Says the man refusing to engage any of my other posts throughout this thread.
BBC changing history
- Thread starter civver_764
- Start date
Says the man refusing to engage any of my other posts throughout this thread.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
Can't watch the 'offending' video, because it's 'not available in my area'.
But there's nothing inherently wrong with 'revision'. Scientists do it all the time, (most frequently) in the articles they write as their reviewers demand it (to correct errors, re-analyse data using more appropriate statistical techniques, fix wrong citations, etc.), or (much less frequently) in the paradigms they work under, as new evidence comes in.
And likewise, I don't see anything inherently wrong with historical revisionism -- especially when the 'original' versions of those histories were frequently authored/ published during the late 1700s and 1800s, by rich, white, male, self-proclaimed-authorities (often English/British), and often based at least as much on what would today be regarded as dubious sources (such as religious texts), as on primary evidence. And all this within an intellectual tradition that not only wasn't particularly big on self-critical/ moral equivocation, nor peer-review per se (beyond writers inserting oblique snarky comments in their own publications, criticising their ideological opponents -- often years after the fact), but that also quite often provided 'evidence' that was deliberately skewed to prop up the dominant social order of the day (i.e. rule by rich, white, male [English] landowners).
Fact is, the Roman Empire absorbed most of its Southern European, North African and Middle Eastern territories (long) before it started expanding into Northern Europe and the British Isles, and even if the first generation of the conquered peoples didn't willingly become citizens, the second generation usually did. And not only was military service one 'easy' route to citizenship , but Roman military personnel also moved around a lot, especially while the Empire continued to expand and conquer additional territory. So it's not a stretch even to imagine that there might have been (high-ranking) Roman citizens of North African extraction in Britain in 100 or 200 AD -- but fortunately, there's actual evidence that this was the case, as well.
And as for the idea that there were no dark-skinned people playing any sort of important historical role(s) in (Northern) Europe at all, ever, before the 20th century, that's patently nonsense. Hell, Shakespeare wrote a play back in the late 1500s/early 1600s, centred on (the backlash against) a marriage between a high-ranking black army officer and a white noblewoman (Senator's daughter) -- and that play wasn't even set in his 'present day', but around 100 years earlier (and possibly even with the 'Based on a True Story...!' subtitle, according to a Wikipedia-cited source that I can't access, because it's a book). Are we going to start calling Shakespeare a bleeding-heart progressive historical revisionist now...?
But there's nothing inherently wrong with 'revision'. Scientists do it all the time, (most frequently) in the articles they write as their reviewers demand it (to correct errors, re-analyse data using more appropriate statistical techniques, fix wrong citations, etc.), or (much less frequently) in the paradigms they work under, as new evidence comes in.
And likewise, I don't see anything inherently wrong with historical revisionism -- especially when the 'original' versions of those histories were frequently authored/ published during the late 1700s and 1800s, by rich, white, male, self-proclaimed-authorities (often English/British), and often based at least as much on what would today be regarded as dubious sources (such as religious texts), as on primary evidence. And all this within an intellectual tradition that not only wasn't particularly big on self-critical/ moral equivocation, nor peer-review per se (beyond writers inserting oblique snarky comments in their own publications, criticising their ideological opponents -- often years after the fact), but that also quite often provided 'evidence' that was deliberately skewed to prop up the dominant social order of the day (i.e. rule by rich, white, male [English] landowners).
Fact is, the Roman Empire absorbed most of its Southern European, North African and Middle Eastern territories (long) before it started expanding into Northern Europe and the British Isles, and even if the first generation of the conquered peoples didn't willingly become citizens, the second generation usually did. And not only was military service one 'easy' route to citizenship , but Roman military personnel also moved around a lot, especially while the Empire continued to expand and conquer additional territory. So it's not a stretch even to imagine that there might have been (high-ranking) Roman citizens of North African extraction in Britain in 100 or 200 AD -- but fortunately, there's actual evidence that this was the case, as well.
And as for the idea that there were no dark-skinned people playing any sort of important historical role(s) in (Northern) Europe at all, ever, before the 20th century, that's patently nonsense. Hell, Shakespeare wrote a play back in the late 1500s/early 1600s, centred on (the backlash against) a marriage between a high-ranking black army officer and a white noblewoman (Senator's daughter) -- and that play wasn't even set in his 'present day', but around 100 years earlier (and possibly even with the 'Based on a True Story...!' subtitle, according to a Wikipedia-cited source that I can't access, because it's a book). Are we going to start calling Shakespeare a bleeding-heart progressive historical revisionist now...?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The thread is straying off topic. The OP made some juicy comments.
Ironically the aim of showing a diverse range of skin colours of people interacting probably is to teach kids skin colour doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if you're white, tanned or black, you can fulfill any role regardless. Now, label that overblown pc, or racismphobia, or to put this in more loony toons kind of terms
The odd thing about your opening post is that you claim a clear malicious agenda, but then hide behind leading questions. Is that because you realise you'd be bonkers to openly state: The BBC is trying to normalize mass integration and
remove "whiteness" from the identity of Europeans guys! Is that the rational part of you interfering mid post going: Uhm ... civver ... maybe ... you know ... take the edge off the bollocks a bit?
What reason could the BBC have to normalize mass immigration or remove "whiteness" from the identity of Europeans? What's their motive?
The BBC has malicious intent. Beyond ideological, malicious. There is a clear agenda.
My guess is the same as we see in movies, games, series all around the world. While depicting whatever group of people, the fear to discriminate is present, so there will be a spectrum of skin colour available. Especially true for educational material.
Ironically the aim of showing a diverse range of skin colours of people interacting probably is to teach kids skin colour doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if you're white, tanned or black, you can fulfill any role regardless. Now, label that overblown pc, or racismphobia, or to put this in more loony toons kind of terms
Yeah. That must be the malicious hidden BBC agenda.
The odd thing about your opening post is that you claim a clear malicious agenda, but then hide behind leading questions. Is that because you realise you'd be bonkers to openly state: The BBC is trying to normalize mass integration and
remove "whiteness" from the identity of Europeans guys! Is that the rational part of you interfering mid post going: Uhm ... civver ... maybe ... you know ... take the edge off the bollocks a bit?
What reason could the BBC have to normalize mass immigration or remove "whiteness" from the identity of Europeans? What's their motive?
@tjs283: You are quite right but I am sure you know the difference between the "typical" and the "occasional/possible".
Is that Othello play you are talking about? That was set in Italy.
Is that Othello play you are talking about? That was set in Italy.
Berzerker
Deity
even a slave owning Roman commander, something we all should aspire to be
Lexicus
Deity
Warned for racism.
If the BBC were actually trying to remove whiteness from the identity of Europeans, I would help them any way I could because whiteness is something that needs to be killed with fire.
Moderator Action: Advocating for the removal of an ethnicity is against CFC's rules. Please do not make posts like this again. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
Shakespeare set several plays in Italy. What's your point?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
A bit of sun would do the trick wouldn't it?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
We got one off those. He's called Max Verstappen.
civver_764
Deity
Probably because the people running BBC have a vested interest in mass immigration and by taking away the identity of the native population you take away their ability to resist immigration. Especially teaching it to kids that don't know better.
Well, that's my theory at least.
And also because there is a lot of anti-white sentiment in the modern left, as our friend Lexicus is more than happy to display.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
What's the vested interest the BBC has in mass imigration?
The fear to discriminate is a wrong thing to have. We must approach reality mainly in positive way...
I dont think BBC is as much an entertainment as it is an educational venue. The two can go together but you shouldnt sacrifice historical truth in process.
I dont think you can teach people respect each other through twisting of truth and leveling everybody to the same standards through PC trying to achieve some sort of global uniformity. The contrary - the diversity is the answer together with realisation of essential psychological unity.
The trade between Italian republics and Orient/Africa was quite prominent as well as the war engagements att.
Last edited by a moderator:
Berzerker
Deity
were there black commanders in charge of building the wall?
Sure so was Merlin, all the knight of the round table and all the dynasties on English throne till present.
Last edited:
civver_764
Deity
That's an interesting question, what do you think it is? BBC's pro-immigration bias is well-documented, so there's obviously something going on.
A lot of it is probably innocent white-guilt. I can forgive that, but it should still be called out.
A lot of it could be immigrants working at BBC wanting more people like them to come over. Again, totally innocent, but it should still be called out.
Then there's the more nefarious motivations. More immigrants means cheaper labor, and it means more left-wing voters. I think it'd be foolish to deny that these motivations also play a role.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Thanks for the answer.
What I think I already made clear I feel. I obviously disagree.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Ooooh, F1. He seems a treat! Over here our NASCAR variety seem to spend all day making left hand only turns.
Septimus Severus was from nort Africa but he likely wasnt black. To be from north Africa doesnt mean you are likely to be black but rather the contrary.
Similar threads
