Read on Twitter
Oh we're still talking about statues are we? This is a vapid, superficial failure of an argument and it bugs me that an MP who read history at a top university has made it. https://bit.ly/2LLeKVj
To focus on this fatuous shart seems almost like a deliberate distraction from the catastrophically lethal mismanagement of a national disaster. But it is also such weak sauce, a nothing argument that fails to even vaguely engage with the issues.
History, as if it needs saying, is the analysis of the past. We cannot change the past, but history is always changing. Our understanding of the past is dependent on new data, new sources, contemporary values. https://bit.ly/2NfKbrm
I’ve been involved in these discussions at my own university by the way, with our pernicious history of eugenics and race science. This is my view:
That by the way is from an article I wrote about Fisher and Galton, two brilliant scientists who were also rabid eugenicists.
https://bit.ly/39LgANW
https://bit.ly/39LgANW
[this is probably paywalled] Here is a different view, by some scientists whom I have a lot of respect for. https://go.nature.com/3bPD5E0
Anyway. I wish we had better public discourse about this, instead of what is effectively history bantz for flag wrappers. Here’s another example, a commentary by Douglas Murray, an opinion writer who some take seriously, arguing that a Holocaust Memorial should not be political.
If someone could furnish me with an answer to the question of how a Holocaust memorial could *not* be political, that would be useful.
