Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ethnic Minorities & Women At Dunkirk

You've posted numerous links in an attempt to refute an argument that I'm not even making. In addressing the charge that the BBC was being dishonest, people have leapt to its defence claiming that is evidence that there were sub-saharan Africans in Roman Britain - something that nobody is denying. In an article defending Mary Beard, Dr Matthew Nicholls at least manages to address criticism correctly.

"Are the BBC claiming that most Roman families were mixed race and contained a black person? I doubt it; that would be not be a sensible claim."

Why would it not be a sensible claim? Because it's patently false.
 
Thank you.

What about say 1000 years after the end of Rome?
1400 in rural Britain, would anyone have the first clue about black people??

Without wanting to go further off thread.
Have a look at originalpeople.org/history-of-blacks-n-Britain-elizabeth-i-kicks-moors-out-of-engand

Done more out of suspicion over their faith and allegiances than racial motives. Remember that visiting Spanish gentility would also be 'cut down to size' (have the advantage of their longer rapier removed).
Contemporary management of foreign influences - in 1940 it was internment.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
First of a may I ask that you use the quote function when replying to my or others’ posts, it alerts the author of the post you are replying to that you have responded, and it makes it ckear to other users on the site, you’ll the Quote button next to the Reply button at the bottom of the post you wish to respond too.

You've posted numerous links in an attempt to refute an argument that I'm not even making. In addressing the charge that the BBC was being dishonest, people have leapt to its defence claiming that is evidence that there were sub-saharan Africans in Roman Britain - something that nobody is denying. In an article defending Mary Beard, Dr Matthew Nicholls at least manages to address criticism correctly.

"Are the BBC claiming that most Roman families were mixed race and contained a black person? I doubt it; that would be not be a sensible claim."

Why would it not be a sensible claim? Because it's patently false.
My goodness are you a groundsman for the local council’s sports facilaties by any chance? The entire BBC Roman debate has been one focused about race, ethnicity, and miscegenation, from Paul Joseph Watson whiny historical ignorance, and Taleb arrogant intervention, as have your posts. So either you're a groundsman or incredibly disingenuous.

My first reply was to your post regarding

Is that the same BBC that claimed that a typical family in Roman Britain was mixed race?

Your sneering post was dismissive of the BBC Cartoon. So I was precise in my response in addressing that post.

With regard to Matthew Nicholls blog post I find it interesting you skip over the entire blog post and extract single section in the comments. For the sake of others I'll repost the link to post here.
Connecting Research: The Forum · How diverse was Roman Britain?

The single section is part of a longer response to several responses in the comments, lets have a closer look at the full response by Matthew

John – no need for the sarcasm but, yes, you’re right that the text beneath the BBC video does in fact make that claim. Thank you. As I say, I’m not intending to speak for their motives here. They were, after all, making a cartoon educational resource for children and in that they have done a good job as far as I can see; as has been firmly established now, the charge of historical inaccuracy that prompted this post was wrong.
So, as to the claim of typicality – that doesn’t seem problematical to me. At least, there are all sorts of typical and untypical features in this family, depending on what is understood by the term, and the overall picture is reasonable.

Are the BBC claiming that most Roman families were mixed race and contained a black person? I doubt it; that would be not be a sensible claim. But there are plenty of well researched details which make the claim to a sort of composite typicality reasonable – the costumes, names, architecture, domestic art, curse tablet, bathhouse, female birthday party invitation, slavery, amphitheatrical games and the two boys’ reactions to it, etc are all grounded in literary, archaeological, or epigraphic examples. The mother of the family can read and write – see 2 minutes in – and this is probably relatively unusual (less so for an elite family like this, but for the Roman world as a whole, where both male and female literacy was less widespread than today). Does this also make the family ‘untypical’? Well, yes, but no one seems to have objected to this particular detail; and of course there are many examples of individual women who *could* read/write (including the wife of a fort commander on Hadrian’s Wall, who as here sent a birthday invitation, found among the Vindolanda tablets), just as there are plenty of examples of African and Syrian and Belgian etc, etc troops in Roman Britain.
The same is true of the fact that this family are rich, hold high military office, live in a nice villa in Bath with mosaics and frescoes (surrounded, we night notice in passing, by a large majority of white people), and have enough money not just to own slaves but to employ or own a specialist paedagogus to teach Quintus maths. None of these attributes are ‘typical’ of the majority experiences both in Roman Britain – where of course all Romans and camp followers, of whatever race, were minority incomers, and there were far more subsistence farmers than military officers or educated children – and of the wider empire.
So – typical in each individual particular? No, but I don’t think that this is claimed (and it was surely never designed to attract this kind of scrutiny). Plausible overall, a fair representation of the life of an elite Roman family in early 2nd C Britain, making some interesting points about life in the province, and conforming to known examples? Yes, I think so.

Connecting Research: The Forum · How diverse was Roman Britain?

By cherry picking you have distorted the meaning of his nuanced argument. He doesn't believe the BBC are being dishonest. The rest of the comments are worth reading too for all you following this thread.

The Romans and the Japanese eh?

Google "roman paintings". The only image of non-whites stem from Egypt - the remainder of those that depict a scene comprising a group of people, portray a group of white people. Foreign born people in Britain from the Rorman era right up until 1948 never exceeded 3% (some estimates claim 5%), even with the Norman invasion.

The population of Japan is 98.5% indigenous. Would you therefore say the photo below is an accurate portrayal of a "typical" Japanese family?

First up and mist strikingly compare a multi-ethnic, multi-continental porous Empire, to an restricted ethnological and geographic Island Empire (that spent nearly 200 years maintaining a strictly enforced political and cultural policy of Isolation, under the Tokugawa Shogunate (This is one of my areas of specialisation btw), it wasn't very open before that either, and then with exception of the rapid modernisation of the Meiji Restoration embarked on a policy of ethno-nationalistic expansion (the lingering effects can still be seen in contemporary Japan).
Further to that you bang the size of foreign populations in Britain and how tiny they are in comparison to the indigenous, you follow this with a pic of a Caucasian family and supposedly proving your point that they can't be considered a typical Japanese Family.

They don't and it doesn't.

The cartoon references a Roman family, in Britain not a typical British Family. As wewith the considerable evidence of African Romans having lived died and had familes in Britain within the context if Roman Britain this isn't a stretch. So quite the strawman on your part. Talk about serious trying to twist the terms of the debate. Your final paragraph and pictorial “evidence” are drivel. You are comparing Apples & Turnips. The use of Roman is specific it shows they are talking about Romans (a multi-ethnic military and political occupier) in Britain, not the whole population of the Province. You on the other hand deliberately infer with your picture that the debate is about the population as a whole. A typical Roman Family in Britain not a typical British Family. Your picture only has validity if you were to say this a typical Caucasian Family in Japan, not a typical Japanese Family. You whine about semantics but twist words and arguments like an Italian spaghetti festival.

Do you think any of us are stupid enough to fall that bait and switch of criteria. Feck off.

Let's look at your post regarding the Independent article on HMS Victory’s Crew

The link to the Independent article is misleading - they stated over 1/3 of the crew aboard HMS Victory were foreign.

When you check the actual breakdown of the composition of the crew 95% were British. So whilst there were non British sailors present it wasn’t the rainbow love-in the Leftist Meeja would have you believe.
They said nothing of the sort, the article very specific in its wording:
More than a third of the crew of the Victory were drawn from outside England, including the West Indies, Africa, France and Spain.
The black heroes of Trafalgar

Born out side of England, not foreign, this is very precise language, in that those outside England would include Irishmen, Scots, Welsh etc and others that would be considered British. And why not, the UK is unitary multinational state, with a notibly dominant nation. Now you, whether through poor understanding of the meaning of words, illiteracy or deliberate obfuscation (I believe the last) choose to the word Foreign instead to make your point, that 95% were British. This an Irvingesque twisting of quotes and facts to misrepresent the Independent article, you deliberately alter the criteria and wording to misrepresent the article and support your case.
Now lets look at the figures, this blog post has a pic in it that lists the various nationalities of the crew:

Which nationalities fought in Nelson's Navy?

Now Victory had a crew of 820.
820/3 = 273
So 2/3rds would be 547.
There were 515 are listed as English, that is less than 547 by the way.
That means that 305 are from outside England, 305 is a larger number than 273, so it must be more than a third, yes?
You claim that 95% are British.
(820/100)x 95 = 779
That leaves 41 “foreigners” in your estimation.
(At this point I should point out there are 48 on the muster role of Unknown Origin, most observers have included these as amongst those from outside England, you include them as British. If we were to include them as from England, as according to the specific wording of the Indie article, it would be 257 crew from outside England {or 31.3%} a smidge under a third, 16 less than the necessary 273.
However, like Polling companies faced with “Don't Knows”, if we just split the difference {24 apiece} we then have percentages of 34.2% according to the Indie’s criteria, or 92.1% according to yours. The Indie’s claim still holds true)
Not including those who were British Subjects by dint of colonisation, 46 or 5.6%, 94.4% were British. (Btw, if you are rounding to whole numbers, it's customary to round downwards if its 0.4 or less, not upwards, but for the sake of 5 men, I'm not all that bothered). So technically correct...
BUT, I find it hilarious, disingenuous and downright hypocritical that although you are more than happy to include Maltese, Indians, Jamaicans or West Indians as British (historically true and considered to be dark skinned Britons at that) you deny the right for Romans to be African or dark skinned, indeed you seem to be very focused on it, with your particular pointing at Roman painted depictions that this is not the case.
On a point of order would you consider an EIC Indian Officer in service abroad, such as Afghanistan, to be British or Indian? On the basis of your previous arguments I can safely conclude you wouldn't.

So to conclude,
You wilfully distort sources
You deliberately apply one set of criteria to one set of figures, and another set to the other. Apples and turnips.
You erect more Strawmen than Scarecrows in East Anglia
You selectively quote and ignore context
 
Last edited:
I assume my chronologicallly challenged friend that this post is a response to mine. May I applaud your excellent rebutted of mine by your linking to an article that mentions Romans only once, in the opening paragraph and then never again.

The article then goes on to state that



Since Rome and her Legions withdrew from Britain in 410/411, and the Anglo-Saxons rocked after that, the essay probes nothing at all.

Now the cartoon is of a Roman family, prior to 212 Roman citizenship had been conferred on a selective basis, particular rulers, and other important political figures and those who had completed military service, after 212 it was opened to all except slaves and former slaves.

Anyway back to the Roman thing, the important word being Roman, not Romano-British or indigenous, the father is also I'm military dress, the Romans had this rather sensible policy of not posting native soldiers in their home countries, a Briton in the Legions or Auxiliaries would be away in Germany, Hispania, North Africa or another far flung part of the Empire.

Right, we also have historical and archaeological evidence of African soldier, slaves and fancy pants nobs living and dying in Britain

In 1934, they found a stone that commemorated a North African Legion in Beaumont, Cumbria

Cumbrian church site identified as first African settlement in Britain | The Diocese of Carlisle

We also had a North African Governor, this chappy

Quintus Lollius Urbicus - Wikipedia

Again there is both Historical written evidence of his rule, and archaeological evidence in the form of commerative stones.

Another example is this chap

Clodius Albinus - Wikipedia

What about Dna and genetics, well these articles cover that quite well

Caitlin Green: A note on the evidence for African migrants in Britain from the Bronze Age to the medieval period

There are also links within that post to others on the textual and archaeological evidence too. But a significant point from Caitlin Green's blog is this of the Roman Period sites where isotopic analysis has been 47% had evidence of individuals with North African heritage.

If Mary Beard is right, what's happened to the DNA of Africans from Roman Britain?

This blog, by Classicist Dr Matthew Nicholson, covers the Mary Beard/BBC debate

Connecting Research: The Forum · How diverse was Roman Britain?

On the points of it being an "agenda" as @Dashing_Chap and @HSF have suggested, sigh, seriously guys, it's nothing if the sort.

Diversitas et Multiculturalismus

I graduated from Edinburgh Uni in 2001, with an Masters in History, I also studied Archaeology as my outside subjects. In those 16 years since both scholarship and techniques have moved on, it's sometimes hard to keep up, but fir you older members of this site, whose knowledge may be based on what you learned at school ( though you may have studied the subject further since) your knowledge will be more out of date than mine, new sources if evidence are being unveiled all the time, we have access to techniques that our predecessors didn't again expanding the detail and knowledge of the period.

Do in summary, and putting on my tutors cap,

F for use of evidence and sources
F for composition
F overall


There is undoubtedly an agenda, otherwise this wouldn't be a big topic of debate and they wouldn't be covering Mediaeval race issues as part of modern university courses. One only has to visit the Natural History Museum in London to see a video of a Spanish lady explaining in broken English that the native servants of Darwin, who unsurprisingly happened to be ethnic minorities, also collected specimens. What that has to do with the theory of evolution is anyone's guess, other than to hold up a big sign saying "Hey look! Effniks were here too!" It is a direct policy of museums to attract ethnic minorities and this is dictated by local government. Naturally this inclusive philosophy becomes part of university courses too in order to re-educate people into the correct method of thinking. Less national history and more inclusiveness.

Guess what the new history gcse is rumoured to cover? You guessed it - immigration.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
There is undoubtedly an agenda, otherwise this wouldn't be a big topic of debate and they wouldn't be covering Mediaeval race issues as part of modern university courses......Naturally this inclusive philosophy becomes part of university courses too in order to re-educate people into the correct method of thinking.

Do you have anywhere specific in mind? It's just that, at my place, the MSc options for Medieval History are:

The Sources of Medieval History
The Crusades: Thirteenth Century Crossroads
Medieval Men and Masculinities
Literature and History in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland
Studying Women in Late Medieval England: Sources and Approaches
Constantinople: The History of a Medieval Megalopolis from Constantine the Great to Suleyman the Magnificent
The Crusades and the Euro-Mediterranean world of the Central Middle Ages

Not one of which seem, to me at least, to be pushing any particular re-education line vis-à-vis immigration.

So do you have direct evidence of this or have you plucked a straw-man out of the air?
 

Maple

LE
It's simply more re-writing of history to appeal to the Marxist liberals who riddle our education system and local government, imho. Cleopatra was black doncha know, or so the latest claim goes.
Well the story goes that she was a bit of a dog in real life, but was up for all sorts of 'unconventional' stuff, which was why she was such a hit with 'the big knobs' - Julie the Schoolie?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
There is undoubtedly an agenda, otherwise this wouldn't be a big topic of debate and they wouldn't be covering Mediaeval race issues as part of modern university courses. One only has to visit the Natural History Museum in London to see a video of a Spanish lady explaining in broken English that the native servants of Darwin, who unsurprisingly happened to be ethnic minorities, also collected specimens. What that has to do with the theory of evolution is anyone's guess, other than to hold up a big sign saying "Hey look! Effniks were here too!" It is a direct policy of museums to attract ethnic minorities and this is dictated by local government. Naturally this inclusive philosophy becomes part of university courses too in order to re-educate people into the correct method of thinking. Less national history and more inclusiveness.

Guess what the new history gcse is rumoured to cover? You guessed it - immigration.

There is no agenda, the only reason that this is a debate is because some whiny, basement dwelling, historically illiterate crank who writes for that exemplar of journalistic probity, Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson tweeted this

PJW-tweet.jpg

Now if you wanna know the kind of guy PJW is take a gander

Paul Joseph Watson - RationalWiki

Paul Joseph Watson - Wikipedia

As Neville Morley has said

What is surprising about these two arguments is that the substantive issues – ancient statues were painted, the Roman Empire (including Britain) was ethnically diverse – are such old hat. This is stuff that today’s professional classicists and ancient historians take pretty well for granted, as a starting point for more detailed and interesting investigation – and yet the statement of such facts appears as an extreme provocation to certain people

Diversitas et Multiculturalismus

You want to know how old hat, we've known about Afro Roman presence in the UK since the mid 1930s, and further investigation in the decades since have shown how extensive this is. Go back to my earlier posts and read the links.

The archaeological evidence proves this
The textual evidence process this
The linguistic evidence proves this
The genetic evidence proves this


If there is any Agenda it's from right-wing conspiracy theorists trying to impose their ignorant fringe beliefs on the rest of the world.

Now going back to your original post that started this thread off. I was rather surprised by its subject and that it was you that posted it, this subject had been discussed on numerous occasions during the 8 years I have been a member of Arrse, that it is in indeed old halt, so I was astonished that you didn't know this. I did think about wading in at the start, but tbf, I couldn't fecked dealing with the utterly bobbins search function, so unless there was any major drivel that fell into one of my areas of knowledge sod it.

(Btw @Good CO you know that googling the topic with Arrse added is the best way to find anything on here, the search function is diabolical. Sorry.)
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
On the point of ethnic minorities at Dunkirk, that dates in this movie don't work with their being there. Anyway I don't want a token ethnic minority to be shown for the sake of it.

I want a Pacific/BoB version of the Burma Campaign with the either the 81st or 82nd African Divisions, proper dramatic expositions of the Commonwealth contribution to the war effort.
 
Do you have anywhere specific in mind? It's just that, at my place, the MSc options for Medieval History are:

The Sources of Medieval History
The Crusades: Thirteenth Century Crossroads
Medieval Men and Masculinities
Literature and History in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland
Studying Women in Late Medieval England: Sources and Approaches
Constantinople: The History of a Medieval Megalopolis from Constantine the Great to Suleyman the Magnificent
The Crusades and the Euro-Mediterranean world of the Central Middle Ages

Not one of which seem, to me at least, to be pushing any particular re-education line vis-à-vis immigration.

So do you have direct evidence of this or have you plucked a straw-man out of the air?




This is from Concordia.
 
There is no agenda, the only reason that this is a debate is because some whiny, basement dwelling, historically illiterate crank who writes for that exemplar of journalistic probity, Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson tweeted this

View attachment 296094
Now if you wanna know the kind of guy PJW is take a gander

Paul Joseph Watson - RationalWiki

Paul Joseph Watson - Wikipedia

As Neville Morley has said



Diversitas et Multiculturalismus

You want to know how old hat, we've known about Afro Roman presence in the UK since the mid 1930s, and further investigation in the decades since have shown how extensive this is. Go back to my earlier posts and read the links.

The archaeological evidence proves this
The textual evidence process this
The linguistic evidence proves this
The genetic evidence proves this


If there is any Agenda it's from right-wing conspiracy theorists trying to impose their ignorant fringe beliefs on the rest of the world.

Now going back to your original post that started this thread off. I was rather surprised by its subject and that it was you that posted it, this subject had been discussed on numerous occasions during the 8 years I have been a member of Arrse, that it is in indeed old halt, so I was astonished that you didn't know this. I did think about wading in at the start, but tbf, I couldn't fecked dealing with the utterly bobbins search function, so unless there was any major drivel that fell into one of my areas of knowledge sod it.

(Btw @Good CO you know that googling the topic with Arrse added is the best way to find anything on here, the search function is diabolical. Sorry.)


As per my previous post, imho there is an agenda and that's reflected by museum and educational directions to re-educate people into becoming more liberal and accepting of immigrants. That's why there's a big push to include ethnic minorities in British history and a change from the traditional story of national history.

With regards to Dunkirk, I don't see why it's such a big deal to be ignorant of minorities playing such an obscure part of the BEF, they're hardly included in any of the histories I've read. It seems the majority of arrse haven't heard of their being a part of Op Dynamo either. Certainly worth a discussion with the new film being out, imho, and one running at 20 pages. WW2 is an immense topic and it seems the majority were also ignorant of the Brits painting a RN carrier in yankee colours in a reverse lend-lease as USS Robin. The first I heard of that was when I spoke to a WW2 RN pilot flying for the USN. One can study the subject for years and still learn something new.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
As per my previous post, imho there is an agenda and that's reflected by museum and educational directions to re-educate people into becoming more liberal and accepting of immigrants. That's why there's a big push to include ethnic minorities in British history and a change from the traditional story of national history.

Not quite, if you would allow me to rearrange your quote.

There is a big push to bring exciting new discoveries in our national history, this overturns traditional histories that no longer stand up to scrutiny. Ethnic minority participation in this history is a key part of it.

So a more accurate history is being brought to the masses, that reveals how contemporary British demographics society and culture came about.

Ethnic minorities were a key part of that evolution, a key part of out history
Why should their contribution be ignored. Why should their stories not be told?

The agenda us to educate and tell the full story of this nation. That this grips the shit of the historical illiterate, the Racists, the ignoramuses is just a bonus.
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
As an addendum, that you don't such history should be told seems suggest you don't think these people, ethnic minorities, deserve to be part of our society.

Our history is theirs, theirs is part of ours.

It's about accurate history.
 
Not quite, if you would allow me to rearrange your quote.

There is a big push to bring exciting new discoveries in our national history, this overturns traditional histories that no longer stand up to scrutiny. Ethnic minority participation in this history is a key part of it.

So a more accurate history is being brought to the masses, that reveals how contemporary British demographics society and culture came about.

Ethnic minorities were a key part of that evolution, a key part of out history
Why should their contribution be ignored. Why should their stories not be told?

The agenda us to educate and tell the full story of this nation. That this grips the shit of the historical illiterate, the Racists, the ignoramuses is just a bonus.


So you freely admit there is an agenda then? One that is written to include ethnic minorities in British History. That is an historical bias in itself, is it not?

Presumably you read E.H.Carr in your studies and you're aware that it's nigh impossible to write history without bias anyway? In his words, iirc, history would just be 'a set of dry facts', the very addition of interpretation and narrative adds bias because one must form a conclusion.

The agenda I'm claiming is a politically correct one and it seems I'm not alone in this view.



"Supposedly, our education system reinforces conservative values and Western culture is oppressive, misogynist, racist and guilty of enforcing inequality. In schools Marxist LGBTQI gender theory is forced on students and the national curriculum ignores Western culture in favour of politically correct indigenous, Asian and sustainability perspectives.

Proven by the Institute of Public Affairs analysis it is also true that “undergraduate history degrees in Australia fail to teach fundamental aspects of Australian history (instead) focusing on popular culture, film studies and ethnic/race history”.

According to one academic at Sydney University, teaching the benefits of Western culture is wrong because it “replicates and reinforces the concept of whiteness”. A situation leading to “racism, sexism, classism, historical injustice and prejudice based on religion”.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is Senior Research Fellow at the ACU and he recently delivered the annual St Edmund Campion Lecture at Sydney’s Campion College."

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph


I can also try googling a few museum jobs which claim to be especially interested to hear from people of ethnic minority backgrounds in their application, I guess that's positive discrimination at work? Immigration as a topic for gcse is on the gov website.

I don't think I've made my position clear in any of this so please don't count me in with the Nazi types, tho I am concerned about the level of immigration. I am perhaps just as concerned that people do not freely integrate, be they white/black or whatever, you can see this through simple observation. People tend to stay in their groups.

With this in mind it's probably wise to emphasise the role played by immigrants in British History in the hope to make people more liberal, I imagine the alternative would simply increase tensions. It would be better in my mind to look at things like El Alamein where we had ethnic Indian officers leading white British troops into battle, which leaves the British well ahead of the Americans in terms of racial equality. Your idea about Burma sounds great tho the 14th Army will probably remain forgotten because no-one wants to promote a war where Britain fought for colonial gain, the guardian readers would have a meltdown.
 

HSF

LE
More evidence if it was needed of historical reengineering is this new film about Queen victoria & her servant abdul or whatever.Something that has been common knowledge for a long time,yet somehow managing to imply some historical importance to a non event.The empire did not change course over the situation,in the same way that Mr Brown did not influence the empire in any way.
 
Actually @Dashing_Chap could you either PM me or post the ethnic recruitment links you mention in your post so I can incorporate them into my reply please.


Take your pic.

Ethnic Background Jobs - September 2017 | Indeed.co.uk

Altho the one I spotted was from a famous military museum which expressed the same sentiments. I also had it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, from a former curator.

I can see this debate going on til the cows come home and I don't see how you can refute my claim. I've posted courses from a university in the top 1.6% in the world, a speech from a university researcher, job specs from museums and immigration being a gcse topic from the official gov website.

You cannot deny that the history of the Western world is being rewritten in order to pander to minority groups. I don't mind history being inclusive for those who were there, but they shouldn't be given special interest or preference, as the Darwin exhibition shamelessly portrays at the NHM.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Take your pic.

Ethnic Background Jobs - September 2017 | Indeed.co.uk

Altho the one I spotted was from a famous military museum which expressed the same sentiments. I also had it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, from a former curator.

I can see this debate going on til the cows come home and I don't see how you can refute my claim. I've posted courses from a university in the top 1.6% in the world, a speech from a university researcher, job specs from museums and immigration being a gcse topic from the official gov website.

You cannot deny that the history of the Western world is being rewritten in order to pander to minority groups. I don't mind history being inclusive for those who were there, but they shouldn't be given special interest or preference, as the Darwin exhibition shamelessly portrays at the NHM.


Thanks dude, I'll get stuck into it, I fear it's not going to be a short reply however.
 

Sandy Heath

Old-Salt
[QUOTE="jimmys_best_mate, post: 8109485, member: 7724"

Mediterranean boats had no problem making it to the modern UK

[/QUOTE]

Not so: Mediterranean boats would have found it quite difficult to get to UK. Even as late as 1192 King Richard I could not return from Outremer to England by boat as he could not get past the Straits of Gibraltar after September.

"..even if Richard had been prepared to take the risk of facing 60-foot waves in galleys that would be overturned by waves one-quarter that height,medieval technology ruled out that possibility. East-flowing currents through the Straits were faster than the speed of any twelfth-century vessel plying in the opposite direction" (Frank McLynn: Lionheart and Lackland)
 
Not so: Mediterranean boats would have found it quite difficult to get to UK. Even as late as 1192 King Richard I could not return from Outremer to England by boat as he could not get past the Straits of Gibraltar after September.

Greek boats were mapping the British Isles (and getting far enough north to encounter icebergs) in 500BC.
 

Sandy Heath

Old-Salt
Greek boats were mapping the British Isles (and getting far enough north to encounter icebergs) in 500BC.

I don't dispute that. Certainly the tin trade was flourishing from very early times. I was making the point that this was probably a seasonal trade for Mediterranean vessels because of the dangers and difficulties. Lief Ericson reached America in about 1010 but there wasn't much trade between America and Europe for the next 500 years!
 

Latest Threads

Top