Quote: "They cite their fields of expertise as ‘uncovering marginalised and silenced histories, figures, and cultural expressions’; ‘themes of identity, and the inter-relationship between race, power and language’; ‘visual representations of Black emotionality and melancholy’; ‘people, place, and object-based commodification, performing furniture to explore themes of race and gender.’"
Some day, I imagine, they'll realize how lucky they are (or were) to be living in a Western society. Let's hope that it lasts.
Re. 3: It just occurred to me: Trump isn't Hitler . . . he's Napoleon III. Not perhaps as sensitive to the perceptions and opinions of others, but bear with me. Louis Napoleon had a number of attempted coups; he was, to a rather lenient extent persecuted by the Orleanist regime; he escaped from prison (read present-day lawfare); he was inordinately fond of the British monarchy; he was something of a narcissist and came from a family of self-made entrepreneurs; he (along with the prefect Baron Haussman) started the rebuilding of Paris that is now La Cite des lumieres (OK, a ballroom and strictures to build new federal buildings in a classical style are the best I can come up with for Le Trump, so far). He married a beautiful non-French woman (Eugénie de Montijo). He revitalized France's influence in Europe and interfered in the Risorgimento (on both sides!).
Actually, the more I write about it, the greater the parallels.
Let us hope that (a) there is no December 1851 self-coup or (b) the battle of Sedan (1870)!
Re. 8: L.P. Hartley famously stated: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." Trying to understand the actions and motivations of our ancestors is the (often frustrated and frustrating) joy of a historian. Why, then, exert no noticeable work and trot out arch left wing tropes in the voice of a historical figure of which you know next to nothing? Except, of course, to SHOUT your self-righteous message at all who read your pompous prose as an example of your own heavily-worn virtue?
Apologies for the purple prose, but I am afraid that, of all the many many things about this present age of dross the ahistorical and extremely selective treatment of the past annoys me perhaps the most. Olugosa's "Empire" is a prime example of it, but better, more erudite and articulate men (Professors Goldman and Biggar among others) have exposed these lies and factual contortions to besmirch the history of our country and its citizens.
Trump is sui generis. I'm having trouble thinking of any major leader in history who was obviously senescent and hence incompetent yet who was proclaimed such a genius by his cult-like followers.
Quote: "They cite their fields of expertise as ‘uncovering marginalised and silenced histories, figures, and cultural expressions’; ‘themes of identity, and the inter-relationship between race, power and language’; ‘visual representations of Black emotionality and melancholy’; ‘people, place, and object-based commodification, performing furniture to explore themes of race and gender.’"
Some day, I imagine, they'll realize how lucky they are (or were) to be living in a Western society. Let's hope that it lasts.
Merry Christmas Ed! 7 and 5 in the above list are really good!
I must respectfully disagree: Everything on the list is really good!
Your opinion is noted!
Thank you!
You’ve provided plenty of excellent reading Ed - multos annos!
thank you!
Merry Christmas (or Foxing Day, if you celebrate), Ed.
Thank you Dave, and for being (I think) my top referrer
5 is the best piece of original writing I've read this year, thank you. A new way of understanding recent history.
Thank you so much
I love the eclectic mix of topics you cover, Ed, and you generally find an unusual angle on whatever you write about.
Thank you Richard!
Ed:
Re. 3: It just occurred to me: Trump isn't Hitler . . . he's Napoleon III. Not perhaps as sensitive to the perceptions and opinions of others, but bear with me. Louis Napoleon had a number of attempted coups; he was, to a rather lenient extent persecuted by the Orleanist regime; he escaped from prison (read present-day lawfare); he was inordinately fond of the British monarchy; he was something of a narcissist and came from a family of self-made entrepreneurs; he (along with the prefect Baron Haussman) started the rebuilding of Paris that is now La Cite des lumieres (OK, a ballroom and strictures to build new federal buildings in a classical style are the best I can come up with for Le Trump, so far). He married a beautiful non-French woman (Eugénie de Montijo). He revitalized France's influence in Europe and interfered in the Risorgimento (on both sides!).
Actually, the more I write about it, the greater the parallels.
Let us hope that (a) there is no December 1851 self-coup or (b) the battle of Sedan (1870)!
Re. 8: L.P. Hartley famously stated: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." Trying to understand the actions and motivations of our ancestors is the (often frustrated and frustrating) joy of a historian. Why, then, exert no noticeable work and trot out arch left wing tropes in the voice of a historical figure of which you know next to nothing? Except, of course, to SHOUT your self-righteous message at all who read your pompous prose as an example of your own heavily-worn virtue?
Apologies for the purple prose, but I am afraid that, of all the many many things about this present age of dross the ahistorical and extremely selective treatment of the past annoys me perhaps the most. Olugosa's "Empire" is a prime example of it, but better, more erudite and articulate men (Professors Goldman and Biggar among others) have exposed these lies and factual contortions to besmirch the history of our country and its citizens.
Trump is sui generis. I'm having trouble thinking of any major leader in history who was obviously senescent and hence incompetent yet who was proclaimed such a genius by his cult-like followers.