Tear Down Nelson!

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry VC, Whilst I appreciate your point it is inevitable that where an opinion flies against, let us call it "popular opinion" the person holding that opinion will be thought less of to one degree or another. Some time ago it was fashionable to belittle any historical figure who had achieved "Hero status"

Douglas Bader was named as a thoroughly unpleasant chap, Baden Powell... well I won't go into that one, Even Dr Barnado's motives came under historic scrutiny along with so many others.

This was the fashion, and by luck and good fortune that fashion seemed to move on. Now this young lady is trying it again. Many people became fed up with this tactic of drawing the limelight to themselves by trying to shatter the good name of others, especially as they tend to use moral standpoints that just didn't apply back then.

If a person attacks a national hero, they must accept the inevitable counter attacks. If the attack is against the hero's character  then the counter attack will be against the character of the person making that attack. Something about 'stones and glasshouses' springs to mind.

[Timbo]

Have any of you actually read Afua Hirsch's article? Have any of you met her? I have, on both counts. 

Her article IS NOT ABOUT PULLING DOWN NELSON'S COLUMN.  It is an article about HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Afua is talking about ADDING to our understanding of history not REMOVING it. She is using the CONTEXT of pulling down monuments to historical figures in other countries to explore the contributions of other races, creeds and colours to OUR history. There is much more to Nelson than the decisions he made during fleeting moments in battle.

To better understand Nelson and his contribution the moods, conditions and attitudes prevalent at the time, which contributed to his actions in life are extremely important. So too are the contributions of others. Many here will be familiar with the BA's attempts to tamper with the history of Broadland...Thorpe Island for one. I seem to remember Vaughan providing important 'historical context' in that matter.

Historical context does not mean attacking a historical figure, it's a means of assessing the impact of a person or event upon history. Without understanding the world that Nelson lived in, his contribution is less. Without understanding the contributions of other races, creeds, colours, religions and political persuasions our understanding of history and the impact of an event like Trafalgar is extremely limited. We end up with last years idiocy over the Polish Spitfire, this year's twaddle of moaning about 'black Romans'...and the list goes on. As Afua points out, one side of the argument regarding the removal of historical monuments is that those monuments are there so that we can learn from history.

Look at the context of what you are reading and who wrote it. For example, I am a graduate of a historically left leaning university. However, professors and historians that influenced me included both the Thatcherite GR Elton and the Marxist Christopher Hill. My politics lean to the left yet for some reason I'm a Royalist. Although a royalist my interest in history and archaeology is geared to the mundane of the everyday life of your average bloke in the street. I'm a northerner, from a working class family, however, I've lived a life of some privilege working mostly abroad in the remains of the once British Empire amongst people of different colour and faith. These things don't make me unpatriotic, they don't make me a leftist loony or a right wing fanatic, or indeed workshy, but they do form the context for my views on life. The same thing applies to the publishers of news articles and those that publish them. When I read characters like Littlejohn I take into account he works for a publication that in an article on the Top 100 Black Heroes lists Niger Val Dub the Pictish King, his record of reprimands and liable cases and that he lives in Florida. When I read Afua Hirsch I take into account she's of Ghanaian, English Jewish descent and works as a writer, broadcaster, barrister and human rights development worker and adjust my responses to all accordingly.

What Afua Hirsch is saying is that without historical context Nelson is just a one-dimensional bloke stood on a pillar covered in pigeon crap. And Nelson was so much more than that as were those that served with and under him.

 

 

[Poppy]

14 hours ago, Timbo said:

What complete and utter cobblers!

No, No, not the article by Afua Hirsch on the need for improving the way in which the context of our history is presented to the public, but some of the comments in this thread.

Am I to take it that as I understood the general thrust of her article, that as an historian I understand the need for context in history, accept that as a once colonial power the seamier side of our history is also worth studying and I was quick enough to understand, unlike the gutter press, she was not positing removing Nelson from the Corinthian Column...you all think I'm a feather brained lefty, and therefore worthy of castigation? 

 

 

Excellent post Timbo. I fear we're hearing too much from Su/Mail/Express readers. Thanks for the ballance.

[Poppy]

18 minutes ago, Timbo said:

Have any of you actually read Afua Hirsch's article? Have any of you met her? I have, on both counts. 

Her article IS NOT ABOUT PULLING DOWN NELSON'S COLUMN.  It is an article about HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Afua is talking about ADDING to our understanding of history not REMOVING it. She is using the CONTEXT of pulling down monuments to historical figures in other countries to explore the contributions of other races, creeds and colours to OUR history. There is much more to Nelson than the decisions he made during fleeting moments in battle.

To better understand Nelson and his contribution the moods, conditions and attitudes prevalent at the time, which contributed to his actions in life are extremely important. So too are the contributions of others. Many here will be familiar with the BA's attempts to tamper with the history of Broadland...Thorpe Island for one. I seem to remember Vaughan providing important 'historical context' in that matter.

Historical context does not mean attacking a historical figure, it's a means of assessing the impact of a person or event upon history. Without understanding the world that Nelson lived in, his contribution is less. Without understanding the contributions of other races, creeds, colours, religions and political persuasions our understanding of history and the impact of an event like Trafalgar is extremely limited. We end up with last years idiocy over the Polish Spitfire, this year's twaddle of moaning about 'black Romans'...and the list goes on. As Afua points out, one side of the argument regarding the removal of historical monuments is that those monuments are there so that we can learn from history.

Look at the context of what you are reading and who wrote it. For example, I am a graduate of a historically left leaning university. However, professors and historians that influenced me included both the Thatcherite GR Elton and the Marxist Christopher Hill. My politics lean to the left yet for some reason I'm a Royalist. Although a royalist my interest in history and archaeology is geared to the mundane of the everyday life of your average bloke in the street. I'm a northerner, from a working class family, however, I've lived a life of some privilege working mostly abroad in the remains of the once British Empire amongst people of different colour and faith. These things don't make me unpatriotic, they don't make me a leftist loony or a right wing fanatic, or indeed workshy, but they do form the context for my views on life. The same thing applies to the publishers of news articles and those that publish them. When I read characters like Littlejohn I take into account he works for a publication that in an article on the Top 100 Black Heroes lists Niger Val Dub the Pictish King, his record of reprimands and liable cases and that he lives in Florida. When I read Afua Hirsch I take into account she's of Ghanaian, English Jewish descent and works as a writer, broadcaster, barrister and human rights development worker and adjust my responses to all accordingly.

What Afua Hirsch is saying is that without historical context Nelson is just a one-dimensional bloke stood on a pillar covered in pigeon crap. And Nelson was so much more than that as were those that served with and under him.

 

 

Pearls before swine here Timbo, I fear.

[Vaughan]

52 minutes ago, Timbo said:

Her article IS NOT ABOUT PULLING DOWN NELSON'S COLUMN.  It is an article about HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Afua is talking about ADDING to our understanding of history not REMOVING it.

Timbo I thoroughly agree with what you say in principle but as the OP who started this discussion (for my sins!) I would like a moment to explain exactly what it was that I object to :

I have nothing against Afua (since we are now using her name) on the grounds of her age, her sex, her race, her up-bringing, her education or any of the other usual stereo-types, although these may be factors which serve to form her own opinions.

I must remind everyone that my post was based on what I heard in her original interview on Sky News that night when even the Sky presenter announced himself astounded at what she was saying. She did indeed propose that Nelson's statue should be pulled down as it was, in her words - "the glorification of a white supremacist". She went on to accuse Nelson of having used his power and influence to speak against the freeing of slaves in the West Indies. Since then she has offered no documented proof (at least on television) to back up such a potentially slanderous accusation.

I strongly object to this for two reasons :-

1/. Working on the basis of what she actually said on television (Sky News in Trafalgar square and later that night when interviewed in the studio) I feel that I have successfully destroyed her argument with the use of historical and chronological fact, which she has not provided herself.

2/. She accuses Nelson of using his power and influence, but has she not done the same? If I wrote to the EDP and said that Nelson's statue should be pulled down they would dismiss me as an ill-informed crank and most certainly would not print my letter! She, however, is a National Daily journalist and can make her voice heard as she wishes. She may not yet have realised that this privilege should come with a heavy responsibility, to report the news and not to try to make it for herself.

I see this as a blatant piece of gratuitous self - aggrandisement where she has used her own power and influence to try and sway the opinion of the general public, simply by "stirring it" . For which, she should know better.

I hope that explains my objection?

 

 

[Timbo]

""I have ever been, and shall die a firm friend of our colonial system. I was bred as you know in the good old school, and was taught to appreciate the value of our West Indies possessions, and neither in the field nor in the senate, shall their interests be infringed while I have an arm to fight in their defence or a tongue to launch my voice against the damnable and accursed doctrine of William Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies, and I hope my birth in heaven will be as exalted as his, who would certainly cause the murder of all our friends and fellow subjects in the colonies; however, I do not intend to go so far, but the sentiments are full in my heart and the pen would write them."

Letter from Nelson to James Taylor of Jamaica dated Victory, off Matinico June 10th 1805.

History is always a bit murky Vaughan, and it's often difficult to track down primary evidence, particularly when the establishment you are researching are trying very hard indeed to cover their tracks. Our 'local boy' done good was used, even after his death, by the opponents of the abolition movement, with this document presented to Parliament in opposition to the abolition bill.

You are quite correct in your summation of historical events, but history doesn't seem to work in finite. Abolition was a long time in coming. The 'Slave Trade' was indeed abolished in 1807. However, the abolition of slavery did not arrive until 1833 and it was not until 1838 that slavery was abolished in the colonies and even then emancipation of slaves still dragged on. As you can see from Nelson's letter he was very much 'anti abolition'. But then so were many of the establishment. The Church of England were slave owners! Gladstone's maiden parliamentary speech was in support of slavery.

I found it interesting to note that as part of the abolition act the slave owners were bailed out by the British Government. Prior to the 2009 banking bailout, it was the largest in British history. I also found it interesting that as part of the abolition act the slaves were expected to do forty hours of unpaid labour a week for four years for their previous masters. Is it just me or the thought of a few bankers doing forty hours a week of unpaid labour for four years seem appealing?

The American Civil War caused quite a few headaches for the British Government. Their official stance was one of neutrality however, sympathies lay with the Confederacy. On the other hand, the sympathies of the working class people of Britain lay with the Union. Look at the relationship between the City of Manchester and Abraham Lincoln...statue and everything! 

I think it was Eduard de Stoeckl the Russian diplomat to Washington that commented along the lines of "The Cabinet in London is watching closely the internal dissensions of the Union and awaits the result with an impatience which it has difficulty in disguising" or something similar.

Then, of course, was the Trent Crisis, which saw Union officers board a British mail ship and taking Confederate diplomats bound for London. This had 11,000 British Troops shipped to Canada, the Royal Navy put on a war footing with orders to capture New York.

All of which has meant a very pleasurable afternoon's reading thanks to your good self and Miss Hirsch, which i think was what she was after provoking with her article during Black History Week.

[ExSurveyor]

Thank you Vaughan and Timbo for some enlightening reading before my siesta .

Intelligent and factual debate and not a raised voice.

[Vaughan]

On 8/25/2017 at 08:37, Vaughan said:

I was thinking, if this journalist girl had preferred to suggest that in those days, the 'pressing" of young men off the street and forcing them into a lifetime at sea in warships as prisoners of the Navy was, itself, a barbaric form of slavery and piracy, she might have had more ground for an argument!

I think this earlier post should show that I am prepared to be objective about history. In my opinion the policy of the press gangs ranks right up there, with the traditional "slavery" that we are discussing. Nelson, however, was known for the good treatment of his ships' companies and the abolition of flogging and other punishments in the ships of his command.

I don't know how to quote two things off different pages of the same thread, so I will start another post. . . . . .

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, Timbo said:

I was bred as you know in the good old school, and was taught to appreciate the value of our West Indies possessions, and neither in the field nor in the senate, shall their interests be infringed while I have an arm to fight in their defence

This, again, has to be taken in the context of who is saying it. A career naval officer, now a senior admiral, speaking at the height of the Napoleonic wars, when Britain wasn't doing very well as it happened, before Trafalgar! The British colonial islands of the Lesser Antilles were a vital strategic base for the Navy, so soon after the American War of Independence. Others of the Islands were French and Dutch so the Navy had to have a strong presence to keep the sea-lanes open - In the same way that Gibraltar and Malta were invaluable to the RN in WW11, as were the Philippines to the Americans. I am no historian, but look objectively at that text above. What did he really mean,? Was he just trying to involve himself in the politics of plantation slavery? Was he speaking as an anti-abolitionist or as a senior and well renowned naval strategist? He died only 4 months later, so this letter, much quoted afterwards, is not a lot to go on.

As it happens, I spent half a year in the Caribbean in the late 60's and the charter yacht that I was crewing on was based on Nelson's Dockyard in English Harbour, Antigua. This beautifully preserved place gave me the chance to learn a bit about Nelson as well as the history of the Islands themselves. I lived among the Caribbean people, both as crew on the yachts and as a guest in their own, corrugated iron, homes. Here you have a people who are ALL descended from slaves. I have great respect for them and their French patois culture and have never met a happier or more friendly people in my life. They don't walk down the street on their way to work - they dance, with a swing in their hips! I very much doubt that they would comprehend the sort of agonising about their history that we now indulge in, in the "developed" western world.

I think the point is that Tim, myself and others here can enjoy serious debate (and it is enjoyable and educational) but none of all this has been said by Afua Hirsh herself. All she has done (at least on TV) is to use her privileged media position to spout an outrageous and controversial allegation, on the back of recent events in the states, without making any obvious effort to back up her rantings (for that is what they are) with any real historical argument.

 

[Vaughan]

On 26/08/2017 at 18:43, Vaughan said:

I think the point is that Tim, myself and others here can enjoy serious debate (and it is enjoyable and educational) but none of all this has been said by Afua Hirsh herself. All she has done (at least on TV) is to use her privileged media position to spout an outrageous and controversial allegation, on the back of recent events in the states, without making any obvious effort to back up her rantings (for that is what they are) with any real historical argument.

How things come back to repeat themselves, even 3 years later.

On the subject of Nelson and his statue, I recommend members to this thread, where we discussed it at length.

[tim]

i just started to read this thread and started to 'like' a few posts, I hadn't realised it was written 3 years ago until a few posts in!

My god, could've been written yesterday, you won't find anyone more anti racist than me, and I'm quite prepared to tell people when they are, but you cant re-write history!

What are we going to do next, go into libraries and rip pages out of books?

We need to remember the past, to help us be better more educated people in the future

[CambridgeCabby]

I urge anyone who has not seen them to watch one of the numerous documentaries concerning the sex slavery that is going on in Europe TODAY , the effort and actions of the activists would be better employed trying to stop what is actually going on now as opposed to trying to change history (which cannot be changed but can and has been learned from )

 

[Wussername]

History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?”

― Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Wussername

[Poppy]

These statues need to be removed, as they are very offensive to many people. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

You'll upset the 'Gingers', especially square ones!

[Poppy]

57 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

You'll upset the 'Gingers', especially square ones!

[JennyMorgan]

Perhaps they didn't wish to stand out as a crowd!

[Turnoar]

17 hours ago, tim said:

i just started to read this thread and started to 'like' a few posts, I hadn't realised it was written 3 years ago until a few posts in!

My god, could've been written yesterday, you won't find anyone more anti racist than me, and I'm quite prepared to tell people when they are, but you cant re-write history!

What are we going to do next, go into libraries and rip pages out of books?

We need to remember the past, to help us be better more educated people in the future

Looking forward to libraries reopening so I can borrow a copy of Fahrenheit 451, only ever seen the film but with current events an historical perspective might make an interesting read, just hope any remaining copies haven’t been burnt!