Pub Quiz thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Hornet-Fez said:
I'm sorry but I suggest strongly that you read the letters of succession that the rebel States wrote. Lincoln courted Lee but Lee saw his loyalty to Virginia as you rightly say. I compared Lee to Rommel, and you don't see HIS statue in German parks and Volk all know who he was! False equivalence. Nor do we see statues of Charles I everywhere, unlike Cromwell and the other Parliamentarians. They were on the right side of history as there is no divine right of kings! Cromwell certainly meted out a severe and gratuitous penalty to the Irish but they had attempted, in allegiance with Charles I, to return England to a pimple on the arse of the holy roman empire.
Likewise there is no place for a statue of George III in Central Park. Books and museums, not public places.
Click to expand...
The comparison to Germany and Rommel only takes us so far Fez. Germany has a negative relationship to its military past in that even war memorials to unknown soldiers need to be protected when demos are happening nearby. My father - who was at the royal Military Hospital in Chelsea, was horrified that Germany had no equivalent for their old soldiers. The comparison to the American Civil War is not applicable because Germany was undoubtedly, the aggressor and anyone involved in their war effort is now highly suspect. The American Civil War did not break out because of slavery, but because of taxation and levies. This idea of the North as being abolitionist is a convenient myth. Abolitionists in the north were a very small minority (possibly little more than a few Quakers) and Lincoln was certainly not one of them - his comments on race were worse than anything coming out of the south. The issue of the abolition of slavery was only included in the North after the war had been going for two years, and as a way of getting international approval - most notably from Britain and France who were close to recognizing the Confederacy as a separate state. Britain was arming both sides at the commencement of the war. Any idea that freed slaves would be welcomed in the north was an illusion - Lincoln believed in apartheid or in enforced repatriation, but in nothing else. Yet there are statues of Lincoln everywhere in the USA without any protest. I agree that having statues of prominent people in public places such as parks can be seen as a political statement - but the fact that they were revered once is part of the history of a country, whether they would like to whitewash that history or not. In East Germany they removed all statues from Marx or Lenin - but does it make any difference to their history ? Historical figures were products of their age and cannot be judged by modern standards - or brushed aside because they do not conform to modern pc. rules - if you do that you will find that no history is left.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000
colognehornet said:
Cheers Frenchie. In Russia in the 17th Century the Czar brought in a tax for all people who possessed one of these - in Yemen in the 1930s they brought in a tax for all those who didn't. What was it ?
Click to expand...
Also a touchy theme in Afghanistan. It was said that Henry the Eighth had a tax on these but no evidence has been found.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
Beards?
Click to expand...
It was indeed to do with beards Frenchie. In the seventeenth century one of the Czars was so anxious to make Russia appear more Western European that he brought in a tax on beards. Yemen did exactly the reverse in the 1930s and demanded an extra tax on those who were clean shaven - this was a watered down version of the Sharia laws which demanded beard wearing for men. The Taliban demand that men wear a beard which is the length of a fist - and actually walk around with the means to measure it at any time <doh>
 
colognehornet said:
The comparison to Germany and Rommel only takes us so far Fez. Germany has a negative relationship to its military past in that even war memorials to unknown soldiers need to be protected when demos are happening nearby. My father - who was at the royal Military Hospital in Chelsea, was horrified that Germany had no equivalent for their old soldiers. The comparison to the American Civil War is not applicable because Germany was undoubtedly, the aggressor and anyone involved in their war effort is now highly suspect. The American Civil War did not break out because of slavery, but because of taxation and levies. This idea of the North as being abolitionist is a convenient myth. Abolitionists in the north were a very small minority (possibly little more than a few Quakers) and Lincoln was certainly not one of them - his comments on race were worse than anything coming out of the south. The issue of the abolition of slavery was only included in the North after the war had been going for two years, and as a way of getting international approval - most notably from Britain and France who were close to recognizing the Confederacy as a separate state. Britain was arming both sides at the commencement of the war. Any idea that freed slaves would be welcomed in the north was an illusion - Lincoln believed in apartheid or in enforced repatriation, but in nothing else. Yet there are statues of Lincoln everywhere in the USA without any protest. I agree that having statues of prominent people in public places such as parks can be seen as a political statement - but the fact that they were revered once is part of the history of a country, whether they would like to whitewash that history or not. In East Germany they removed all statues from Marx or Lenin - but does it make any difference to their history ? Historical figures were products of their age and cannot be judged by modern standards - or brushed aside because they do not conform to modern pc. rules - if you do that you will find that no history is left.
Click to expand...
The only comparisons between Lee and Rommel are that both are regarded as military geniuses, both remain hugely popular and both fought on the side of evil.
This revisionist Lost Cause crap about taxes and so on is the kind of nonsense I expect from trump apologists. Again, read the Articles of Secession and all but one of the Confederate States directly mention it if my memory serves.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come til later but the Union was already choc full of abolitionists among the educated classes even though Lincoln was himself a racist as was the average American and yet elected on an anti-slavery platform. Delaware, despite being in the Union, was still a slave State. The South was run on slave labour and that was an economic threat but also a moral outrage.
The key thing was the desire to prevent the spread of slavery to the newer territories, especially those won in the war with Mexico. Whilst I would agree that there are some murky aspects to the war and not everything can be looked at through our supposed superior morality of today but the absolute key issue was slavery.
The thing about the Confederate statues is that they were specifically erected during the Jim Crow era to venerate the last of their veterans, fifty, sixty, years after. And especially to remind former slaves just who was in charge in them there parts. Never about anything else.
There is NO historical merit to those statues, none whatsoever, and they ought to have come down over fifty years ago. When we see the protests in support of these monuments, the flags that are waved are almost always the Battle Flag of Tennessee / Confederate Navy Jack, not the less well known Confederate Stars and Bars. As a battle flag it stands for only one thing.
 
colognehornet said:
The comparison to Germany and Rommel only takes us so far Fez. Germany has a negative relationship to its military past in that even war memorials to unknown soldiers need to be protected when demos are happening nearby. My father - who was at the royal Military Hospital in Chelsea, was horrified that Germany had no equivalent for their old soldiers. The comparison to the American Civil War is not applicable because Germany was undoubtedly, the aggressor and anyone involved in their war effort is now highly suspect. The American Civil War did not break out because of slavery, but because of taxation and levies. This idea of the North as being abolitionist is a convenient myth. Abolitionists in the north were a very small minority (possibly little more than a few Quakers) and Lincoln was certainly not one of them - his comments on race were worse than anything coming out of the south. The issue of the abolition of slavery was only included in the North after the war had been going for two years, and as a way of getting international approval - most notably from Britain and France who were close to recognizing the Confederacy as a separate state. Britain was arming both sides at the commencement of the war. Any idea that freed slaves would be welcomed in the north was an illusion - Lincoln believed in apartheid or in enforced repatriation, but in nothing else. Yet there are statues of Lincoln everywhere in the USA without any protest. I agree that having statues of prominent people in public places such as parks can be seen as a political statement - but the fact that they were revered once is part of the history of a country, whether they would like to whitewash that history or not. In East Germany they removed all statues from Marx or Lenin - but does it make any difference to their history ? Historical figures were products of their age and cannot be judged by modern standards - or brushed aside because they do not conform to modern pc. rules - if you do that you will find that no history is left.
Click to expand...

I have always thought that Lincoln turning the Civil War into a war to free the slaves was the root cause of modern racism in America

At the start of the conflict you had people fighting for the South who never owned slaves and plantations and possibly did not even know about the slaves, you also had Generals fighting for the North who owned slaves and plantations

The aftermath of the war left many slaves homeless and starving without any hope of employment

Slaves working on plantations where they were not treated as subhuman animals often became share croppers to keep their homes and feed their children but the North did not buy enough of their cotton to sustain them

The scars on all sides still run deep
 
colognehornet said:
Was it the Italian cyclist Marco Pantani ?
Click to expand...

Yes cologne. He had a huge popular following and was a fabulous climber. However he did have a real drugs problem, and despite at the time of his death it was kept quiet, eventually it became known that he had taken a huge overdose of cocaine. Over to you.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
Yes cologne. He had a huge popular following and was a fabulous climber. However he did have a real drugs problem, and despite at the time of his death it was kept quiet, eventually it became known that he had taken a huge overdose of cocaine. Over to you.
Click to expand...
Cheers Frenchie. What is the collective noun for a group of unicorns ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back