The History Thread

[MakemineVanilla]

 

I am enjoying being annoyed about all the BS surrounding the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

 

It is all such naked propaganda meant to send the proles into dreamy-eyed awe at our 'wonderful democracy' and the rest of that shit, as our rights are systematically eroded by successive governments, which have been complicit in extraordinary rendition, spy on every citizen, have secret courts, restrict trial by jury and have reduced access to Legal Aid, which has made justice the privilege of the rich.

 

But the big lie is that Magna Carta had anything to do with the peasants; it was exclusively for the benefit of the barons.

 

It certainly didn't stop Wat Tyler being murdered during negotiations about the peasants revolt in 1381, and the rest of us had to wait over four hundred years to get a vote in 1918 (women 1928), which was way behind most other countries (Switzerland 1848 Germany 1850 etc etc).

 

And it has to be pointed out that the Prime Minister has blue blood and the government is dominated my the same old ruling class.

 

Magna Carta? Magna Carta my arse!

 

As Jim Royal* would say.

 

* played by an actor stitched up by the establishment and still seeking justice

slightly selective history

 

Tyler lashed out with a dagger after some insults were traded and was wounded in the process  ...probably fatally , though having his head hacked off as he lay dying probably didn't help

 

 

It definitely looks like I need a better example than Wat Tyler, then.

 

What about serfdom not being ended in England and Wales for another 300 years, after Magna Carta?

[tonyh29]

 

 

I am enjoying being annoyed about all the BS surrounding the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

 

It is all such naked propaganda meant to send the proles into dreamy-eyed awe at our 'wonderful democracy' and the rest of that shit, as our rights are systematically eroded by successive governments, which have been complicit in extraordinary rendition, spy on every citizen, have secret courts, restrict trial by jury and have reduced access to Legal Aid, which has made justice the privilege of the rich.

 

But the big lie is that Magna Carta had anything to do with the peasants; it was exclusively for the benefit of the barons.

 

It certainly didn't stop Wat Tyler being murdered during negotiations about the peasants revolt in 1381, and the rest of us had to wait over four hundred years to get a vote in 1918 (women 1928), which was way behind most other countries (Switzerland 1848 Germany 1850 etc etc).

 

And it has to be pointed out that the Prime Minister has blue blood and the government is dominated my the same old ruling class.

 

Magna Carta? Magna Carta my arse!

 

As Jim Royal* would say.

 

* played by an actor stitched up by the establishment and still seeking justice

slightly selective history

 

Tyler lashed out with a dagger after some insults were traded and was wounded in the process  ...probably fatally , though having his head hacked off as he lay dying probably didn't help

 

 

It definitely looks like I need a better example than Wat Tyler, then.

 

What about serfdom not being ended in England and Wales for another 300 years, after Magna Carta?

 

it was the first written constitution in European history , sure it may not have produced results overnight but the Wright brothers didn't fly to the moon either , everything in small steps  ...

[mjmooney]

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

[maqroll]

Edit

Edited June 15, 2015 by maqroll

[mjmooney]

Edit

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

[maqroll]

I should ever doubt my elders 

[MakemineVanilla]

It has to be said that I wrote nothing about wanting another system other than democracy, only that it was slow to arrive and quick to be eroded.

 

How Two-brains Mooney concluded that I had, is beyond me.

[mjmooney]

I didn't. Just CBA to get into a debate about Magna Carta.

[snowychap]

On the subject of Magna Carta, the Jack of Kent blog links to a couple of 'lectures'/speeches on it by Jonathan Sumption:

 

 

 

...

Lord Sumption’s cricket bat

In two recent lectures, the English senior judge and medieval historian Jonathan Sumption has taken a cricket bat to the framed ornament of Magna Carta.

Both lectures are informative and readable – and fun to read: they are here and here.  They presumably surprised some of their audiences, who expected the usual misty-eyed pieties about how important this medieval document is the tradition of liberty, or what-not.

Sumption correctly rebuts – even refutes – such an unhistorical approach.  “High-minded tosh” is one phrase he uses.  He points out that that what we take as Magna Carta is not the creation of 1215 but of pundits and propagandists of early Stuart England – especially Sir Edward Coke, a lawyer and writer of genius.

...

 

 

The links are two pdfs of speeches - as per guidelines:

First speech excerpt:

 

 

It is impossible to say anything new about Magna Carta, unless you say something mad. In fact, even if you say something mad, the likelihood is that it will have been said before, probably quite recently.

 

Second speech excerpt:

 

 

Magna Carta is one of those documents which is important not so much because of what it says as because of what people wrongly think it says.

 

 

 

[MakemineVanilla]

 

On the subject of Magna Carta, the Jack of Kent blog links to a couple of 'lectures'/speeches on it by Jonathan Sumption:

 

 

 

...

Lord Sumption’s cricket bat

In two recent lectures, the English senior judge and medieval historian Jonathan Sumption has taken a cricket bat to the framed ornament of Magna Carta.

Both lectures are informative and readable – and fun to read: they are here and here.  They presumably surprised some of their audiences, who expected the usual misty-eyed pieties about how important this medieval document is the tradition of liberty, or what-not.

Sumption correctly rebuts – even refutes – such an unhistorical approach.  “High-minded tosh” is one phrase he uses.  He points out that that what we take as Magna Carta is not the creation of 1215 but of pundits and propagandists of early Stuart England – especially Sir Edward Coke, a lawyer and writer of genius.

...

 

 

The links are two pdfs of speeches - as per guidelines:

First speech excerpt:

 

 

It is impossible to say anything new about Magna Carta, unless you say something mad. In fact, even if you say something mad, the likelihood is that it will have been said before, probably quite recently.

 

Second speech excerpt:

 

 

Magna Carta is one of those documents which is important not so much because of what it says as because of what people wrongly think it says.

 

 

Excellent.

 

Hancock captures the cant perfectly and Sumption reveals the meaningless tautology.

[maqroll]

In the wake of the Charleston church massacre, there's a big push to have the Confederate flag removed from Southern state capitol buildings, and state flags, as well as statues of Jefferson Davis (Confederate President). And even right wing Southern pols are agreeing that they should go. Really amazing, actually. It will not be popular with a lot of conservative voters though, which makes it a hot potato issue as the presidential primaries get going. Should be fascinating to watch it all unfold.

[mjmooney]

I assume that in the aftermath of the Civil War, the flag was banned. When did it become OK to fly it again? Seems to me like Germans flying the swastika.

[HanoiVillan]

I don't think the flag was ever banned. 

 

It became popular to fly it again in the 1960's, as a reaction against the civil rights movement. The specific flag at the South Carolina Capitol, for instance, was first flown in 1961. 

[maqroll]

S.C. is the only state that still flies the complete flag. And the flag is fixed at full mast. So when the state lowered the American flag to half mast after the shooting, the Confederate flag appeared extremely conspicuous and highly insulting given the circumstances. 

[JamieZ]

In the wake of the Charleston church massacre, there's a big push to have the Confederate flag removed from Southern state capitol buildings, and state flags, as well as statues of Jefferson Davis (Confederate President). And even right wing Southern pols are agreeing that they should go. Really amazing, actually. It will not be popular with a lot of conservative voters though, which makes it a hot potato issue as the presidential primaries get going. Should be fascinating to watch it all unfold.

 

I'd be overjoyed to see all of those flags and statues torn down, all of those streets and landmarks renamed—but I fear that this focus on rebranding the South is going to distract from the real issue here, which is America's deep-seated race problem, something far more insidious and firmly-entrenched than some visible symbols of a remote historical past. And it's not a Southern legacy alone. You can make over the South to look more like the North, but America's race problem isn't a Southern issue—it's a national issue. The entire nation needs to take a look at itself, ask some difficult questions, and go through an even more difficult process of growth and maturation.

Edited June 24, 2015 by JamieZ

[maqroll]

We've been looking at ourselves for the last 50 years though, and the same issues exist. I agree, the flags and statues are only symbolic, but I just don't know if there's a cure for what the real problem is. 

[hycus-flange]

We've been looking at ourselves for the last 50 years though, and the same issues exist. I agree, the flags and statues are only symbolic, but I just don't know if there's a cure for what the real problem is.

Maybe not letting psyco's pack heat would be a good start. Until the Yankee gun laws are changed you are always going to get incidents like this.

[mjmooney]

We've been looking at ourselves for the last 50 years though, and the same issues exist. I agree, the flags and statues are only symbolic, but I just don't know if there's a cure for what the real problem is.

Maybe not letting psyco's pack heat would be a good start. Until the Yankee gun laws are changed you are always going to get incidents like this.

Couldn't realistically be done. That redneck boast "They'll take my guns when they prise them from my cold, dead hands" is a confident one. What could the government do when the voluntary hand-in fails? Send an already overstretched police to take them? Send the army against their own citizens? It's simply not feasible.

[chrisp65]

I get the impression that this one could be a bit circular. Many people appear to have guns to prevent the state getting the upper hand over them. The state trying to take these weapons off them, would legitimise keeping them at any cost.

[JamieZ]

 

 

We've been looking at ourselves for the last 50 years though, and the same issues exist. I agree, the flags and statues are only symbolic, but I just don't know if there's a cure for what the real problem is.

Maybe not letting psyco's pack heat would be a good start. Until the Yankee gun laws are changed you are always going to get incidents like this.

Couldn't realistically be done. That redneck boast "They'll take my guns when they prise them from my cold, dead hands" is a confident one. What could the government do when the voluntary hand-in fails? Send an already overstretched police to take them? Send the army against their own citizens? It's simply not feasible.

 

 

I don't think gun control is a real solution to our country's race problem. I think it's an excellent solution to our country's "people won't stop shooting each other" problem.

I agree we're past the point of easy solutions, but saying things like "It just won't work!" is no excuse not to try as far as I'm concerned.