You couldn't make it up!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1 Viewer)

I didn't know BLM was in the UK too.Lucky you.:rolleyes2:
Mark
 
All we need now is a note under the Ishandlwana painting, depicting Zulu victory over 1200 Brits, congratulating them on the win.

The NSW Art Gallery in Sydney has the other more well known Rorkes Drift painting by Alphonse de Neuville. No doubt they are already looking into what to say underneath that. Now before any keen observers correct me and say the painting is in Wales note that was the 2nd version done after it was realised NSW had bought the original soon after it was painted.

I note Martyn has a quote by Rhodes. My old UK school had school houses named after Rhodes and Gordon. Both were "cancelled".
 
GICOP said:
You couldn't make it up :rolleyes2: :mad:

Queen's Zulu painting is given 'colonial' warning | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

I detest revisionist history and the application of current moral / ethical standards to historical events that take them out of context.

Equally though history should inform and educate.

Headline screams it gets a 'colonial violence' warning but have you looked at what the description actually says?

8 words (right at the bottom) that say "This work is connected to colonialism and imperialism".

I think it is informing / educating and not revisionist in any way.

Newsrag creating noise because they have to write something, other than covid and Brexit

I am sure my Britains AZW display is safe (for now) :smile2::smile2::smile2:

Gazza

Here it is in full.

[FONT=&quot]The battle of Rorke's Drift was fought in the Anglo-Zulu war in South Africa in 1879. Rorke's Drift was a mission station, originally a farm owned by James Rorke, an Irish trader. The station, part of which had been turned into a small field hospital, was defended by 141 British soldiers against an attack from about 4,000 Zulu warriors under the command of Prince Dabulamanzi, half-brother of Prince Cetshwayo. The defence of the station was commanded by Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers. In recognition of the heroism displayed by the defenders 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Elizabeth Thompson, Lady Butler was a specialist in military subjects, influenced by French military painters, particuarly Detaille. Her 1874 painting [/FONT]The Roll Call, RCIN 405915[FONT=&quot], which depicted a battalion of wounded and exhausted Grenadier Guards lined up for a roll call following an engagement during the Crimean War, enjoyed phenomenal success when it was exhibited at the Royal Academy, turning its painter into a national celebrity. The painting was subsequently acquired by Queen Victoria, who went on to commission this painting from the artist.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The defence of Rorke's Drift captured the public imagination and when the soldiers returned to England they first visited Windsor, before being sent to Lady Butler. She went to Portsmouth, where the regiment was quartered, and they put on a representation of the battle for her 'dressed in the uniforms they wore on that dreadful night …the result was that I reproduced the event as nearly to the life as possible'. The artist stated that she had 'managed to show, in that scuffle, all the V.C.'s and other conspicuous actors in the drama'. In the painting the Zulu soldiers are attacking the north-west corner of the station. In the background the roof of the hospital is on fire.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lieutenant Chard is in the centre, pointing with his left arm, next to Lieutenant Bromhead who is holding his sword. When Queen Victoria saw the painting she noted: 'All, officers & men, are portraits, & everything is painted from descriptions, & just as it was, down to the very smallest detail'. The painting was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1881.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This work is connected to colonialism and imperialism. Like all Royal Collection records, this work is subject to ongoing research as Royal Collection Trust seeks to present fully the narratives represented in the Collection.[/FONT]
 
Gazza said:
I detest revisionist history and the application of current moral / ethical standards to historical events that take them out of context.

Equally though history should inform and educate.

Headline screams it gets a 'colonial violence' warning but have you looked at what the description actually says?

8 words (right at the bottom) that say "This work is connected to colonialism and imperialism".

I think it is informing / educating and not revisionist in any way.

Newsrag creating noise because they have to write something, other than covid and Brexit

I am sure my Britains AZW display is safe (for now) :smile2::smile2::smile2:

Gazza




Here it is in full.

The battle of Rorke's Drift was fought in the Anglo-Zulu war in South Africa in 1879. Rorke's Drift was a mission station, originally a farm owned by James Rorke, an Irish trader. The station, part of which had been turned into a small field hospital, was defended by 141 British soldiers against an attack from about 4,000 Zulu warriors under the command of Prince Dabulamanzi, half-brother of Prince Cetshwayo. The defence of the station was commanded by Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers. In recognition of the heroism displayed by the defenders 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded.

Elizabeth Thompson, Lady Butler was a specialist in military subjects, influenced by French military painters, particuarly Detaille. Her 1874 painting The Roll Call, RCIN 405915, which depicted a battalion of wounded and exhausted Grenadier Guards lined up for a roll call following an engagement during the Crimean War, enjoyed phenomenal success when it was exhibited at the Royal Academy, turning its painter into a national celebrity. The painting was subsequently acquired by Queen Victoria, who went on to commission this painting from the artist.

The defence of Rorke's Drift captured the public imagination and when the soldiers returned to England they first visited Windsor, before being sent to Lady Butler. She went to Portsmouth, where the regiment was quartered, and they put on a representation of the battle for her 'dressed in the uniforms they wore on that dreadful night …the result was that I reproduced the event as nearly to the life as possible'. The artist stated that she had 'managed to show, in that scuffle, all the V.C.'s and other conspicuous actors in the drama'. In the painting the Zulu soldiers are attacking the north-west corner of the station. In the background the roof of the hospital is on fire.

Lieutenant Chard is in the centre, pointing with his left arm, next to Lieutenant Bromhead who is holding his sword. When Queen Victoria saw the painting she noted: 'All, officers & men, are portraits, & everything is painted from descriptions, & just as it was, down to the very smallest detail'. The painting was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1881.

This work is connected to colonialism and imperialism. Like all Royal Collection records, this work is subject to ongoing research as Royal Collection Trust seeks to present fully the narratives represented in the Collection.
Click to expand...

Thank you....some people only want to hear one side of an argument and think any criticism of their history is always PC.
 
A reasonable solution to the pervasive "PC" argument was illustrated in an interview with an African American Professor of history.

She was asked about the Jefferson Memorial and should it be taken down.
As we know Jefferson was not only a slave holder but he had a sexual relationship with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings, and fathered a child with her.
Evidence has revealed that he started this sexual relationship when Sally was a teenager and he was 20 years older than her which legitimately can be construed as rape, statutory rape and
child abuse. She was his property, under age and he was in control, it could not be argued as consensual.

The Professor stated that Jefferson as a Founding Father and President was very important to the foundation and history of America. "He has an important place in our history and should not
be excluded". However, the Memorial should include signage that reveals Jefferson's accomplishments and immoral and damaging behavior.
"Let our informed citizens weigh the good and bad and come to their own conclusions."

If we are to learn from history we must be honest and teach the whole story.
European Colonialism brought modernity, innovations and government but at the same time was too often brutal and repressive.
There were many acts of individual courage and empathy along side the greed and violence. Lets just teach it all.
 
I don't have a problem with history, context discussions, I have always agreed with the study of history. The devil is always in the details, what I do not agree with is revisionist history and a lot (not in this case apparently) of it is just pandering to the current PC wave. There is no denying that. You have to look at all sides and I am sorry, but that is a reality.

Case in point and I have said this many times, there are and have been continually attempts to minimize the Holocaust. It is happening, while it is usually universally and quickly condemned, it is happening. Real example, my son is a junior in AP US History this year. What he is being taught curriculum wise is flat out "bent". I don't know how else to describe it and even his teacher is highly upset. The Holocaust is a brief mention, the American Civil War is taboo and here is the kicker. The Japanese Rape of Nanking was REMOVED from the curriculum as it was deemed bias. WHAT? ***?

I am a skeptic albeit I think an intelligent one when it comes to this topic. If the example above doesn't scare you, it should. I know it worries the heck out of me. I believe in facts, good bad and ugly and that is what should be taught and learned. NOT opinion and looking at the times through modern lenses, that is horsecrap.

On another note, the US House just passed a resolution to remove Robert E. Lee from the National Park at Antietam. Rather than taking the NPS suggestion of putting into context and using his monument as a teaching aide, it was attacked successfully for political points. The assault continues, as I previously indicated, where else do you put monuments than on battlefields. This IMO is ridiculous.

Tom
 
tdubel said:
I don't have a problem with history, context discussions, I have always agreed with the study of history. The devil is always in the details, what I do not agree with is revisionist history and a lot (not in this case apparently) of it is just pandering to the current PC wave. There is no denying that. You have to look at all sides and I am sorry, but that is a reality.

Case in point and I have said this many times, there are and have been continually attempts to minimize the Holocaust. It is happening, while it is usually universally and quickly condemned, it is happening. Real example, my son is a junior in AP US History this year. What he is being taught curriculum wise is flat out "bent". I don't know how else to describe it and even his teacher is highly upset. The Holocaust is a brief mention, the American Civil War is taboo and here is the kicker. The Japanese Rape of Nanking was REMOVED from the curriculum as it was deemed bias. WHAT? ***?

I am a skeptic albeit I think an intelligent one when it comes to this topic. If the example above doesn't scare you, it should. I know it worries the heck out of me. I believe in facts, good bad and ugly and that is what should be taught and learned. NOT opinion and looking at the times through modern lenses, that is horsecrap.

On another note, the US House just passed a resolution to remove Robert E. Lee from the National Park at Antietam. Rather than taking the NPS suggestion of putting into context and using his monument as a teaching aide, it was attacked successfully for political points. The assault continues, as I previously indicated, where else do you put monuments than on battlefields. This IMO is ridiculous.

Tom
Click to expand...

I agree with you Tom and I also agree that taking down Lee's statue from a battlefield Park or museum is wrong.

My company did a lot of business in Germany. We had offices in Frankfurt and Munich where I visited often. I talked to my employees and associates about Nazi Germany and they told me that it was a significant part of their curriculum including visits to concentration camps. They were taught
about how Hitler came to power and the atrocities that were committed. Most of them agreed that being taught the brutal truth, as painful as it was, was important to developing a better society. Unfortunately we don't always learn from history and repeat our mistakes.

On the other hand I visited Japan close to a hundred times for business and dealt with all their large semiconductor companies. I became very close friends with many of my Japanese associates. All were either too young or not born during WWII.
They admitted that their education was sorely lacking in the truths about Japan's aggression and brutality. They learned from traveling and speaking with foreigners as well as the internet. Their parents and older relatives were reluctant to talk about
the war. To this day they downplay the genocide in China, Korea and other Asian countries.
 
nysoldiers said:
I agree with you Tom and I also agree that taking down Lee's statue from a battlefield Park or museum is wrong.

My company did a lot of business in Germany. We had offices in Frankfurt and Munich where I visited often. I talked to my employees and associates about Nazi Germany and they told me that it was a significant part of their curriculum including visits to concentration camps. They were taught
about how Hitler came to power and the atrocities that were committed. Most of them agreed that being taught the brutal truth, as painful as it was, was important to developing a better society. Unfortunately we don't always learn from history and repeat our mistakes.

On the other hand I visited Japan close to a hundred times for business and dealt with all their large semiconductor companies. I became very close friends with many of my Japanese associates. All were either too young or not born during WWII.
They admitted that their education was sorely lacking in the truths about Japan's aggression and brutality. They learned from traveling and speaking with foreigners as well as the internet. Their parents and older relatives were reluctant to talk about
the war. To this day they downplay the genocide in China, Korea and other Asian countries.
Click to expand...


Rich,
While not the same experiences you have had, I have had similar conclusions and results. Your post is spot on.

The Germans "banned" the symbols of WW2 not from teaching aides or items or books or knowledge based things, they banned it from glorification. In other words, the Nazi symbols are hate symbols and I agree with that as they originated as hate symbols, they were and always are hate. I think in the US, the unfortunate issue that occurred is some of our own hate groups misappropriated symbols and used them as "hate" symbols and thus they are currently viewed and defined by the masses as symbols of hate. I don't believe that the 11th Mississippi or the 4th Virginia Flags started out as "hate" symbols, they were simply regimental flags. End of day, I see both sides on that. It is unfortunate and in my opinion it is context that is our issue.

Regarding Japan, yup, they wiped their own atrocities from history and their teaching. Hard to learn in that manner!

Tom
 
Gazza said:
I detest revisionist history and the application of current moral / ethical standards to historical events that take them out of context.

Equally though history should inform and educate.

Headline screams it gets a 'colonial violence' warning but have you looked at what the description actually says?

8 words (right at the bottom) that say "This work is connected to colonialism and imperialism".

I think it is informing / educating and not revisionist in any way.

Newsrag creating noise because they have to write something, other than covid and Brexit

I am sure my Britains AZW display is safe (for now) :smile2::smile2::smile2:

Gazza


I don't think we need to be constantly beaten over the head with reminders of Colonialism/Imperialism connected to art. The movie Zulu portrayed both sides with respect. Will that now be banned due to Imperialistic connections? Just my thoughts. Chris
Click to expand...
 
Terp152 said:
Gazza said:
I detest revisionist history and the application of current moral / ethical standards to historical events that take them out of context.

Equally though history should inform and educate.

Headline screams it gets a 'colonial violence' warning but have you looked at what the description actually says?

8 words (right at the bottom) that say "This work is connected to colonialism and imperialism".

I think it is informing / educating and not revisionist in any way.

Newsrag creating noise because they have to write something, other than covid and Brexit

I am sure my Britains AZW display is safe (for now) :smile2::smile2::smile2:

Gazza


I don't think we need to be constantly beaten over the head with reminders of Colonialism/Imperialism connected to art. The movie Zulu portrayed both sides with respect. Will that now be banned due to Imperialistic connections? Just my thoughts. Chris
Click to expand...


Bringing back memories.....I saw the movie "Zulu" when I was 16 years old. I was into history but knew little about this period and battle. I walked away feeling that both sides showed a lot of courage. The British were outnumbered but the Zulus had few modern weapons.
I really didn't think about the politics of Colonialism or Imperialism at that time of my life, it was just a great story and entertaining. If I was taught some context before hand I might have thought differently, that will always be the challenge of teaching history.
Click to expand...
 
Great points by all: history is to be taught and learned, and on occasion not repeated, facts are facts.
History also demonstrates that we are evolving in our selective consciousness and find objection in parts of history that we did not do so in the past.
 
Martyn...

we welcome the UK to the party...
it's been going on here for years now...
history is disappearing...
they have removed statues from General Robert E. Lee to Sponge Bob Square Pants...
books will probably be next...
Farenheit 451 may come to life...

they still haven't figured out a name from the NFL team formerly know as the Washington Redskins...
welcome...:rolleyes2:
 
mikemiller1955 said:
they still haven't figured out a name from the NFL team formerly know as the Washington Redskins...
welcome...:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

I’m expecting that any day the EPL will make Arsenal drop the Gunners name {eek3} or Tottenham drop Hotspurs {eek3}{eek3}
 
I think context matters. If you name a public building or park after someone or place a statue in those areas, it is meant to honor that person. And the public has the same right today to rename those places or remove those statues as the public did decades ago in erecting them. If they are placed on battlefields to educate, then they are neutral symbols of events that happened in those places. So it's a much different matter to have a Robert E. Lee statue in a public park than on a battlefield.
 
Combat said:
I think context matters. If you name a public building or park after someone or place a statue in those areas, it is meant to honor that person. And the public has the same right today to rename those places or remove those statues as the public did decades ago in erecting them. If they are placed on battlefields to educate, then they are neutral symbols of events that happened in those places. So it's a much different matter to have a Robert E. Lee statue in a public park than on a battlefield.
Click to expand...


Not sure if you saw the note - Antietam Battlefield is a National Battlefield and part of the National Park Service. I think that's the whole point - when does it end, apparently a National Battlefield Park is now being assaulted. Anyone with any historical intelligence is going to find that insulting.

Additionally and I am not getting in this mud but Robert E. Lee was never taught as a hated part of history until VERY recently. He was complicated but he did a lot of good too, so I believe he for one is a punching bag for the age of revisionism. Historians on all sides told his story and you can't tell me that for the last 150 years every historian was a racist in their portrayal of Lee. That is just BS.

Quite frankly, you are hard pressed to find a commander on any side of that War who was an upstanding Civil Rights leader. At worst, most were either slave owners at some point and at best they were ambivalent, so if we are honest with ourselves, there were not many Saints.

TD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top