Spot on!We cannot change past events, but we can gain a better understanding of the past if we are prepared to engage in a positive an honest dialog with each other, and not be highjacked by polarised divisive opinions.
The difficulties that I am finding when looking back at the histories of many important people of the past is precisely that it was the past. “They did things differently there.”
Casting aspersions upon the actions of past leaders of men won’t bring them back for a good thrashing, and choosing to ignore the good that may have been done because of the bad that may have been done strikes me to be a negative way of viewing life. Better to have a dispassionate evaluation of both aspects, give thanks for the good and use the bad as an example of how not to behave in your own life.
I do have to add, however, that while I am prepared to take this approach when such as Churchill or Bevan are concerned, I might struggle with Hitler or Stalin.
John, completely agree with your position. The past is the past and VERY different for all kinds of reasons!The difficulties that I am finding when looking back at the histories of many important people of the past is precisely that it was the past. “They did things differently there.”
Casting aspersions upon the actions of past leaders of men won’t bring them back for a good thrashing, and choosing to ignore the good that may have been done because of the bad that may have been done strikes me to be a negative way of viewing life. Better to have a dispassionate evaluation of both aspects, give thanks for the good and use the bad as an example of how not to behave in your own life.
I do have to add, however, that while I am prepared to take this approach when such as Churchill or Bevan are concerned, I might struggle with Hitler or Stalin.
datadave..........It seems like a global thing. The same is happening in the US. History is history, we should learn from it not try to rewrite it!I have to agree with much of what you say, Johnfromstaffs. Attempting to erase memories of the past by removing statues such as that of Cecil Rhodes because much of what the individuals did or stood for is less palatable or politically correct within the context of current social thinking cannot change the past but merely obscures it from future generations who are then less likely to challenge it. It could in my view even be seen as a form of 'disinformation'. Would we wish to remove the statue of Queen Victoria from Victoria Square in the centre of Birmingham because she was head of an empire which is now seen by many as oppressive, opportunist and exploitative? History can be re-written and distorted and certainly has frequently been so in the past in order to pursue power, domination, the high moral ground etc; the Romans were quite good at it. Let us beware - particularly with the power of modern social media in mind - that we do not enter the world of Orwell's '1984' - or is it too late?
datadave
I quite agree - but it also important to bear in mind that historical reporting, analysis and synthesis is inevitably skewed by the socio-cultural, political and experiential background of the individuals who write it. Even with the best will and greatest awareness, the writing of history is never absolutely pure.
Datadave
AND exactly the same can be said for today! That is the constant in all of this............I quite agree - but it also important to bear in mind that historical reporting, analysis and synthesis is inevitably skewed by the socio-cultural, political and experiential background of the individuals who write it. Even with the best will and greatest awareness, the writing of history is never absolutely pure.
Datadave
Really...........Not sure where you got that idea, maybe from the Guardian that is so far left. The retiring President is anything but left leaning!It seems very odd that the retiring President of the USA is a right leaning business person, but a lot of his support is coming from those who would, in this country, be viewed as naturally belonging to the left. Again, “the USA is a different place”, but I wonder how they will write this up in the future.
Mort, I agree with your basic premise however I wonder how much of the vandalizing is because they can. It seems that few of the vandals know this history to start with. If there is a true cause then lets discuss and do it properly rather than acting like a third world country! (which we are)I don’t see the removal of these statues as an attempt to erase memories. I see it as an attempt to “out” the individuals who have erected monuments that glorify themselves in the way they present their past. These people in the real world they had profiteered from what we now see as unethical, exploitative, and unscrupulous practices.
I have mixed views about vandalising our heritage, however I do believe that a balance story should be told: if we can at all define a balance story of the past.
The actions of the people involved in topping these statues have certainly bought the elephant out of the room and left others wondering how to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Mort, I agree with your basic premise however I wonder how much of the vandalizing is because they can. It seems that few of the vandals know this history to start with. If there is a true cause then lets discuss and do it properly rather than acting like a third world country! (which we are)
Richard, I think my post must have been a bit too cryptic. What confuses me is why people like redundant rust belt workers, miners and folk who have suffered at the hands of those in power for the last many years seem to have fallen for “make America great again”, coming from the mouth of such an obvious liar.
As far as the Guardian goes, the last time I bought a copy was when a teenager.
As long as the evidence is validHistory must be revised when new evidence comes to light, as would the case with revelations made by for example the Thirty Tear Rule.