Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

War on Woke: Conservative Cultural Campaigning

It's probably unnecessary, but here's a personal example of how well "strict" works.

I'd have been around 7 or 8, and our "nature" class was taken by a stern and stony-faced headmaster who was well known for not tolerating any kind of deviation from his rules. We were doing "blackbirds", and one of our tasks was to draw and colour in a male and female blackbird. Which I duly did, and was reasonably pleased with the result, which we had to hand in.

The following week, the teacher walks in with a pile of exercise books under his arm, and starts handing them back, with a few comments for each one. As the pile grew smaller, I grew more apprehensive, until there was just one book left, which, by a process of elimination, I realised must be mine. Whether it was my discomfiture, or something else, that fact was pretty obvious to the other 30 kids in the room, and all eyes were on me as he, in a voice like thunder, demanded I came to the front of the room, and he brandished my exercise book at me, open at my picture of the two blackbirds. "What is this?", he raged. I didn't have to profess incomprehension, because I had no idea what he meant. His finger stabbed at the picture of the female, "WHAT IS THIS?", he asked again, and, terrified, I couldn't answer - not just because I was terrified, but because I had no idea what he was on about. I can't remember what I said...I just stammered something. I was ordered to bend over the front desk, while he - unbeknown to me - went somewhere and took out a plimsoll, which he then hit me on the backside with several times. Actually, it didn't hurt that much, but having to hide my pain while looking directly into the face of the child sitting at the desk I was leant over was rather more distressing - it's that I remember rather than the pain of the beating: I felt utterly, utterly humiliated, for some crime I didn't know I'd committed. Shame, and the unlikelihood of parental intervention, meant that I never told anyone of it.

But I recall asking him what the beating was for. He replied, "Dumb insolence", and I then had to do the walk of shame to my desk, with every eye in that classroom following me. I didn't cry - I'd already learned that crying usually made things worse, but seven-year-old me died a little inside as I went and sat down. He must have shown the picture to the class, because I recall a few chants about "green" in the playground later.

Some months later, the school nurse did her rounds, and one of the things she asked me/us to do was some of the Isihara colour-blindness tests, which resulted in the revelation that I was red/green colour blind. I have no idea if it was just me who did those tests, or if it was routine. But, either because somehow I was told, or because I figured it out myself, I realised that my inability to distinguish brown from green was what resulted in my public humiliation and beating: I had coloured in the female blackbird green, not brown. And, I assume, because this teacher was all about compliance and conformity, he automatically assumed that my error was a deliberate one designed to spite him, and punished me accordingly.

Meanwhile, incidentally, my (dyslexic and left-handed) brother was having his hand hit with a ruler every time a teacher caught him using his left hand to write.

OK, I know we don't beat primary school kids any more, but we certainly haven't moved past the stage of humiliating them in public, and that experience was an extremely formative one for me, which, some half a century later, still influences my thinking.

And the biggest lesson of that experience was that powerful people can be wrong. And their power often lies in their refusal to admit that. Nobody came to me and apologised, or explained what had happened: it was left to me to figure out - alone - why I had had to suffer like that. If ever there was a moment when I learned that injustice could be done without consequence, it was then.

Which has had two effects on me: one, a deep and profound disregard for those who exercise overweening power and control over others, and two; a burning rage against injustice and callous conformism, which manifested as a growing and increasingly blatant defiance of authority. If I was going to be punished for "dumb insolence" for an honest and unavoidable mistake, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, and what they got was not-always-so-dumb insolence. I wrote essays in which the protagonists would use language that was decidedly outwith the acceptable norms. I developed a style of passive-aggressive satire which formed the foundation of a lot of how I write nowadays. And, in something of a masterstroke, I defied my teachers by mastering writing with my left hand, sometimes even in mirror writing (not very good), in some kind of misguided gesture of solidarity with my brother.

And I got hit a lot. But I'd learned not to care, not even - or so it seemed - about the humiliation.

So when I see the antics of the likes of Birbalsing, I am taken back to those dying days of the 1960s, and the deliberate humiliation I was made to suffer for being "different" - because they assumed that any difference meant defiance. And a part of me - that increasingly angry, idealistic 8 year old - will not let that go unchallenged. Were fifty-something year old me to be back in that situation, that teacher would have been equally publicly humiliated by me in a way that small child could never have achieved...though I suspect that my efforts went some way towards pushing back at the system in general.

Which is why I cannot, and will not, accept that forced conformity will ever be a humane or valid way of enforcing discipline on children, not least because you will never know, as you clamp down ever harder on those children, and as that headmaster didn't stop to consider, that there may be very valid and unavoidable reasons why any given child is apparently "refusing" to conform.

And that is a hill I would happily die on. I reserve the deepest disdain for adults whose need for control is so overwhelming that they choose to inflict it on a group of people who have no possible chance of standing up for themselves. Fuck that.

A great post that brings back a lot of similar unpleasant memories for me. Such treatment turned me into a bloody minded nonconformist suspicious of any attempts by those in authority to “come down on me like a ton of bricks”. It got to the stage at secondary school where I realised teachers’ power was something the worst ones hid behind and certain rules were so ludicrous as to be unenforceable so would frequently stand up in class, mutter “Fuck this..” and leave for the day. My parents took me to a psychiatrist to try and get to the root of my “trouble” but I’m still a bloody minded so-and-so suspicious of authority who feels great anger at unfairness. I think that’s a positive thing.
 
A great post that brings back a lot of similar unpleasant memories for me. Such treatment turned me into a bloody minded nonconformist suspicious of any attempts by those in authority to “come down on me like a ton of bricks”. It got to the stage at secondary school where I realised teachers’ power was something the worst ones hid behind and certain rules were so ludicrous as to be unenforceable so would frequently stand up in class, mutter “Fuck this..” and leave for the day. My parents took me to a psychiatrist to try and get to the root of my “trouble” but I’m still a bloody minded so-and-so suspicious of authority who feels great anger at unfairness. I think that’s a positive thing.

The most vicious fight I had with my late father was over the lyrics of a Bowie song.

Cygnet Committee.

And I close my eyes and tighten up my brain
For I once read a book in which the lovers were slain
For they knew not the words of the Free States' refrain
It said:
"I believe in the power of good
I believe in the state of love
I will fight for the right to be right
I will kill for the good of the fight for the right to be right"

He could not understand the concept of being right, but because of circumstance, not being able to be right. A teacher for example who states something which you know to be wrong, but you cannot challenge it. I did challenge it on one occasion, and was struck on the face by a drunk geography teacher.
 
The most vicious fight I had with my late father was over the lyrics of a Bowie song.

Cygnet Committee.

And I close my eyes and tighten up my brain
For I once read a book in which the lovers were slain
For they knew not the words of the Free States' refrain
It said:
"I believe in the power of good
I believe in the state of love
I will fight for the right to be right
I will kill for the good of the fight for the right to be right"

He could not understand the concept of being right, but because of circumstance, not being able to be right. A teacher for example who states something which you know to be wrong, but you cannot challenge it. I did challenge it on one occasion, and was struck on the face by a drunk geography teacher.

I recall Bowie being the cause of an argument between me and my old man. I was watching the official video for the then just released “Boys Keep Swinging” and he was disgusted at the sight of Bowie in drag (playing his 3 backing singers) and how they walked to the front of the stage in turn, threw off their wigs and smeared their make up. Suppose it was one “gender bending” stunt too far for him.
He did mellow out a bit later on but our main point of contention was his defence of religion when it causes believers of one faith to regard those not of that faith as lesser and treat them in a discriminatory way. I do regret that the last coherent discussion we ever had was a pretty fiery exchange on that subject - before a brain tumour robbed him of all reason and dignity. Mind you, I still maintain that I was right not to accept anything less than equal treatment from anyone - even if their faith has taught them otherwise.
 
I heard Iain Sinclair talking about his new book Gold Machine and he brought up the role of Kew Gardens in plantation colonialism - something i wasnt aware of before.
A little overview of sorts here To what extent is the colonial history of botany realised at Kew Gardens today?

Anyhow Kew have been making small steps to fess up to this history and also make gardening that bit less posh-white- radio-4-racist
...cue Tory outrage etc
On a related note, decent recent LRB article on history wars:

‘We won’t allow people to censor our past,’ Robert Jenrick, then communities secretary, said in January. ‘It is our privilege in this country to have inherited a deep, rich, fascinating and yes, often complex, past. We are mature enough as a society to understand that and to seek to pass it on, warts and all. To do otherwise would leave our history and future diminished.’ A month later, Oliver Dowden, then culture secretary and now co-chair of the Conservative Party, made a similar point: ‘Proud and confident nations face their past squarely; they do not seek to run from or airbrush the history upon which they are founded ... Purging uncomfortable elements of our past does nothing but damage our understanding of it.’

Jenrick and Dowden’s emphasis on the freedom of historians to carry out research into uncomfortable topics, and their recognition of the complexities and ambiguities that characterise Britain’s history, is salutary. No historian would disagree. But if we look closer, we find that Jenrick and Dowden’s statements are not quite what they seem. They rightly condemn any threat to erase significant parts of British history from the record, but this threat doesn’t originate from the ‘woke worthies’ and ‘the flash mob’ of the left, as Jenrick thinks, or the ‘cancel culture’ that Dowden condemned at the Conservative Party Conference in October, but from the Conservative government itself. As Dominic Dean, of the University of Sussex, put it in his blog in February, ‘the UK government is currently engaged in an open and multilayered campaign to control and change the nature and quality of historical research in Britain and, in particular, of its presentation to the public.’

It is a sad reflection on British politics that this is all the result of deepening research into Britain’s role in the slave trade. As part of this work, and spurred on by the Black Lives Matter movement, many institutions in Britain have been examining the extent to which they directly or indirectly profited from the trade before it was outlawed in 1807, and from plantations worked by enslaved people in British colonial possessions before the formal abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833. One of these institutions is the National Trust, a public body responsible for managing many of England’s historic properties, including a large number of stately homes. In 2018 the trust launched a schools-focused project called Colonial Countryside, pointing out that

British country houses were influential centres of colonial wealth and bureaucracy. As historians take new approaches to British imperial history, utilising recent resources like the Legacies of British Slave-Ownership database, less familiar and often newly discovered colonial stories of our places are being uncovered ... The project’s legacy will be to ensure that colonial connections are integral to the stories that audiences discover during their visit.
Discovering and presenting to the public new knowledge about the English country house is an admirable way for the National Trust to deepen and broaden appreciation of the complex histories of the buildings in its care. But the project has attracted fierce criticism from Conservative politicians and journalists who clearly think it a subject best left in decent obscurity. In February, Marco Longhi, Tory MP for Dudley North, called for government funding to be withheld from such initiatives, run by people who ‘hate our history and seek to rewrite it’. The National Trust’s plans (as well as the National Maritime Museum’s scrutiny of Nelson’s involvement with slavery) were, Longhi alleged, ‘a form of Marxism applied to our cultural and heritage sector’ by people ‘who want to apply today’s standards to events and people of decades and hundreds of years ago’. It was entirely wrong, he said, to use taxpayers’ money ‘to effectively besmirch our heroes to suit their left-wing woke narrative’. In the Telegraph, Charles Moore complained that the National Trust had been ‘rolled over by extremists’, and Andrew Brigden, another Tory MP, that it had been ‘overtaken by divisive Black Lives Matter supporters’. The Telegraph, the Express and the Daily Mail all reported that displays at Jane Austen’s house in Chawton would carry out ‘historical interrogation’ of ‘Austen’s tea drinking’ and its links to slavery. This, the papers solemnly declared, was ‘woke madness’. In fact, Austen’s father was a trustee of an Antigua sugar plantation, worked by enslaved people. The museum responded: ‘We are increasingly asked questions about this by our visitors and it is therefore appropriate that we share the information and research that exists on [Austen’s] connections to slavery and its mention in her novels.’

One of those involved in Colonial Countryside is Corinne Fowler, a professor of postcolonial literature at Leicester University and co-author of a list of 93 National Trust properties built on money earned from plantations run by enslaved workers, or from slave ownership, or furnished with the lavish compensation paid to former slave owners after abolition. She feels that academics pursuing work like hers are being misrepresented, maligned and intimidated. ‘I think we should all be worried when academics are targeted in this way, when the evidence can’t be disputed.’ The National Trust’s director-general, Hilary McGrady, noted that complaints had only been received from 0.05 per cent of its 5.6 million members, and that a great many members had voiced their support of the Colonial Countryside project. There was no ‘revolt’ of the membership, as had been claimed in parts of the right-wing media. A 2020 survey found that more than three-quarters of the trust’s members thought it should do more to educate visitors on its properties’ colonial connections. The resignation in October of the trust’s chairman, Tim Parker, widely hyped in the same places as a victory against ‘wokeness’, was coincidental (his two-term tenure had come to an end, having been extended for a year because of the pandemic).

None of this made any difference to Dowden, who while still culture secretary said he would ban the use of public funds for Colonial Countryside. ‘Public funds should never be used for political purposes,’ he said, suggesting that the trust was violating the Charity Commission rule to this effect. And yet it was he who was disregarding the Haldane principle, which holds that decisions about the allocation of research funds should be made by researchers rather than politicians. This principle has been essential to the rise of British science and scholarship over the past hundred years and more. Where politicians have dictated research funding, as in Nazi Germany, the results have been catastrophic. German science has never recovered the eminence it enjoyed before 1933. Now, however, the British government has declared the Haldane principle obsolete. Dowden said so quite openly: ‘I would expect arm’s length bodies’ approach to issues of contested heritage to be consistent with the government’s position.’ No matter that if they follow this expectation, they will no longer be ‘arm’s length bodies’.

Dowden’s statements prompted the Royal Historical Society, the Historical Association (the national organisation of history teachers) and other academic bodies to register ‘concern’ about his ‘illegitimate’ interference in the funding of historical and heritage research. Referring to the National Lottery Heritage Fund’s support of Colonial Countryside, they pointed out that while the fund is not specifically protected by the Haldane principle, the Lottery Act does not make ministers responsible for funding decisions. In addition, the Charity Commission, which oversees the National Trust, had formally determined that Colonial Countryside wasn’t political. Political interference of the kind Dowden was attempting, the historians warned, ‘stifles the capacity of historians to do their work and exerts a wider chilling effect. It may deter – it may be intended to deter – historians from embarking on difficult or sensitive research.’ There is also evidence of interference in the museum sector, where trustees have apparently been threatened by the government with the non-renewal of their trusteeships if they endorse the ‘decolonisation’ of their institutions. When Mary Beard was put forward as a trustee of the British Museum, the government rejected her on the grounds that she was pro-EU (the museum appointed her anyway).
 
cont (this bit also has a valuable reminder of the libscum's complicity in this shit):
Another example of the government’s willingness to weaponise the past is Life in the United Kingdom: A Guide for New Residents, the information booklet on which applicants for naturalised British citizenship are examined as part of their admission process. In July 2020, the Historical Association posted a letter signed by 175 historians denouncing the document as ‘fundamentally misleading and in places demonstrably false’ in its account of slavery, the slave trade and the process of decolonisation. The first version of Life in the United Kingdom, produced in 2004 by the Labour government, acknowledged the presence of enslaved people in Britain and of Black people more generally in the British Isles in the 18th century, and pointed out that enslaved people played a significant role in securing their own emancipation. The 2013 edition, the first published under Conservative rule (at that time, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats), omitted all this and characterised emancipation as a gift to enslaved people from the British, who were seen as acting solely on moral grounds. The fact that tens of thousands died on British slave ships, mentioned in the 2004 and 2007 documents, was omitted from the 2013 version, which mentions only the ‘horrible conditions’ under which they were transported. The document also claims that slavery was illegal in Britain in the 18th century (it wasn’t – slaves were advertised for sale in newspapers). Slavery, it says, was an ‘overseas industry’. The 2005 and 2007 editions had conceded that any account of history ‘is only one interpretation. Historians often disagree.’ They also noted that contemporaries were themselves divided on matters such as the costs and benefits of empire. This pluralism disappeared in 2013, and instead we were told that ‘the great majority of British people believed in the empire as a force for good in the world.’

As the Birkbeck historian Frank Trentmann recently pointed out in his excellent analysis of Life in the United Kingdom, more recent history is similarly distorted by the 2013 document. Cutting out all reference to the appeasement pursued by British governments in the 1930s, the narrative simply says: ‘The British government tried to avoid another war.’ Churchill is denied the credit for opposing appeasement, jumping onto the stage of history when he is made prime minister in 1940. Hitler’s racism, mentioned in the 2004 and 2007 versions, doesn’t appear in the latest edition, which says merely that he ‘wanted to conquer more land for the German people’. Antisemitism doesn’t come up either. Nor does the word ‘Holocaust’. The document also claims that in the postwar period ‘there was, for the most part, an orderly transition from empire to commonwealth, with countries being granted their independence’, ignoring the millions of deaths that accompanied the partition of India, the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya and the ‘emergency’ in Malaya, to name just three violent and chaotic instances of decolonisation.

In trying to impose a single, supposedly patriotic narrative on historical teaching, research and public presentation, the Johnson government is far from unique. In September 2020, Donald Trump set up the 1776 Commission, an advisory body intended to encourage ‘patriotic education’. Trump had previously condemned the teaching of American history in schools, calling it a ‘twisted web of lies’ articulating a ‘radicalised view of American history’ which ‘vilified [the United States’] Founders and [its] founding’.

Packed with conservative ideologues, and without any historians of the US among its members, the commission reported the day before the election that would bring an end to Trump’s presidency. It told schools to reject ‘factional ideologies that demean America’s heritage, dishonour our heroes, or deny our principles’, and described universities as ‘hotbeds of anti-Americanism, libel and censorship’. American history, it affirmed, consisted of an ‘unprecedented achievement toward freedom, happiness, and fairness for all ... Americans yearn for timeless stories and noble heroes that inspire them to be good, brave, diligent, daring, generous, honest and compassionate.’ Within hours of his inauguration, Joe Biden dissolved the commission.

Rewriting the nation’s past as a story of continual and unbroken success isn’t just an Anglophone phenomenon. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s government, dissatisfied with the historians of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, has created its own historical ‘research institute’ and charged it with re-examining the history of the last 150 years ‘in the interest of national unity’, aiming ‘to strengthen national consciousness’. The government has also erected a memorial in central Budapest to the Hungarian victims of Nazism, one of many ways in which it is seeking to erase the memory of the Arrow Cross movement, the native Hungarian fascist regime installed by the Nazis in 1944, which played a central part in sending 450,000 Hungarians to their deaths at Auschwitz.

It should be said, of course, that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with ‘rewriting’ history. Historians rewrite history all the time: it’s our job. Our success and prestige depend on our discovering new facts and advancing new interpretations. There’s nothing very left-wing about this. Conservative historians like Lewis Namier and Geoffrey Elton have rewritten history in hugely influential ways. Historians of all stripes need to reclaim history as a contentious, critical and diverse discipline against the attempts of ignorant and mendacious governments to force citizens to conform to a particular version of it.

In Britain, one of the most depressing things about the purported defenders of history is that they seem to view school pupils, university students and indeed the general public as brainless receptacles for any old story. In reality people are more than able to think for themselves. It is time that this was accepted and used as the basis for teaching, writing and researching history in a way that helps citizens to distinguish fact from fiction, propaganda from truth, myth from history.
 
FHzlswMWQAQidlc
 
I think I may need to go on some kind of course before I know what this headline means.

Kew has been quite good at saying "as part of Britains fondness for discovering new lands and robbing them they also used plants as a method of control via breaking or enforcing monopolies. Sometimes they just stole them to see how they grew"

Many people are upset with this because plants aren't political*

*Everything's political
 
This latest piece of wankery. So much to unpack

'Our history', treated properly and not used a propaganda tool, should 'change' as we listen to and look for the narratives of a wider group of people and learn from that. That's what history does. It isn't totally fixed and unchanging.

One thing we have learned is what it's like when the wealthy and powerful control that narrative - and that it is A Bad Thing that results in actual history being erased (because what I hear loud and clear from this is 'It's only for authority to challenge history')

History isn't actually being 'changed' you moron, it's being revealed. There is one statue fewer of a rich white bloke no one had heard of before this in the first place, and actually is now probably better known after this. With the addition that it's understood he profited from the sale of human beings. Saw a great quote on Twitter yesterday: 'This isn't cancel culture, it's correction culture'


twats.jpg
 
This latest piece of wankery. So much to unpack

'Our history', treated properly and not used a propaganda tool, should 'change' as we listen to and look for the narratives of a wider group of people and learn from that. That's what history does. It isn't totally fixed and unchanging.

One thing we have learned is what it's like when the wealthy and powerful control that narrative - and that it is A Bad Thing that results in actual history being erased (because what I hear loud and clear from this is 'It's only for authority to challenge history')

History isn't actually being 'changed' you moron, it's being revealed. There is one statue fewer of a rich white bloke no one had heard of before this in the first place, and actually is now probably better known after this. With the addition that it's understood he profited from the sale of human beings. Saw a great quote on Twitter yesterday: 'This isn't cancel culture, it's correction culture'


View attachment 304876

Indeed. The pulling down of the egregious Colston statue wasn´t "changing" history; it was making it.
 
This latest piece of wankery. So much to unpack

'Our history', treated properly and not used a propaganda tool, should 'change' as we listen to and look for the narratives of a wider group of people and learn from that. That's what history does. It isn't totally fixed and unchanging.

One thing we have learned is what it's like when the wealthy and powerful control that narrative - and that it is A Bad Thing that results in actual history being erased (because what I hear loud and clear from this is 'It's only for authority to challenge history')

History isn't actually being 'changed' you moron, it's being revealed. There is one statue fewer of a rich white bloke no one had heard of before this in the first place, and actually is now probably better known after this. With the addition that it's understood he profited from the sale of human beings. Saw a great quote on Twitter yesterday: 'This isn't cancel culture, it's correction culture'


View attachment 304876

I'm guessing he didn't mean "Taking down a statue can't change our horrific slave-trading history, it's time to talk about reparations."
 
Quite. It's not like a statue tells you anything about history anyway is it, beyond 'this person was important in some way.' Anything past that isn't about history at all.

Yeah, a statue always comes with a story and local people's feelings etc. attached to it.
I'd say the jury's verdict was a good gauge to people's feelings, and I'm not someone who likes the idea of pulling statues down generally, though generally the circumstances differ.
 
Yeah, a statue always comes with a story and local people's feelings etc. attached to it.
I'd say the jury's verdict was a good gauge to people's feelings, and I'm not someone who likes the idea of pulling statues down generally, though generally the circumstances differ.
Human rights lawyer I follow on Twitter was saying that by clamping down on protest, the government may discover that backfiring as juries are likely be disinclined to jail people for what they will see as justifiable/reasonable protest.

Of course RW commentators are already huffing and puffing about how obviously this is why juries are terrible and these decisions must be left to a white men in his 70s. Funny sentiment coming from people who are determined to preserve 'British traditions' and 'the rule of law', like, y'know, juries.
 
I've never understood what 'woke' meant. I can't think of one instance where 'woke' has stopped me from doing anything I want. It's funny to me that something that has pretty much zero impact on anyone lives gets so much coverage in parts of the media.
 
I've never understood what 'woke' meant. I can't think of one instance where 'woke' has stopped me from doing anything I want. It's funny to me that something that has pretty much zero impact on anyone lives gets so much coverage in parts of the media.
It's a manufactured folk devil. Like "PC gorn maad" before it, and any amount of "you can't say this anymore, but..." bollocks.
 
Back
Top Bottom