Calls to make black, asian and minority ethnic history compulsory

Telling a truth is not rewriting history.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Telling a truth is not rewriting history.

Skewing the truth, erasing its objects, omitting the positive effects of GB on the past world and making the indigenous British population out to be racists and unwelcome in their own country will end up with history being rewritten.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Skewing the truth, erasing its objects, omitting the positive effects of GB on the past world and making the indigenous British population out to be racists and unwelcome in their own country will end up with history being rewritten.

That’s not telling the truth and if history has already been rewritten then it’s time to rewrite it again to reflect the true history of everyone not let those who won elections and wars be the only arbiters of the truth.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Skewing the truth, erasing its objects, omitting the positive effects of GB on the past world and making the indigenous British population out to be racists and unwelcome in their own country will end up with history being rewritten.

Adding voices and experiences to history is not skewing the truth or erasing objects.

Being realistic about the effects of GB on the past world isn't a bad thing. That can be both acknowledging the positives and negatives of that.

And what on earth do you mean by 'indegenous'?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Adding voices and experiences to history is not skewing the truth or erasing objects.

Being realistic about the effects of GB on the past world isn't a bad thing. That can be both acknowledging the positives and negatives of that.

And what on earth do you mean by 'indegenous'?

I should not really allow myself to be drawn but I can't resist.

I'll answer your question by saying this: I forecast that in about 90 years, our successors will all be facing East.

[BenMcr]

Considering we already do as part of the national religion, I don't doubt it.

But you've still not explained what you mean by indigenous. You must have a explicit reason for using the word that you're happy to explain properly. Otherwise why use it?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Considering we already do as part of the national religion, I don't doubt it.

But you've still not explained what you mean by indigenous. You must have a explicit reason for using the word that you're happy to explain properly. Otherwise why use it?

Everybody else with an ounce of common sense knows exactly what I mean by the term "indigenous". Think of "indigenous Australians" for example. I get the feeling that you want to draw me into a very difficult discussion that really isn't necessary.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Everybody else with an ounce of common sense knows exactly what I mean by the term "indigenous". Think of "indigenous Australians" for example. I get the feeling that you want to draw me into a very difficult discussion that really isn't necessary.

The Australian First Nations have a history that dates back 50,000 years.

We in the UK are made up of a range of historical groups none of which go back that far with the biggest additions to the the culture and population of the British Isles before our visits to other areas of the world I believe were Germanic tribes for the Anglo-Saxons, and Norse Vikings in the form of the Normans.

As for drawing you into a very difficult discussion, why is it difficult? You chose to use the word 'indigenous', so why do you now not want to talk about what you mean by that?

[Blackshep]

This is not the time for revising the teaching of history far too many agenda's and zealots mean it would become a very slanted presentation.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

This is not the time for revising the teaching of history far too many agenda's and zealots mean it would become a very slanted presentation.

Unlike the slanted presentation it already has due to being written by zealots ?

I'll bet you think Jesus was white as well.....

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

This is not the time for revising the teaching of history far too many agenda's and zealots mean it would become a very slanted presentation.

That has always and will always be the case unfortunately.

It takes a recognition of that to avoid it.

[Blackshep]

I'm an atheist but think Jesus for those who believe in him\it is whatever they choose. There is no such thing as a concrete version of history it always gets slanted but in the last two year's I've lost count of how many time's I've been called racist, benefiting from a privilege and an oppressor. Funny thing is it's from people who judge me on my skin colour while telling me how evil it is that I'm doing it because they say I am. Yeah sounds like the perfect time to rewrite thing's.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The Australian First Nations have a history that dates back 50,000 years.

We in the UK are made up of a range of historical groups none of which go back that far with the biggest additions to the the culture and population of the British Isles before our visits to other areas of the world I believe were Germanic tribes for the Anglo-Saxons, and Norse Vikings in the form of the Normans.

As for drawing you into a very difficult discussion, why is it difficult? You chose to use the word 'indigenous', so why do you now not want to talk about what you mean by that?

We in the UK are made up of a range of historical groups none of which go back that far with the biggest additions to the the culture and population of the British Isles before our visits to other areas of the world I believe were Germanic tribes for the Anglo-Saxons, and Norse Vikings in the form of the Normans.

Your paragraph is not inconsistent with my argument. The indigenous Brits that arose from those migrations from Europe then developed a British culture as we now know it - and which differs somewhat from European culture. All that will be gone when we have to face East.

As for drawing you into a very difficult discussion, why is it difficult? You chose to use the word 'indigenous', so why do you now not want to talk about what you mean by that?

See my paragraph above.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your paragraph is not inconsistent with my argument. The indigenous Brits that arose from those migrations from Europe then developed a British culture as we now know it - and which differs somewhat from European culture. All that will be gone when we have to face East.

Our culture is not set in aspic.

What our culture was when the country was majority 'Anglo-Saxons' is not what it was when it was 'Norman' or 'Tudor' or 'Victorian'. Things change and adapt to the people that are part of society.

A good chunk of the country faces East every Sunday. So if that's not what you mean, why are not willing to explicit in what you do mean?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Unlike the slanted presentation it already has due to being written by zealots ?

I'll bet you think Jesus was white as well.....

I've seen the movie he was white and English.