unit looking at rise and fall of the Mughals in India and the arrival of the British. Another is titled “How was it that, by 1900, Britain controlled nearly a quarter of the world?” (The Telegraph)

This is, I suppose, a cause for celebration. After all, any British history being taught in schools is very nearly a miracle in itself.

However, the emphasis that is going to be given to the slave trade - “pupils will study the development of the slave trade, colonisation and the links between slavery, the British empire and the industrial revolution” - is just absurd. Slavery played a very very minor role in the British Empire and constituted a only as teeny-tiny amount of national income. And the work the Empire did after its abolition cost us more than the benefits we accrued . As did the entire Empire, despite the modern cries of “OPPRESHUN!11!” whenever the British Empire is mentioned.

Of course, slavery wasn’t exactly a high-point in British history. But, as I pointed out not long ago, history must be studied in context - the “why” is as important as the “what” and the “how”. And it must also be noted that slavery had a far greater impact on America than it ever did in Britain. [What is also interesting to note is that the party in America who were most anti-abolition and black equality is now the one about the nominate the first black presidential candidate.]

Educating our young people about slavery is good. But it must be done properly, and without allowing the usual massive exaggeration of its impact. And as much time should also be allocated to the fact that the British were by the far the first nation to ban slavery and spent so much fighting the trade.

The eternal problem with teaching history in school is that the necessity to make it a story, so as to keep the interest of the pupils, means that the balance is often lost in the narrative. With a subject as complicated and sensitive as slavery, balance is essential - meaning that no judgement should be passed by the material produced to teach with. This was massively lacking from the subject when I was taught about slavery in school about 8 years ago.*

To end on a bright note, that the British Empire will be a compulsory part of the secondary school curriculum is definitely a Good Thing. Even if the way they appear from the reports to want to teach it seems more-than-slightly** skewed to pass on the message that “Empire is bad” to our school children. But I credit them with enough intelligence to see through the worst of this.

* It was actually this sort of thing which drove me to make study of the British Empire to main focus of the history part of my degree and postgrad study.

** ie. fucking massively.

Iain Dale is chairing a discussion on “how we view history in this country, how it is taught in schools and how to engage people with the subject” so I thought I’d share a few of my thoughts on the subject.

History is very important. It defines who we are and how we view the world. We should celebrate our history, from as far back as we can determine with any accuracy, right up to modern times.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We played our role in making the world what it is, and we should ensure that we pass the knowledge on to our children. Of course not all of our history is great but I think that, overall, Britain’s role in world history has been positive.

The teaching of history - British and otherwise - should be taught not from our present-day perspectives, but in context. The world situation, beliefs, economy, perceptions, politics, and community all need to be explianed when teaching about an era in history. If we just cast our own, current, perceptions and prejudices back, we get a massively distorted picture - such as how many view the brief period when the British Empire took part in the slave trade.

Our education system should teach our history poperly in this way. Children should be encouraged to understand why things happened as much - if not more - than what happened. If you don’t ask “why?” when you study history, then you’re not really studying history at all. The teaching of history in schools is essential, and must be done with the understanding that what it is taught effects perceptions on the present. They shouldn’t be spoon-fed the perception that all british history is that of an evil nation - or that Britain has always been the guiding light of civilisation. Instead, both sides should be presented. Because history is alwaays multi-sided.

Of course, there is the famous quote that “history is written by the winners”. Yes, but historians have the responsibility to be as unbiased as they can when studying and writing about it. But no-one can ever be unbiased. If you read any history book/watch any history documentary, you are seeing it through the perspectives of the historian - who are always biased.

History has happened, and cannot be changed. The past has been and gone. But we must ensure it is not forgotten, or ignored.

No-one can apologise for something that someone else did. I can’t apologise for something you did, and you can’t apologise for something I’ve done. And neither of us can apologise for something someone else did. Any apology we did make wouldn’t mean anything since we didn’t do it and so have nothing to be sorry for.

This is an obvious fact, right?

So why do politicians persist in apologising for things that happened before they were in power, grown up, or in some cases even born? How can Kevin Rudd apologise for Australia for the “profound grief, suffering and loss” inflicted by successive Australian governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population? Just like Blair or Livingstone can’t apologise for the brief period in history where Britain perpetuated the slave trade [and the same goes for the Papua New Guinea tribe and the cannibalism of their ancestors]. Not with any real sincerity can they.

They can regret what happened, but they can’t apologise for it. Regretting an incident is fine and not a problem. We all have some regrets about past issues. But we can’t apologise for something we didn’t do. Any apology made is just an empty and meaningless gesture. If we carry this idea on, children born of rape will be apologising to their mothers for their father’s actions, and ultimately everyone will have to apologise to everyone for something that some long-forgotten ancestor did.

However, Rudd does have slightly more legitimacy in making his apology than Blair or Livingstone for theirs, since the period his apology covers goes right up to the 1960s. But even that is a long time ago. Way too long. Just let all this stuff go for crying out loud and let’s move on a equal people, not looking back over our shoulders at past slights!

Soldiers who served during the First World War frequently wrote letters home, and it is through these documents that we can understand the true situation which they were in. The letters of one soldier, Private Harry Lamin, are being published as a blog, exactly 90 years after they were written, and are published entirely faithfully to the original, including spelling and grammar, and are also put in context by some historical explanations.

All in all, a very interesting blog and a very good idea to do, reproducing a snapshot of the past online. Read it here.

Hell yes! We should celebrate British history. Not all of it is as great, pretty, and morally righteous as we may wish, be we should showcase it anyway. History is essential to the modern world. It made us what and who we are. Through history we learn lessons, and understand the reasons behind the way the world works.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We should have a museum of British history to remind us - and the world - of our history, of our role in making the world what it is. Of course it isn’t all great but I think that, overall, Britain’s role in world history has been positive.

We should have a museum of British history to remind us both of what our nation has done right and wrong in the past, and how we have developed into the nation we are today. After all, it’s not like we would have to struggle to fill it!

There is controversy over the unveiling of a statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square. Apparently it wrong to put up a statue to Lloyd George because he ordered bombings in Iraq between 1916 and 1922, which “makes today’s celebration of Lloyd George’s legacy highly topical and disgraceful.”

What on earth are Harold Pinter, John Pilger and Denis Halliday on about in their letter to the Telegraph? Whilst Lloyd George wasn’t perfect, it is hardly “disgraceful” to erect a statue of him in Parliament Square.

The reaction to Lloyd George’s statue is especially remarkable in contrast with the reaction when a statue to Nelson Mandela was erected in Parliament Square. The BBC article on Mandela’s statue has absolutely no mention of his less-than-salubrious past and objections to his statue because of it, whilst the article on Lloyd George has more on the opposition to his statue than support for it.

Mandela was a terrorist. No matter what the cause for which he fought, his actions ticked absolutely every box of that definition. Lloyd George, on the other hand, just authorised bombings during a war! There is no denying that Lloyd George has more right to have a statue in Parliament Square than Nelson Mandela. To start with, he was a British Prime Minister, and not a terrorist!

So why, why was there a deafening silence on opposition to Mandela’s statue but the utter opposite for the far more noble and deserving Lloyd George?

Source: BBC

For crying out loud, why?

Why, for fuck’s sake, why?! Why is Ken Livingstone apologising for something that has not happened for nearly two centuries? Slavery is not something that has been done by, or even in the lifetime of, anyone alive. Many generations have been and gone since slavery was abolished, through the 1807 and 1833 Abolition of Slavery Acts, and the efforts of William Wilberforce.

As I wrote not long ago, you can’t apologise for something you didn’t do. It is just an empty gesture! How can you apologise for something that you (a) didn’t do, and (b) weren’t alive to do anything about anyway? No, slavery is hardly a high point in British history, but since it was carried out before, and after, by Africans, any claim that we should apologise is just a load of utter bollocks. It annoys me that anyone can claim any apology from a descendent of the guilty party, especially when they themselves have never been affected by it - like the recent apology from a Papua New Guinea tribe for their ancestors eating someone else’s ancestors. It is all just a load of rubbish. You can’t apologise for what someone else has done, and neither should you.

Why is Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, apologising for slavery? He said:

But you don’t have that right, Ken. No elected official does. You can apologise for yourself, if you really think it’s worth it, but not for anyone else.

It has been claimed that Ken has set “an example” by apologising, one which Anti-Slavery International thinks

Just fuck off, Anti-Slavery International. Just fuck off. I’m not apologising for something I didn’t do, and neither should anyone else. In Britain and her Empire, the slave trade ended two hundred years ago, and slavery as a whole 174 years ago. Don’t you think it’s time you just let it go? Just move on with your life and stop dragging up old, divisive, arguments about slavery. Everyone considers it a bad thing, it;’s not going to happen again here. Go look at Africa and stop it happening there right now, rather than wasting your time asking us for a pointless and totally illogical “apology”. If we were to take the argument they make for an apology, everyone would have to apologise to everyone for some minor slight back in the mists of time. Let’s just move on.

Source: The Guardian

This doesn’t really make any sense:

Why are they apologising? What is the point? Those who were eaten and those who ate are long dead. This happened nearly 130 years ago, for crying out loud! Like with the calls for apologies for slavery and the slave trade, it is utterly pointless. Absolutely everyone who was connected with it is dead.

This apparent need for people to apologise for the actions of their ancestors is becoming really absurd. Things that happened so long ago that no-one involved is alive are seriously old news, and should just be left alone, otherwise everyone in the world would be apologising to everyone else for something that one of their ancestors did back in the mists of time.

You can’t apologise for something you didn’t do. It is just an empty gesture! How can you apologise for something that you (a) didn’t do, and (b) weren’t alive to do anything about anyway? The next step along this line would be for children born of rape to apologise to their mother for their father’s actions! Don’t tell me that’s not absurd.

Source: The Telegraph

How can someone behave like this?

“A German farmer is refusing to allow British families to recover the remains of crew members of a Lancaster bomber shot down during the Second World War - unless they pay him €7,500 (£5,080).
The families of the crew are furious at the farmer’s demands and are refusing to pay. They say that the farmer, Horst Bender, must not be allowed to make a profit from allowing them to give their dead relatives a proper burial with full military honours…
The farmer gave permission for an excavation in 2005 but then suddenly demanded money. At first he wanted €5,000, but recently he put up the price to €7,500.” (The Telegraph)

It is disgusting that this farmer wants to be paid for the recovery of war dead from his property. He certainly should not profit from their recovery. Mr Bender, the farmer, claims that:

“Everyone wants to come on my land and dig, but no one has offered any money to cover the damages… I have nothing against giving my permission, but the costs have got to be covered. I can’t say how much it would cost without making a thorough estimate, but it will not be less than €7,500.”

If the cost of returning the field to a usable state “will not be less than €7,500″ why was he, until recently, asking for €5,000 [after originally not asking for any]? It is fair enough that he should get some help in restoring the land, but why then did [and does] he not ask, instead of for a specific payment but for help with restoring the land after the excavation?

Mr Bender should remember his history. Would he prefer to live in a Nazi world? If not, then he certainly shouldn’t be asking to be paid for the excavation! The way in which he has acted is extremely selfish and insensitive. The relatives just want to see their loved ones buried properly, and he is demanding money before they can be. It’s sickening.

Maybe we should threaten to bomb him from another Lancaster unless he allows the excavation…?

Source: The Telegraph