Home Forums General General I worry about history

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #192312
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    “The Seven Years’ War was a battle mainly between Britain and France about control of North America and India.”

    Which is sort of OK as far as it goes. The FIW was about that, it may even have been the casus belli, but to suggest that the SYW was mainly about that…Frederick the Great must be spinning in his grave.

    I expected better of the BBC 🙁

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67341309

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #192313
    Avatar photoMike
    Keymaster

    I expected better of the BBC

    In a world where any armoured vehicle is a tank and any weapon bigger than a sidearm is a machine gun, I don’t…

    #192314
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Regrettably I gave up expecting better of the BBC some time ago.

    As you say Frederick would have been miffed to think he was a sideshow.

    I suppose if you are trying to sell the idea to the Americans (no doubt there will be articles in BBC History and History Extra) you make it about them.

    Also – ‘a battle’ ? I’m a bluff old traditionalist – ‘to battle’ can have the wider meaning of struggle. ‘A battle’ however means organised (more or less) groups trying to kill each other in a specific area of real estate over a specific period. A succession of battles is a campaign and a group of them is a ‘War’. Otherwise it would be the Seven Years Battle.

    #192341
    Avatar photoTony Hughes
    Participant

    I noticed those gaffs too – I’ll bet there is comment in next week’s Radio Times. Considering the quality of recent BBC textual output in both content and the standard of it’s presentation (poor spelling, incorrect punctuation & atrocious grammar)  I suppose this is fairly minor.

    When a British school text book had a timeline showing the start of WW2 as 1941 I realised that Wikipedia should be banned.

     

     

    #192346
    Avatar photoDarkest Star Games
    Participant

    At the risk of sounding like a jerk, it really has been seeming like media of all sorts is now aimed at the lowest common denominator and written by the lowest common denominator, everything just bite sized for easy consumption, digestion and comprehension.  You just know the heads of various outlets have big motivational posters with poor grammar and emojis that say “if it makes the brain have to work your doing it wrong LOL.”

    At least they got the 7 Years War part right and didn’t call it the America-India War or something to better support their gaff.

    "I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

    #192349
    Avatar photoSane Max
    Participant

    Sadly almost all media is junk now. Little things that would simply have never been tolerated on reputable sources are now common, Grammar and usage errors abound. The Weather forecast is now about being exciting, not factual.

    I blame t’web. Most online sources are about clicks. If a story is true but not very clickbaity it will be made so, or dumped for one that is.

    I am aware this makes us all sound like old farts claiming it was better in the old days, but it was. One of the more interesting resources on Youtube is old documentaries. They are staggeringly good. A modern documentary will only get made if someone in it can be persuaded to cry.

    On the Bright side – Netflix are re-making ‘Shogun’ 🙂

    #192352

    If the BBC has not stooped to releasing such shows as “Ice Road Truckers” or “Duck Dynasty” then they still are a cut (or three!) better than History Channel.

    John

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

    --Abraham Lincoln

    #192353
    Avatar photoMr. Average
    Participant

    Revisionist history is in vogue at the moment. That is putting it as generously as I can.

    #192355
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I don’t mind revisionist history if it is based on research and shrugging off old straitjackets. The work that has been done on WWI Western Front for example has sloughed off the sixties patina of ‘Oh What A Lovely War’ and maybe even opened some people’s eyes to the fact that Blackadder Goes Forth was not a documentary.

    When it’s an excuse for shoddy writing and not being bothered to check simple facts it isn’t revisionism; it’s laziness or grinding a political axe.

    #192356
    Avatar photoMr. Average
    Participant

    I don’t mind revisionist history if it is based on research and shrugging off old straitjackets. The work that has been done on WWI Western Front for example has sloughed off the sixties patina of ‘Oh What A Lovely War’ and maybe even opened some people’s eyes to the fact that Blackadder Goes Forth was not a documentary. When it’s an excuse for shoddy writing and not being bothered to check simple facts it isn’t revisionism; it’s laziness or grinding a political axe.

    You probably put it way better than I could.

    #192357
    Avatar photoSane Max
    Participant

    The Onion as always put their finger on the issue, and this article is 16 years old.

    https://www.theonion.com/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-independence-1819568571

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.