David Blair in the Torygraf is pretty scathing about Paxman's grasp of the main facts in Empire ... this is not about the detail but about core facts this is serious!
-
According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. -
I didn't see the programme in question, but anyone who brings Paxperson down to size and wipes that smirk off his ugly mug is an ace, in my book.Originally posted by aka Calum Da Jazbo View Post
Maybe know-all Paxo superciliously stuffing students on University Challenge in his sneering imperious way will now be a thing of the past - though I can't think what Auntie saw in him in the first place.
Self-serving? Yes! Left wing? Paxman? My a**e!!!
-
It does say that this is Paxman's "personal view" however, if he is distorting historical facts to suit his own views, surely this is wrong. I see it's in conjunction with the Open University and their Open Learn Team (I haven't seen the programme so shouldn't really comment but one would expect the OU to check that he doesn't twist history?)Comment
-
if JP is imperious I guess that makes him an ideal presenter of this programmeOriginally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostComment
-
So I take it you'd not be applying as his replacement thenOriginally posted by mercia View PostComment
-
if JP is imperious I guess that makes him an ideal presenter of this programme
if you look below articles, at the comments, a popular contribution at both 'the telegrump' and 'the guardian' is the accusation that the beeb is biased to the left. but the assumption fades rapidly that paxo might be 'ideal' especially when he can't get facts right, regardles of left or right bias.
incredibly, even with 'the open university's' assistance it's still wrong? imv this is another blow to the credibility of online education (for cash)? as well as a poor reflection on bbc 4. if 'the telegrump' author is right, airing such a sketchy sense of colonial history is bonkers, perhaps paxo is trying to be 'a great british eccentric'? amatuer51's 'jungle book' utube extract on this very forum, was more accurate than paxo's delerium by the sounds of it.
are we listening to the sound of paxo listening to the sound of his own voice? while also counting his bank balance, just dippig in, now and again with solid facts? perhaps paxo thinks there's no need for extravagance where the truth's concerned.
the very best that could happen, is that the extreme tv faux pa allows for authentic, truthful account of our history via better quality media discussion. essentially, egypt, sudan, turkey sounded much more interesting via 'the telegrump'.
(ime the very best way to understand what actually happened, as far as the beeb are concerned, was an r4 programme about 'the history of pickles, relishes and chutneys, their function in british diet', coincidentally, at roughly the same time period refered to by paxo. perhaps we just don't get enough decent info about 'mustardy colonels' as a general rule. perhaps what's particularly embarassing, is the thought that citizens here originally from sudan and egypt watch bbc4 bemused)!Comment
-
Yep - a lot could be said about him too. Met him once.Originally posted by handsomefortune View Post
Nuff said.
Comment
-
The Telegraph has the facts about Gordon just about right (but, then, they needed only to watch the 1960s Charlton Heston film, where the history is more than adequate). I have been watching Jeremy Paxman's series and it certainly does seem to take a clear anti-Empire, anti-British stance. The most embarrassing scenes have been JP's attempts to force interviewees to say that the British presence was a bad thing.
Unhappily, there has been no real historical overview of the growth of empire (slightly surprisingly). There were three clear thrusts, which were not 'planned' as such, but which were inevitable consequences of what had gone before. First, a string of 40 or so naval bases to allow Pax Britannica (keep the sea-lanes free to allow trade), followed by the second phase, the growth of dozens of trading communities across the globe. The Empire in 1850 was still relatively small in terms of land area, but all those pink dots controlled most of the world's trade. Then came the inevitable third stage, in which land was taken, often out of fear that someone else (France, Russia or Germany mainly) threatened the trade routes. The trouble is that few really wanted stage 3, because it needed a large administration that consumed time and money. Much easier to do business in East Africa when it's all controlled by the Sultan of Zanzibar; problematic when there are German colonies with which you can't trade any more, and British ones which you have to pay for. All this was (seen in hindsight) the inevitable consequence of stages 1 and 2. It was certainly a consequence of allowing the (private) East India Company to grow uncontrolled as it did - imagine if Starbucks had its own private army! The eventual need for direct rule of India from Whitehall after the Mutiny (largely due to John Company's mismanagement) encouraged land-grabbers like Cecil Rhodes and General Gordon elsewhere, as well as the whole of the "white-man's burden" attitude, but it also marked the beginning of the end for Empire. And that, of course, was a very good thing indeed.Last edited by Pabmusic; 14-03-12, 07:59.Comment
-
-
mercia - I appreciated the pun, anyway ...
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
while I agree with much of pabmusic's #8, I would also say that much of our acquiring of the empire was almost accidental rather than the result of any cunning plan.Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
I still think the best easy introduction to the history of the British empire is James (Jan) Morris's trilogy ("Heaven's Command"; "Pax Britannica"; Farewell the trumpets") written in the 1970s.
I don't dislike Paxman's manner - which some here object to - but I have to say that so far his series is pretty thin on ideas and arguments, and I'm not really sure he has a 'story' he istrying to put across..Comment
-
I agree with you entirely. Anyone whose experience of life suggests that governments can 'plan' anything over decades, let alone centuries, is from another planet (and should 'cone out' about it, as they'd make a fortune).Originally posted by vinteuil View PostComment
-
"Are ya courtin'?"Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostYep - a lot could be said about him too. Met him once. Nuff said.
Comment
-
Comment