Political Correctness gone mad

Bob S
22nd June 2005, 18:45
Next week, during the Trafalgar 200 events in the Solent off Portsmouth, there will be a re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar except that it will be fought between the Red fleet and the Blue fleet… Why you ask, so that we do not upset the French. (Night)

Guest
22nd June 2005, 18:59
Next week, during the Trafalgar 200 events in the Solent off Portsmouth, there will be a re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar except that it will be fought between the Red fleet and the Blue fleet… Why you ask, so that we do not upset the French. (Night)

I'm appalled too.

I don't understand any of it. I heard that the phrase "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" was to be banned too. What on earth does that even mean ?

Time for us to clasp our Gauloise smoking, garlic chomping Gallic buddies to our breasts and admit that all that Napoleonic War stuff was just a bit of fun, Jeux Sans Frontieres style. We have to move on.

Is there any hint as to which side is which ? Oh, and do you think Nelson should play the joker or let Wellie use it at Waterloo ?

Dave

stevecz
22nd June 2005, 22:19
Some time ago in my boating magazine, Motorboats Monthly, they ran a feature called Skuttlebut. One of these stories really did amuse me at the time.
It was about a French Warship entering the Mersey on a courtesy visit to Liverpool. Apparently the French vessels Capitaine sent a complaint to the Liverpool Port Authority; the tugs they sent to assist were WATERLOO and TRAFALGAR.
(Frogger)
Perhaps we should have Trafalgar Day in Liverpool.

James_C
22nd June 2005, 23:14
Walport! I didn't realise they had been going about that long. We still use them for videos now, usually get about 120 every 3 months.
And now we're switching over to DVDs.

Pat McCardle
23rd June 2005, 15:25
Yes we would get I think 3 boxes every 6 months then 16mm film We would swope with other ships to get new ones to see . Thats why in trinco we swapped with city boat and their deck apprentice collected them but he had dropped the last rell in the water . He never told anyone . Our sparks Ian Hamilton had to tell them how it ended by the morse key .
Oh Happy days .
Ron

We, on Somerset, were about to watch Kidnapped. Amongst the crew we had 3 Lewismen, 1 from Fort William & a couple from Glasgow. The guy who was showing the film, who shall remain nameless, had been helping himself to the free beer that was laid on that night & managed to get the reel on back to front. So when the movie started all the words were all to hell.......but not for our shipmates north of the Border.........They thought it was Gaelic being spoken. Alas, they left the messroom in disgrace when the fault was found. Yes! Free beer = happy days!!(Daze) (Hippy)

cheddarnibbles
23rd June 2005, 15:49
Whilst in the Panama Canal on Hinakura, a number of ships were dressed overall.
Why all the bunting ? said the old man to the pilot.........'Well Captain, he replied, 'It's the 4th of July and we are celebrating George Washington...kicking you British out of the States'
'Thank Christ for George Washington'...said the old man, retiring to the chartroom...and so much for the 'Special Relationship.....'

Marcus Cardew
23rd June 2005, 20:59
Back in '69, I remeber arriving at Ambrose, and the pilot comes aboard, with the newspapers under his arm for the Old Man, and says "Well Cap, we just put three Americans on the Moon", suitable noises were made by all except the Senior 2/O, whose response was "Only Three. It's gonna take you a #'@!* of a long time to put 160 Million of you up there, three at a #@$* Time"......

GeeM
8th April 2013, 20:22
One afternoon going through Suez the Pilot demanded a prayer mat and the Chief Mate who had a wicked sense of humour gave him an Israeli Flg to kneel on. Needless to say he anchored her In the Bittter lakes and departed without a word. We went nowhere for 3 days, just watched convoys go past whilst the Old Man lived on the vHF, they just Ignored us. I never heard how that one got explained away.

Samsette
8th April 2013, 22:15
One afternoon going through Suez the Pilot demanded a prayer mat and the Chief Mate who had a wicked sense of humour gave him an Israeli Flg to kneel on. Needless to say he anchored her In the Bittter lakes and departed without a word. We went nowhere for 3 days, just watched convoys go past whilst the Old Man lived on the vHF, they just Ignored us. I never heard how that one got explained away.

That's it; a wicked sense of humour, if any of the above posts are even remotely true. Had I been the pilot, I would have left you sitting there far longer. Narvik, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete and of course, the daddy of them all, Singapore. And to a numerically inferior force(Night). Did France have so many humiliating debacles?

Rocket_Ron
8th April 2013, 22:33
Did France have so many humiliating debacles?

No, just one.
Mind, its lasted for 200 years.

ben27
9th April 2013, 00:16
good morning bob s.23.june 2005,03:45.re:political correctness gone mad.there was no such fleet as red and blue.it does not relate to the battle of Trafalgar.and were do they come off changing history to suit the polly's.go for it nelson.ben27

Samsette
9th April 2013, 00:54
No, just one.
Mind, its lasted for 200 years.

You had to go back a long way, to get that, but at least you tried.(Scribe) I am thinking more of the events of the 20th Century. It was only the narrow seas that saved GB from being steamrollered.

The RN did all the heavy lifting in those early days of WWII, at Narvik, at Dunkirk and Crete, and its losses in ships and men was horrific. There was a joke about a matelot on leave, and seeing a khaki uniform with HG on the sleeve, he asked what outfit it might be. "Home Guard." said the khaki-clad man. "Put it here." said the matelot, offering his hand, "You are the only army man we haven't had to rescue so far."(Pint)

Rocket_Ron
15th April 2013, 21:35
You had to go back a long way, to get that, but at least you tried.(Scribe) I am thinking more of the events of the 20th Century. It was only the narrow seas that saved GB from being steamrollered.



Aye, but the Germans had tanks and an air force.
The Vietnamese only had a pyjama party and kicked your lot out.

Alex Salmond
15th April 2013, 21:47
Aye, but the Germans had tanks and an air force.
The Vietnamese only had a pyjama party and kicked your lot out.

Wow thats what we like to see ,a spirit of camaraderie with our mates from across the pond ,none of that namby pamby political correctness there eh? but ermmm Samsette is flying the Canadian flag no the stars and stripes did his lot get kicked out of Vietnam too by the pyjama party?? but back to the reenactment i reckon it would be more fun if they used actual cannonballs and grapeshots now THAT would be what you call a reenactment

Rocket_Ron
15th April 2013, 22:05
From his defence of all things garlic, i took it he was French Canadian.

Samsette
16th April 2013, 00:59
From his defence of all things garlic, i took it he was French Canadian.

Wrong again, Rocket . Can't you get anything right?(Whaaa)

funnelstays
16th April 2013, 01:12
We, on Somerset, were about to watch Kidnapped. Amongst the crew we had 3 Lewismen, 1 from Fort William & a couple from Glasgow. The guy who was showing the film, who shall remain nameless, had been helping himself to the free beer that was laid on that night & managed to get the reel on back to front. So when the movie started all the words were all to hell.......but not for our shipmates north of the Border.........They thought it was Gaelic being spoken. Alas, they left the messroom in disgrace when the fault was found. Yes! Free beer = happy days!!(Daze) (Hippy)
The same happened when our lecky from Belfast did the same thing with the French Connection,everyone in Marseilles including popeye was driving on the left!(Jester)

garry Norton
16th April 2013, 06:01
While working in Jebel Ali I had to bring in an American Aircraft Carrier and when half way down the channel I told the Captain he had got the pilot from an unfriendly nation (N.Z.) as the ship was nuclear. After that they quite often asked for me to get their own back. Who says the Americans have no sense of humour.

slick
16th April 2013, 06:26
All,
Ref above post, RIP Jonathan Winter....

Yours aye,
slick

NoR
16th April 2013, 09:07
Apparently French schoolchildren are taught that Trafalgar was an insignificant sea battle in which the British admiral was killed.
I was told this by friends who live in France and whose children attend a French school.

Rocket_Ron
16th April 2013, 10:10
Wrong again, Rocket . Can't you get anything right?(Whaaa)

Don`t see how you can put `again`.
I may have been wrong about you being French Canadian, but so far its the only thing. (Thumb)

Scelerat
16th April 2013, 11:54
Apparently French schoolchildren are taught that Trafalgar was an insignificant sea battle in which the British admiral was killed.
I was told this by friends who live in France and whose children attend a French school.

Another myth; they're not taught about Trafalgar at all.

A friend of mine, married to a Frenchman, celebrated her/their anniversary in London, in a pub just outside Waterloo Station (they came by eurostar) called The Waterloo.....

Scelerat
16th April 2013, 12:16
The RN did all the heavy lifting in those early days of WWII, at Narvik, at Dunkirk and Crete, and its losses in ships and men was horrific.

Well, I agree with you about Narvik and Crete, but it was the Merch that did the work at Dunkirk.

Stephen J. Card
16th April 2013, 12:56
All,
Ref above post, RIP Jonathan Winter....

Yours aye,
slick


Slick,

I'll second that.

A great entertainer.

WEIRD!!!!


Stephen

expats
16th April 2013, 14:49
Apparently French schoolchildren are taught that Trafalgar was an insignificant sea battle in which the British admiral was killed.
I was told this by friends who live in France and whose children attend a French school.

You'll believe anything then(Jester)...While learning FrenchI borrowed a history book from a friend's 14 year old....Waterloo and Trafalgar were covered in detail...a change from those UK kids who believe 'Churchill' was a dog....

Mjroots
16th April 2013, 21:19
French Wikipedia seems to cover the Battle of Trafalgar comprehensively.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_Trafalgar

Scelerat
17th April 2013, 08:38
You'll believe anything then(Jester)...While learning FrenchI borrowed a history book from a friend's 14 year old....Waterloo and Trafalgar were covered in detail...a change from those UK kids who believe 'Churchill' was a dog....

Just because it's in a school textbook doesn't mean that it's taught. Unless you beleive that History teachers just go through textbooks chapter by chapter?

expats
17th April 2013, 08:46
Mjroots, don't let facts get in the way. After all the idea that the French view Trafalgar as .........an insignificant sea battle in which the British admiral was killed.....................is far more attractive than that in French Wiki (used as much by French schoolchildren as English kids).....

.."By this maritime victory, the British finally confirmed their supremacy on the seas. The risk of invasion disappeared completely after Trafalgar, the French Navy never daring to confront British squadrons at sea. The Spanish Navy lost most of of its resources. Politically, too, the results of Trafalgar should not be underestimated, giving the UK a moral counterweight to land victories of the French Grand Army. The United Kingdom, invincible at sea, formed alliances bringing her enemy to his knees.".......

expats
17th April 2013, 08:52
Just because it's in a school textbook doesn't mean that it's taught. Unless you beleive that History teachers just go through textbooks chapter by chapter?


It was the 14 year old's textbook; he was using it to study that period of history.
Do you seriously believe that faced with such available information, any teacher would dismiss Trafalgar as, "an insignificant sea battle in which the British admiral was killed?".....

Satanic Mechanic
17th April 2013, 09:14
Next week, during the Trafalgar 200 events in the Solent off Portsmouth, there will be a re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar except that it will be fought between the Red fleet and the Blue fleet… Why you ask, so that we do not upset the French. (Night)

More to the point where do you find 50ships of the line these days, I mean its not going to be much of a re-enactment is it. I suppose you could get a load of yachties paintballing each other.

As for the French re. Trafalgar etc - yeah right, up there with all those stories that suddenly appeared when said country refused to join in the Iraq war - to my lasting admiration.

expats
17th April 2013, 10:39
[QUOTE= when said country refused to join in the Iraq war - to my lasting admiration.[/QUOTE]


Hear, hear!

Robert Bush
17th April 2013, 16:33
Are not British Children taught that Britain beat Germany at the Battle of Jutland?

chadburn
17th April 2013, 16:37
Are not British Children taught that Britain beat Germany at the Battle of Jutland?

I always thought it was classed as a Draw, when extra time was called both "teams" had already cleared off home.

Satanic Mechanic
17th April 2013, 17:27
I always thought it was classed as a Draw, when extra time was called both "teams" had already cleared off home.

good plan - we'd just have lost on penalties

ART6
17th April 2013, 17:40
Mjroots, don't let facts get in the way. After all the idea that the French view Trafalgar as .........an insignificant sea battle in which the British admiral was killed.....................is far more attractive than that in French Wiki (used as much by French schoolchildren as English kids).....


Er...Didn't the French lose the war?

Somewhat reminiscent of Egypt and the Six Day war against Israel, where the Egyptian government to this day celebrates it as a victory although having had the s**t kicked out of them.

Satanic Mechanic
17th April 2013, 18:07
Er...Didn't the French lose the war?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal

Scelerat
17th April 2013, 19:57
Are not British Children taught that Britain beat Germany at the Battle of Jutland?

Yes, because we did.

Robert Bush
17th April 2013, 21:52
My father was an ERA on HMS Marlborough during the Battle of Jutland.

He told me the Germans sank more British ships than the RN sank German ships.

It might have been called a draw but not a British victory.

ART6
17th April 2013, 22:05
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal

Er....What?

Satanic Mechanic
17th April 2013, 23:01
Er....What?

meaning that it is extremely unlikely that the story regarding the french is true - so no need to get worked up about it

Klaatu83
17th April 2013, 23:34
Next week, during the Trafalgar 200 events in the Solent off Portsmouth, there will be a re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar except that it will be fought between the Red fleet and the Blue fleet… Why you ask, so that we do not upset the French. (Night)

It's a bit silly to talk of Trafalgar being fought between the "red" and the "blue" fleets because, in those days, the British fleet was still divided between "red" "blue" and "White" fleets, flying different colored ensigns, and commanded respectively by an "Admiral of the Blue", an "Admiral of the Red" and an "Admiral of the White". I believe it was only after that time that the Navy standardized on the "white ensign".

In any case, it is impossible for the British NOT to upset the French. The French have never forgiven the British for:

Not Surrendering in 1940
Waterloo
Trafalgar
Canada
Blenheim
Agincourt
Crecy
Poitiers
Slyus
Joan of Arc

(Actually, it wasn't so much burning Joan of Arc at the stake that the French objected to so much as the fact that the English exhibited such poor taste as to serve white wine. In France, one only serves red wine at an immolation.)

Klaatu83
17th April 2013, 23:40
My father was an ERA on HMS Marlborough during the Battle of Jutland.

He told me the Germans sank more British ships than the RN sank German ships.

It might have been called a draw but not a British victory.

I've read a lot of articles about Jutland, concerning which side sank how many ships and why. However, when it comes right down to it, Jutland was a British victory simply because, after the shooting stopped, the British had command of the sea, while the German fleet never came out again except to surrender and scuttle itself.

Samsette
18th April 2013, 01:46
Well, I agree with you about Narvik and Crete, but it was the Merch that did the work at Dunkirk.

The defence of the MN's contribution is commendable, Sclerat, but the facts say otherwise. The losses among merchant ships (IoMSPCo ferries as an example) were more easily replaceable, compared with building a sophisticated warship, such as a destroyer.
Whatever, here is one account that I found.

Naval losses - Six British and three French destroyers were sunk, along with nine large boats. In addition, 19 destroyers were damaged.[18] Over 200 of the Allied sea craft were sunk, with an equal number damaged.[29]

The Royal Navy's most significant losses in the operation were six destroyers:

Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May;
Grenade, sunk by air attack off the east pier at Dunkirk on 29 May;
Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the E-boat S-30 on 29 May;
Basilisk, Havant and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.
The French Navy lost three destroyers:

Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May;
Sirocco, sunk by the E-boats S-23 and S-26 on 31 May;
Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.
[edit] Merchant navy lossesThe merchant navy also paid a heavy price during the evacuation. Numerous ships were sunk ranging from small pleasure craft to cross-channel ferries. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company despatched eight of its vessels, rescuing a total of 24,699 British and French troops – one in fourteen of those evacuated from Dunkirk.[30] However, three of its ships were lost in one day, 29 May 1940.

Mona's Queen, mined off Dunkirk on 29 May;
Fenella, sunk by air attack whilst berthed alongside the East Pier on 29 May;
King Orry, sustained heavy damage following several air attacks on 29 May, and consequently sank off the beaches in the early hours of 30 May.
[edit] Air losses.

In addition to the above, I discovered that a number of Dutch coasters took part, at a loss of seven of their number. One Dutch coaster is recorded as having saved the crew of the SS Highwave, but so far I have no info on that ship.

If there is one thing to be said for Dunkirk; it was the only time we beat the Germans to the beach.(Jester)

Scelerat
18th April 2013, 08:06
I've read a lot of articles about Jutland, concerning which side sank how many ships and why. However, when it comes right down to it, Jutland was a British victory simply because, after the shooting stopped, the British had command of the sea, while the German fleet never came out again except to surrender and scuttle itself.

Absolutely correct. Battles aren't won or lost by a comparison of casualties, but by what the results were. Germany lost, absolutely, without doubt; the Germans knew it, which is why they never came out again.

Scelerat
18th April 2013, 08:09
The defence of the MN's contribution is commendable, Sclerat, but the facts say otherwise. The losses among merchant ships (IoMSPCo ferries as an example) were more easily replaceable, compared with building a sophisticated warship, such as a destroyer.
Whatever, here is one account that I found.

Naval losses - Six British and three French destroyers were sunk, along with nine large boats. In addition, 19 destroyers were damaged.[18] Over 200 of the Allied sea craft were sunk, with an equal number damaged.[29]

The Royal Navy's most significant losses in the operation were six destroyers:

Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May;
Grenade, sunk by air attack off the east pier at Dunkirk on 29 May;
Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the E-boat S-30 on 29 May;
Basilisk, Havant and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.
The French Navy lost three destroyers:

Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May;
Sirocco, sunk by the E-boats S-23 and S-26 on 31 May;
Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.
[edit] Merchant navy lossesThe merchant navy also paid a heavy price during the evacuation. Numerous ships were sunk ranging from small pleasure craft to cross-channel ferries. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company despatched eight of its vessels, rescuing a total of 24,699 British and French troops – one in fourteen of those evacuated from Dunkirk.[30] However, three of its ships were lost in one day, 29 May 1940.

Mona's Queen, mined off Dunkirk on 29 May;
Fenella, sunk by air attack whilst berthed alongside the East Pier on 29 May;
King Orry, sustained heavy damage following several air attacks on 29 May, and consequently sank off the beaches in the early hours of 30 May.
[edit] Air losses.

In addition to the above, I discovered that a number of Dutch coasters took part, at a loss of seven of their number. One Dutch coaster is recorded as having saved the crew of the SS Highwave, but so far I have no info on that ship.

If there is one thing to be said for Dunkirk; it was the only time we beat the Germans to the beach.(Jester)

Actually, the "facts" don't. Was the evacuation from Dunkirk assessed by the number of ships lost, or by the number of men evacuated? I would suggest that the Merchant vessels carried more men away than the RN vessels did. Nothing in the examples you've given suggest otherwise. In terms of losses, there were considerably more Merchant vessels lost than Naval ones, so I can't even see how your evidence supports your argument.

NoR
18th April 2013, 08:30
It's a bit silly to talk of Trafalgar being fought between the "red" and the "blue" fleets because, in those days, the British fleet was still divided between "red" "blue" and "White" fleets, flying different colored ensigns, and commanded respectively by an "Admiral of the Blue", an "Admiral of the Red" and an "Admiral of the White". I believe it was only after that time that the Navy standardized on the "white ensign".

In any case, it is impossible for the British NOT to upset the French. The French have never forgiven the British for:

Not Surrendering in 1940
Waterloo
Trafalgar
Canada
Blenheim
Agincourt
Crecy
Poitiers
Slyus
Joan of Arc

(Actually, it wasn't so much burning Joan of Arc at the stake that the French objected to so much as the fact that the English exhibited such poor taste as to serve white wine. In France, one only serves red wine at an immolation.)

Not to mention the Attack on the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kébir 3rd July 1940. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir)

I wonder if that is taught in our schools ?

NoR
18th April 2013, 08:44
That's it; a wicked sense of humour, if any of the above posts are even remotely true. Had I been the pilot, I would have left you sitting there far longer. Narvik, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete and of course, the daddy of them all, Singapore. And to a numerically inferior force(Night). Did France have so many humiliating debacles?

No the French had caved in long before that. Yes we did suffer some humiliating debacles this is down to our perennial problem of poor leadership. Occasionally we chuck up a good leader, Marlborough Nelson, Duke of Wellington, Slim - but not often enough.

Norman F Dixon's book On the Psychology of Military Incompetence is a good read although the form of incompetence identified is not confined to the military and can be found in most organisations - particularly large ones.

expats
18th April 2013, 11:04
No the French had caved in long before that. .

And, but for 22 miles of water, so would've we.....

I now live in the country that spent 4 years under Nazi occupation. There are shrines, not just to those who continued the underground resistance, but to the innocent men, women and children who were murdered in reprisals...I sometimes wonder about the "We" in "fight them on the beaches" when a destroyer was waiting to evacuate our rulers if that 22 miles had been crossed....

Stupid remarks can sometimes be excused but ignorance is inexcuseable

Scelerat
18th April 2013, 11:15
Not to mention the Attack on the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kébir 3rd July 1940. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir)

I wonder if that is taught in our schools ?

It is by me. Whether Gove's planned new completely prescriptive curriculum will allow it is a different matter.

NoR
18th April 2013, 17:06
It is by me. Whether Gove's planned new completely prescriptive curriculum will allow it is a different matter.

I would imagine that he'd insist on it.

For the benefit of us non educationalists what is the difference between Gove's proposed syllabus and the current one.

I have a slight concern since I occasionally worked with young people with good degrees from good universities who had only vaguely heard of Oliver Cromwell; that is to say they'd never been taught about him. (amongst other things).

NoR
18th April 2013, 20:09
And, but for 22 miles of water, so would've we.....

I now live in the country that spent 4 years under Nazi occupation. There are shrines, not just to those who continued the underground resistance, but to the innocent men, women and children who were murdered in reprisals...I sometimes wonder about the "We" in "fight them on the beaches" when a destroyer was waiting to evacuate our rulers if that 22 miles had been crossed....

Stupid remarks can sometimes be excused but ignorance is inexcuseable

Not stupid or ignorant just true, although I agree that the Channel was a more effective barrier than the Maginot Line.

Samsette
18th April 2013, 21:02
No the French had caved in long before that. Yes we did suffer some humiliating debacles this is down to our perennial problem of poor leadership.

I think you will find that the French Army held the line long enough for the BEF to Scapa back to Blighty. France capitulated because a superior fighting force had its boots on the ground. British smugness would have dissipated had that been the case in the British Isles.
Furthermore, had America not be drawn into the European conflict, Britain would have eventually been looking across the Straits of Dover at the victorious Red Army.

I'm through.

NoR
18th April 2013, 21:20
I think you will find that the French Army held the line long enough for the BEF to Scapa back to Blighty. France capitulated because a superior fighting force had its boots on the ground. British smugness would have dissipated had that been the case in the British Isles.
Furthermore, had America not be drawn into the European conflict, Britain would have eventually been looking across the Straits of Dover at the victorious Red Army.

I'm through.

".....by the ninth day, a total of 338,226 soldiers (198,229 British and 139,997 French)....had been rescued..."
Also unless I'm much mistaken much of the rearguard action was undertaken by British Units as well as French.

If American had not been drawn into the conflict Hitler would have creamed the Russians, so whoever we were staring at across the Dover Straits it would not have been Stalin.
Hitler wasn't really interested in Britain he would have preferred it if we had stayed out of the war. As he once said " If the British didn't have their Empire it might fall to someone less desirable from our (the German) point of view ......or words to that effect.

expats
18th April 2013, 22:52
Not stupid or ignorant just true, although I agree that the Channel was a more effective barrier than the Maginot Line.

Harder to go around.

However, without it we'd be speaking German. The USA would almost certainly have accepted the 'status quo' and without worrying about his western flank, and trade with the US, 'Barbarossa' might well have succeeded.

22 miles of immense value

Samsette
19th April 2013, 02:50
A British Army officers account of the evacuation, titled Last Days at Dunkirk;

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Flanders/UK-NWE-Flanders-16.html

This stupid notion that occupying powers inflict their language on the defeated is just a load of hooey. Name one German occupied country that was forced to learn German?

TOM ALEXANDER
19th April 2013, 07:12
A British Army officers account of the evacuation, titled Last Days at Dunkirk;

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Flanders/UK-NWE-Flanders-16.html

This stupid notion that occupying powers inflict their language on the defeated is just a load of hooey. Name one German occupied country that was forced to learn German?

C'est tres vrai, mon ami! (From a Canadian cornflake package.) (Scribe)

Alex Salmond
19th April 2013, 07:57
Can some please tell me what all the above old tosh has got to do with the political correctness of a Battle of Trafalgar reenactment ??,just asking like(Whaaa) its just that i can hear the clip clop of little hobby horse hoofs

NoR
19th April 2013, 08:17
Harder to go around.

However, without it we'd be speaking German. The USA would almost certainly have accepted the 'status quo' and without worrying about his western flank, and trade with the US, 'Barbarossa' might well have succeeded.

22 miles of immense value

I have to agree.

expats
19th April 2013, 08:23
A British Army officers account of the evacuation, titled Last Days at Dunkirk;

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Flanders/UK-NWE-Flanders-16.html

This stupid notion that occupying powers inflict their language on the defeated is just a load of hooey. Name one German occupied country that was forced to learn German?

There wasn't one. However, with the war won and Hitler's "One Thousand Year Reich" in place, it seems a certainty that school children would be taught German history and, as Hitler considered the British as Aryan, a common language....After all, Norman French became the language of all but the poorest after 1066...
Alex, when has any 'discussion' whether live or by text stayed 'on topic'...(*))

NoR
19th April 2013, 08:28
There is also the notion (put about by Churchill) that had the Germans invaded we would have fought on the landing grounds, beaches and to the last man. I doubt that. It would have been pointless.

NoR
19th April 2013, 08:33
".....as Hitler considered the British as Aryan, a common language....After all, Norman French became the language of all but the poorest after 1066...
Alex, when has any 'discussion' whether live or by text stayed 'on topic'...(*))

Good point. Culturally we are not a million miles away from the Germans, although it would have been interesting to see how they dealt with the unions.

expats
19th April 2013, 08:49
Good point. Culturally we are not a million miles away from the Germans, although it would have been interesting to see how they dealt with the unions.

The same way they dealt with theirs' in the 1930s....

"trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class"

That makes even 'Mrs. T'. seem benevolent...(*))

NoR
19th April 2013, 08:53
".....That makes even 'Mrs. T'. seem benevolent...(*))

She just let them destroy themselves.

Scelerat
19th April 2013, 14:55
I would imagine that he'd insist on it.

For the benefit of us non educationalists what is the difference between Gove's proposed syllabus and the current one.

I have a slight concern since I occasionally worked with young people with good degrees from good universities who had only vaguely heard of Oliver Cromwell; that is to say they'd never been taught about him. (amongst other things).

If you look at the Gove thread in Stormy Weather you'll be find out all the information you need.
Essentially, Gove's new syllabus wants a strictly chronological survey of British History starting with the concept of Nationhood, taught to 6 year olds, then the Celts, Romans, Saxons, including the History of the various Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, taught to 7 year olds and so on. The current National Curriculum is here:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/h/history%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20ke y%20stage%203.pdf

NoR
22nd April 2013, 09:58
"......the current national curriculum is here.
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/h/history%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20ke y%20stage%203.pdf

What depressing document, I feel sorry for today's students. I particularly like (not) the final 'mission statement'.

The curriculum should
provide opportunities for pupils to explore the ways in which the past has helped shape identities, shared cultures, values and attitudes today

Students should just learn the facts and make up their own minds about them without any brainwashing from teacher. Looks like Gove has got the right idea.

Scelerat
22nd April 2013, 10:05
What depressing document, I feel sorry for today's students. I particularly like (not) the final 'mission statement'.

The curriculum should
provide opportunities for pupils to explore the ways in which the past has helped shape identities, shared cultures, values and attitudes today

Students should just learn the facts and make up their own minds about them without any brainwashing from teacher. Looks like Gove has got the right idea.

If you read it again you'll realise that the students are encouraged to "make up their own minds about them without any brainwashing from teacher." which is exactly NOT what Gove's plan is.

NoR
22nd April 2013, 10:25
If you read it again you'll realise that the students are encouraged to "make up their own minds about them without any brainwashing from teacher." which is exactly NOT what Gove's plan is.

Not sure about that, but it is the most appalling document the authors should be locked in a room with a copy of Sir Ernest Gower's 'The Complete Plain Words' and not allowed out until they've read it thoroughly.

Scelerat
22nd April 2013, 10:31
Not sure about that, but it is the most appalling document the authors should be locked in a room with a copy of Sir Ernest Gower's 'The Complete Plain Words' and not allowed out until they've read it thoroughly.

What isn't to be sure about? You quoted it, "The curriculum should provide opportunities for pupils to explore the ways in which the past has helped shape identities, shared cultures, values and attitudes today", Where does it say here, or anywhere else, that students are to be told how and what to think by their teachers?
The language used is, of course, technical rather than accessible to the lay person, but the meaning is clear.

Satanic Mechanic
22nd April 2013, 10:45
I am not a qualified teacher and by no means an educationalist (and indeed have a well documented distrust of teachers)in my travels time and again I have been struck by other nations educational systems and ideals. The one thing that depresses me no end is the absolute dedication to exam results - in the places where this is taken to extreme - far east mostly - it has had a devastating effect on the younger generation who are so stressed they are no longer children, who are so consumed by rote memorisation that they dont understand the subject they just quote it and who have a sometimes remarkable lack of social skills. I would much rather have someone who scored 60% because he understood 60% of the paper than one who scored 100% and understood 10%. Why - because that 40% deficit is much easier to make up with experience than the 90%.

NoR
22nd April 2013, 10:51
".......The language used is, of course, technical rather than accessible to the lay person, but the meaning is clear.

Technical ? You mean as in woolly and obtuse ?

And I guess that pupils are included under 'lay person'.

Satanic Mechanic
22nd April 2013, 11:05
No I agree with Scelerat there, I do not expect laymen to understand the language of the Engineroom or Wheelhouse, and so the language of education and teachers may well appear to be unusual to me. Teaching has moved on a lot from rote and for the better but it also involves a lot of technique and psychology which I do not expect to fully understand either technically or the technical language used

trotterdotpom
22nd April 2013, 11:25
I have a niece who has been teaching in County Durham (The Land that Thatcher Forgot) for over 20 years. Nobody could deny that she is a very committed teacher, spending much of her free time in school activities. However, these days, a hell of a lot of her time is spent in preparing a snow job for an annual nerve wracking inspection of the school under the title of Ofsted (what does that mean? I give in).

How come, with all these advances in education, kids leave school and can barely read and write or count? When I left school I guarantee that every kid in the class, even the dumb ones, could do all those things. Just recently a young adult was massively impressed that I knew that 6 times 8 was 49 without a calculator. Bring back tables, bring back "i before e except after c", I say.

John T

expats
22nd April 2013, 11:56
................. I knew that 6 times 8 was 49..............

I'm impressed; please provide 'proof'?

Satanic Mechanic
22nd April 2013, 12:01
I have a niece who has been teaching in County Durham (The Land that Thatcher Forgot) for over 20 years. Nobody could deny that she is a very committed teacher, spending much of her free time in school activities. However, these days, a hell of a lot of her time is spent in preparing a snow job for an annual nerve wracking inspection of the school under the title of Ofsted (what does that mean? I give in).

How come, with all these advances in education, kids leave school and can barely read and write or count? When I left school I guarantee that every kid in the class, even the dumb ones, could do all those things. Just recently a young adult was massively impressed that I knew that 6 times 8 was 49 without a calculator. Bring back tables, bring back "i before e except after c", I say.

John T

Well .... I would say there is a sizeable rosé tint those specs - there is no way that is the case in my experience- the sheer amount of illiterate people I have worked with is staggering and the vast majority are the older guys - they cover it up well but it was a worryingly high number. The one I do agree with is mental arithmetic - it has gone by the wayside somewhat as amply demonstrated above(*))

I before e except after c is maybe not the best example of a literacy rule even back in the day at the height of such science we knew the teachers were feigning it - a educational sleight of hand if you wish on their part - ok ill stop .....(Scribe)

trotterdotpom
22nd April 2013, 12:28
SM, I left school in 1963 and I stand by what I say. They may not have been reading "Philosophy 101" but the could read and understand the paper and they could work out their winnings on a Yankee in seconds. I even saw some of them doing crosswords. They even did it with a pen! Spell check... What's that?

John T

Satanic Mechanic
22nd April 2013, 12:44
Fair enough - it's not my experience though, by an by the one single thing I found common with the guys who were illiterate was that they all had newspapers ... True. There was one guy in particular - still a mate of mine actually, who would listen to the news in the morning and when reading his paper later would every now and again tut and make a pronouncement on a news item as if he had just read it. I knew his secret and he still can't read, but he is a good worker so I saw no reason to pursue the matter.

And the Yankee bet (also dart scores) I have seen many times - that rote thang again

John Briggs
22nd April 2013, 13:28
Just recently a young adult was massively impressed that I knew that 6 times 8 was 49 without a calculator.

John T

I hope to hell that was a typo!

trotterdotpom
22nd April 2013, 13:30
Fair enough - it's not my experience though, by an by the one single thing I found common with the guys who were illiterate was that they all had newspapers ... True. There was one guy in particular - still a mate of mine actually, who would listen to the news in the morning and when reading his paper later would every now and again tut and make a pronouncement on a news item as if he had just read it. I knew his secret and he still can't read, but he is a good worker so I saw no reason to pursue the matter.

And the Yankee bet (also dart scores) I have seen many times - that rote thang again

One Hundred and Eighty!!! I know what you're on about and I've seen similar things. but how old was your pal with the newspaper?

John T

Satanic Mechanic
22nd April 2013, 13:35
One Hundred and Eighty!!! I know what you're on about and I've seen similar things. but how old was your pal with the newspaper?

John T

Hes about to turn 70

Varley
24th April 2013, 18:37
I hope to hell that was a typo!

Bugger, I need a new calculator!

trotterdotpom
24th April 2013, 23:42
I hope to hell that was a typo!

No John, it was a test and I'm pleased to see you passed. I also never fail with "Red sky at night, shepherd's warning."

John T

trotterdotpom
24th April 2013, 23:44
Hes about to turn 70

Er ok, yes, well er ... right then. The "exception that proves the rule" maybe.

John T

garry Norton
25th April 2013, 00:51
History seems to change with the politics of the day.

Samsette
25th April 2013, 04:52
C'est tres vrai, mon ami! (From a Canadian cornflake package.) (Scribe)

Por moi le source tres elevee de fibres................ALL BRAN. It keeps me regular.(*))

John Briggs
25th April 2013, 05:05
No John, it was a test and I'm pleased to see you passed. I also never fail with "Red sky at night, shepherd's warning."

John T

(Applause)(Applause)(Applause)

Scelerat
25th April 2013, 09:07
History seems to change with the politics of the day.

Only if you allow politicians to dictate what History is, which is why I'm so concerned about Gove determining the History curriculum.

NoR
25th April 2013, 09:55
Only if you allow politicians to dictate what History is, which is why I'm so concerned about Gove determining the History curriculum.

And who's determining it now ?

Scelerat
25th April 2013, 10:33
Historians, only they're giving their views, based on their interpretations of evidence. It is up to the reader of Historians' work to decide for themselves, based on the evidence. Given that Historians have widely differing view and interpretations, the reader is free to make up their own mind, based on the evidence.

barrinoz
26th April 2013, 02:09
Historians, only they're giving their views, based on their interpretations of evidence. It is up to the reader of Historians' work to decide for themselves, based on the evidence. Given that Historians have widely differing view and interpretations, the reader is free to make up their own mind, based on the evidence.

Hmmm. Sorta circular argument, that one.

Scelerat
26th April 2013, 08:45
Hmmm. Sorta circular argument, that one.

Can you explain how, please?

barrinoz
27th April 2013, 01:44
Can you explain how, please?

Circular is probably the wrong word. Contradictory would be better.
Evidence is factual, independently sourced and accurately portrayed accounts of events.
An historian’s interpretation of events is not always evidence. Victors and all that...
A reader’s interpretation of an historian’s interpretation of an event is a step even further removed from evidence and may bear absolutely no relation to actual history.
As a joke example I give you Mel Gibson’s ‘Braveheart’. Legions of eejits believe that to be a true “interpretation of evidence” - ergo, an historical event.
Making up one’s mind on a proffered view can hardly be classed as history.
Best not to believe anything, I reckon. Someone’s massaged the truth somewhere along the line. (Scribe)(Thumb)
barrinoz.

Ken Wood
28th April 2013, 10:13
You are quite right. I spent most of my schooldays in a Scottish state school. My last two years was in a public school teaching the English curriculum. I had to learn History from scratch, it was a completely different version of the same facts. I still managed to pass my exams, but what an eye opener! No wonder that these days I rarely believe anything I read in the papers without forming an opinion on who wrote the article and why.

joebuckham
28th April 2013, 10:28
C'est tres vrai, mon ami! (From a Canadian cornflake package.) (Scribe)

and the british child whose first contact with french was the hp bottle:

"Cette sauce de premier
choix possède les plus
hautes qualités digestives.

C'est un assortiment de
fruits d'Orient, d'épices et
de Vinaigre de 'Malt' pur.

Elle est absolument pure,
appétissante et délicieuse
avec les viandes chaudes
ou froides:

POISSON,
JAMBON,
FROMAGE,
SALADE, &c,

et pour relever le goût des
SOUPES,
HACHIS,
RAGOÛTS, &c."


(Thumb)

expats
28th April 2013, 10:58
You are quite right. I spent most of my schooldays in a Scottish state school. My last two years was in a public school teaching the English curriculum. I had to learn History from scratch, it was a completely different version of the same facts. I still managed to pass my exams, but what an eye opener! No wonder that these days I rarely believe anything I read in the papers without forming an opinion on who wrote the article and why.

Not just history!

In the early 1980s I was at anchor off the Isle of Man and we could watch both BBC and RTE...When they covered the "Troubles" the video footage was often the same but the sound reporting was completely different........

Robert Bush
28th April 2013, 23:55
Brain washing as practiced by religious zealots is very evident and successful in the USA.

So much naivety.

I love Ira Gerschwin's "It ain't necessarily so."