The Golden Strawberry

There has been much talk in the media about how George Bush will be judged by “history”. Andrew Roberts, for instance, has a piece in the Telegraph about how history will show that George Bush was right, and a piece in Commentary Magazine says something similar. The latter piece is worth reading if you fancy a giggle.

This seems to get our priorities wrong. We don’t know what the judgement of “History” will be, What is important, if anything, is how we see Bush’s Presidency now.

The assumption seems to be that “History” is an impartial, unbending, unequivocal final judgement. It has quasi-religious undertones. If you substitute “History” and put the word “God” in its place, the statement sounds ridiculous. In this context, history has become a secular “day of judgement”. This isn’t correct at all. “History” in this case just means a body of work by academic historians. Even in Birmingham’s history department, where I am studying at the moment, there is a whole range of nationalities, classes, political views. historica approaches and methods. Extend that to history departments all over the world and you have lots of different historians from a myriad of different backgrounds. The only thing they have in common is that they study the past; the views and approaches they bring to that vary from historian to historian.

In the future, as now, those historians who defend Bush, and those who attack his record, will do so on the basis of their ideological views and assumptions. Neo-con, Republican, “right-wing” historians (such as Roberts) will defend Bush’s record. Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home has been putting together reasons to defend Bush’s presidency. True, it is a bit like saying that ‘the Titanic might have sunk, but my, weren’t the curtains excellent?’. But any historian concentrating on, say, US aid to Africa, or development history in general, may be more sympathetic to Bush than historians concentrating on Bush’s military and domestic record.

By the same token, leftist historians are likely to see Bush as a disaster.  It all depends what priorities historians have. Even King John, commonly thought to have been one of England’s worst kings, received some sympathy with historians in the early twentieth century. John left many government records, and historians, who like having lots of records, praised his efficient royal goverment. The fact he seems to have murdered his nephew and was a military disaster was neither here nor there.

Even so, we cannot look to the future, where historians, with the benefit of hindsight, will “pronounce” and give their unwavering verdict. These will change over time - the repuation of most English monarchs has altered, and keeps altering, throughout history. We cannot and should not try and second-guess them. For now, all that matters is that Bush has helped leave the world in a giant train wreck, and now it falls to others to get us out of this mess.

Cory

The protests surrounding China hosting the Olympic games and the Olympic torch have been a “good thing” - they have at least increased awareness of China’s appalling human rights record.

Still, it does help to know a bit of history, as without it we are unaware of our place in, well, humanity. Take this photo from a pro-Tibet/anti-China rally in the US:

 

For those who don’t quite grasp the irony, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia’s entry for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games. There are many good reasons why China shouldn’t be hosting the Olympics (which doesn’t mean they should be boycotted) but that isn’t one of them.

Cory

Via The Drink Soaked Trots

I’ve blogged before about the smugness of certain academics. I was re-reading some of my essays I’ve written this year for revision, and I came across this gem of mine:

Put simply, the tenth century monastic revival led to a monasticism of the episcopate which is breathtaking in its scale.

Oh dear. Is that selling out or what?

Cory

Another year, another series of Monarchy by David Starkey. It started while I was at college, two years ago, and shows no sign of abating. The idea is to teach the story of the English monarchy in a couple of dozen easy lessons. As a good, conscientious history student, I always tuned in to the first episode of every series. Then never watched another episode in said series. I was hoping this year would end the tradition.

However, it won’t. The main reason for this is Starkey (pictured right) himself. You always get the impression that the programme is about him, rather than telling an interesting story. I also hate his style of presenting. HE puts SPECIAL emphasis on EVERY other WORD, sounding SO stressed AND strained THAT you THINK he’s ABOUT to EXPLODE. There can be only two reasons for this: he’s trying to make it interesting (in which case he fails miserably) or he cannot read an autocue for toffee. I tend towards the latter.

It is rather pathetic the lengths Starkey will go to make the show interesting. No scene can last for longer than two minutes, constantly flicking back and forth, while he stands in various coloured suits by various shiny object, or paintings, or even on a beach. The simple fact is, history DOES NOT need this sort of treatment. The whole story is interesting enough without pointless gimmicks. 

The worst aspect is, I didn’t actually learn anything. What was it today’s programme was on? Ah yes, Charles II. And then James II and all that. I know naff all about Charles II; my only knowledge is gleaned from that BBC2 costume drama a couple of years ago. But I can only say that watching Starkey improved my knowledge not one jot. The main reason why is because of his damned-awful presenting style. I would hate to receive a lecture from him; his style is too forceful, too intense, impossible to ignore and impossible to digest. Terrible.

VERDICT: If you want to learn anything about history, DON’T watch Monarchy. Watch Simon Schama (not to everyone’s taste I know, but better than Starkey), or read 1066 and all that. Or the Slimy Stuarts. Or just about anything else…

RATING: Golden Strawberry - *

Cory

 

Cory

Norman Geras takes opposition with Ben Macintyre’s article in the Times saying you shouldn’t apologise for random acts committed in the past. For instance, the Pope shouldn’t apologise for the Crusades, and Tony Blair should not apologise for the Irish potato famine.

Apologies are good. They can help keep disasters from history in the public eye; inform people who had not previously heard of, say, the Crusades or apartheid, and try and ensure these sorts of things don’t ever happen again. Because if we forget history, so the saying goes, we end up repeating ourselves.

Cory

The Domesday Book is online, people!

I first saw this in the Independent, in a decent article, but would like to nitpick one thing:

It began in 1085, when William the Conqueror, then in his 20th year as King William I of England, held his annual Curia Regis or King’s Court at Gloucester and announced plans for a survey of allthat was in his dominion……………………

And so it goes on, omitting the fact that the main reason why Bill actually comissioned the survey. There were rumours of a Danish invasion, and William wanted to know how much he could tax his subjects. The Indie makes it sound like William summoned his court and said, “You know, I’m bored. Let’s have a great survey”.

Something else skipped over in the Indie (it just mentions people have to pay a “small fee”) is covered with more gusto in the Grauniad:

Part of the problem is that every page you download has to be paid for by credit card - at £3.50 a pop. The Domesday Book was designed to screw the public - and, nine centuries on, we’re still being screwed.

Still, it’s a start.

-posted by Roy

I live in Saddleworth, which is a collection of villages in North-West England. Older readers may remember Saddleworth Moore as being where Ian Brady and Myra Hindley buried their victims.

The trouble with Saddleworth is that no-one’s really sure where it is. Some say it’s in Lancashire, some Greater Manchester, and others Yorkshire. There was a vote to decide once and for all in 1974 (I think). 150 votes in total. You can guess what happened - 50 for Lancashire, 50 for Greater Manchester, 50 for Lancashire!

Where is all this heading? Well, the Saddleworth White Rose Society, a pressure group dedicated to restoring Saddleworth’s “rightful place” in Yorkshire (their words, not mine) is setting up plans to commemorate Yorkshire Day, a celebration of all things Yorkshire.

Posters around the village (I don’t think there’s any online) say that at this celebration will be traditional Yorkshire animals such as donkeys, sheep…and llamas!

Nice to see them keeping to the traditions of Yorkshire…I’m actually almost convinced the Yorkshire lovers, although having been to college in Yorkshire, they don’t see us as Yorkshire! More like those “prats over the hills”…

-posted by Roy

For those who want a more in-depth discussion of Johann Hari’s objections to Niall Ferguson, see this excellent article in today’s Independent:

Niall Ferguson is a court historian for the American hard right - and an apologist for mass death

A good start. It gets better…

-posted by Roy