Patrick Moore dies

[Lateralthinking1]

Simon, please do not drag this thread down. I am sure that just about every participating nation could have been interpreted as behaving barbarically (consider Dresden). Quite frankly, we just don't know...

Let's talk about Patrick Moore.

Well, what we do know is that David Irving, aged 7 at the end of WW2, has spent vast amounts of his adult life depicting what happened at Dresden as an utter abomination while simultaneously denying the holocaust. We also know that he spread rumours that 250,000 were killed when the current consensus is that it was fewer than 25,000.

There is a question about whether the bombing of Dresden by the RAF was necessary. Churchill had severe doubts. But the systematic killing and animalistic torturing of specific categories of citizens over a decade is not at all comparable with a somewhat questionable action taken by opponents of fascism after six years of unbearable stress.

Whether Patrick Moore was involved in the bombing of Dresden we don't know.

[ahinton]

While I agree with the modern sentiments behind your comments on the Germans and the Japanese, they are clearly written by someone who hasn't experienced war.

Of course they are, although the sentiments themselves are hardly "modern"!

One of my late uncles was in Burma and such were the impacts of his experience there, he was never able to talk about it. Another, who was my godfather, was among the troops who went into Belsen at the closing of war.

I fully sympathise with and understand such people whose experiences have been so horrific that they have felt unable to talk about them, yet people not talking about them more openly might be argued to have increased the risk of perpetuating the problem rather than facing it down in the hope that exposure of it will help to discourage such things from ever happening again; however, not feeling able to talk about such experiences is not exactly synonymous with retaining feelings of hatred for certain people from the countries some of whose citizens perpetrated such horrors generations ago, still less fostering such hatred in later generations of people who had not experienced any such things.

I am supposed to tolerate holocaust deniers, some who claim in the media to be academics, in the name of free speech.

Why? Who says that you are "supposed" to do this, on what grounds and with how much power over your attitudes?

Moore was in RAF Bomber Command as a teenager. He may not have witnessed similar scenes but he was of a generation to have had friends who would have done. They had a right to a lifelong view, however outmoded. I suppose the key question is whether you think they should have been banned from expressing it, even though the trauma was such that they generally self-censored.

It's very hard, of course, to rationalise such things when you have experienced such horrors at close hand or known those who have done so but, whilst it's a well-worn cliché that time is a great healer, it ought nevertheless to be possible for those who suffered these horrors or observed such suffering at close hand eventually to develop the kind of distance from them that, whilst it might not necessarily allow them to forgive the perpetrators, would at least enable them not to assume that all people from the countries concerned would forever remain as those perpetrators were at the time and must accordingly be publicly or privately vilified and certainly not trusted.

[ahinton]

But it pays to be wary.

But it pays considerably more to know of what to be wary, when and why and to know of what not to be wary as there is no reason to be so.

Could a nation that could, willingly and enthusiastically, behave with such barbarism 70 years ago, behave in such a way again? Or is the new generation's character and cultutral mindset so different that it's no longer possible?

Anything is possible, but then any nation's people might well be coerced into behaving with barbarism towards others if the circumstances in which such attitudes might be fostered arose in future as they did, for example, in 1930s Germany. One hopes that the character and cultural mindset of post-WWII generations are indeed different now and, at least as far as the prospect of war in Europe is concerned, the very fact that such wars have been sporadic, few and far between and on a vastly smaller scale than illustrated by Europe's involvement in WWII over 67 years is surely some proof of such a change.

Let's hope we never have to find out...

Indeed so - or, better still, let's hope that we can find out that it is not the case any longer!

[ahinton]

Well, what we do know is that David Irving, aged 7 at the end of WW2, has spent vast amounts of his adult life depicting what happened at Dresden as an utter abomination while simultaneously denying the holocaust. We also know that he spread rumours that 250,000 were killed when the current consensus is that it was fewer than 25,000.

There is a question about whether the bombing of Dresden by the RAF was necessary. Churchill had severe doubts. But the systematic killing and animalistic torturing of specific categories of citizens over a decade is not at all comparable with a somewhat questionable action taken by opponents of fascism after six years of unbearable stress.

In terms of scale, that is beyond argument.

Whether Patrick Moore was involved in the bombing of Dresden we don't know.

No - any more than we know whether he might successfully chosen to extricate himself from such involvement had Richard Strauss been a friend of his who was about to write him a xylophone piece...

[MrGongGong]

Could a nation that could, willingly and enthusiastically, behave with such barabarism 70 years ago, behave in such a way again? Or is the new generation's character and cultutral mindset so different that it's no longer possible?
.

My experience of working in Japan and with Japanese people is that there was a conscious discussion about what it means to be a member of a society and an individual at the same time, in my experience directing a project with Autistic adults it was a really healthy level of mindful self examination something that we could learn a lot from.

Unlike many people in the UK who seem to think that "we" (as a nation) have the "right" answers to the worlds problems and the rude sense of entitlement that goes along with many of our "leaders" , a little humility would go a long way !

but all very OT

Patrick Moore was a great populariser of Astronomy but he was no saint and held some rather extreme views , pretending otherwise is naive

[Lateralthinking1]

Ahinton, Most of them are dead now, including my relatives, so that cleanses it no doubt. I am from an era and a background that is much in line with your outlook. In fact, it seems to have always been a part of my character to be attuned to lazy stereotypes of bogeymen and then to question them publically. I discovered very good things about the Germans and the Japanese early on and spoke up for them. The same was true of my position on West Indians and Sri Lankans as they were arriving in this country.

In every instance in the 1970s, that wasn't completely swimming against the tide. It was to take a firm positive view in a fairly typical neighbourhood where popular attitudes swung back and forth. Others waivered. There was in them some accommodation of history, and what were then present developments, here and a bit of handed down discrimination there. I was unequivocal. That though is not to say that I wasn't also able to accommodate the feelings of older people who had experienced things I never had.

I believe it is essential that people find that scope. You and I might not know it yet but in 20 years time we will need our own by then outmoded experiences to be accommodated by those younger than us. That is particularly true where our stances are opposed. That is the only civil way. Of course, we can try to adjust to new norms but we won't be entirely successful, however much effort we put in. Feelings will be involved. This has always been the way and the worry is that it isn't often taught now.

I can give you examples of this very easily. I now happen to think that certain fears about the greater Germany are justifiable, not that I share them wholly. I do feel now that the pace of immigration has been too fast for adequate assimilation. It might well be that these are not issues at all for enlightened 20-somethings. They are better placed than me in some respects to judge it and less well placed in other respects. In terms of influence, they will have the final say. All I ask of them is that they don't censor me.

On the holocaust, yes, I am required to tolerate those who deny it if I am to accept that we shouldn't burn the books they write, however wild or evil they might be. One thing I would ask you. At what time in history do you feel that distance should have been established on the matter of slavery? I have doubts that it should still be an issue but I would not have expected those who experienced it to be jolly. Is there just a little too much of an intellectual tendency to place our predecessors on the losing side?

[Anna]

Patrick Moore was a great populariser of Astronomy but he was no saint and held some rather extreme views, pretending otherwise is naive

Exactly. The Voice of Sanity.
So, perhaps someone should start a thread "Very cruel race, the Japanese" or "The only good German is a dead German (unless he's a composer)"?

[ahinton]

Ahinton, Most of them are dead now, including my relatives, so that cleanses it no doubt. I am from an era and a background that is much in line with your outlook. In fact, it seems to have always been a part of my character to be attuned to lazy stereotypes of bogeymen and then to question them publically. I discovered very good things about the Germans and the Japanese early on and spoke up for them. The same was true of my position on West Indians and Sri Lankans as they were arriving in this country.

In every instance in the 1970s, that wasn't completely swimming against the tide. It was to take a firm positive view in a fairly typical neighbourhood where popular attitudes swung back and forth. Others waivered. There was in them some accommodation of history, and what were then present developments, here and a bit of handed down discrimination there. I was unequivocal. That though is not to say that I wasn't also able to accommodate the feelings of older people who had experienced things I never had.

I believe it is essential that people find that scope. You and I might not know it yet but in 20 years time we will need our own by then outmoded experiences to be accommodated by those younger than us. That is particularly true where our stances are opposed. That is the only civil way. Of course, we can try to adjust to new norms but we won't be entirely successful, however much effort we put in. Feelings will be involved. This has always been the way and the worry is that it isn't often taught now.

On the holocaust, yes, I am required to tolerate those who deny it if I am to accept that we shouldn't burn the books they write, however wild or evil they might be. One thing I would ask you. At what time in history do you feel that distance should have been established on the matter of slavery? I have doubts that it should still be an issue but I would not have expected those who experienced it to be jolly. Is there just a little too much of an intellectual tendency to place our predecessors on the losing side?

Some well balanced views here, for which many thanks.

I think that some experiences and the ways in which we and younger generations view them are likely to change - and possibly to come to be seen as "outmoded" - far more rapidly than might have been the case a few decades or so ago, since the increasing complexity and speed of all walks of life presumes this to be the case. The problem here is that, when young people experience horrors of the kind under discussion but then survive into old age, their feelings may risk continuing to be harboured over many decades and it is in their own interests if they can be helped to come to terms with them not by seeking to deny them or merely put them down to past experience and move on (for that would be a most impractical as well as insensitive approach) but to try to put them into perspective in a world where such horrors have not been perpetrated in generations; I do not, of course,pretend that such a process is or even can be remotely easy in most cases, but it will always be more difficult for those for whom their horrific experiences have dumbed them into refusing to talk or write about them. To put it another way, whilst some people will not necessarily come to find themselves able to put their experiences into the past to such an extent as to enable them to override their feelings about them, they might nevertheless be able to come to terms with them to the extent of not transferring a hatred of the perpetrators themselves onto later generations of people from the countries that had harboured them just because they had done so.

I do not believe that a mere acceptance that it is against the law to burn material published by holocaust deniers and that you would therefore feel obliged not to do it is synonymous with actual tolerance of such people; you do not have to read such material, you do not have to recommend it to anyone else and, within certain limits, you are entitled appropriately to criticise such material (provided that you have read enough of it to qualify you to do so) and to provide evidence that invalidates it, provided that you do not break the law by doing so.

As to slavery, it is vital that its sorry history is never pushed under the carpet, so in that sense alone it should never be possible to "establish distance" from it. In most cases, those who experienced it would be long dead, like those to whom you refer at the beginning of your post, so a lack of jollity on their part is hardly an issue today, provided that we understand enough of what they went through at the time to encourage vigilance in ensuring that such horrors never occur again. I am not especially convinced of the existence of a tendency such as that which you mention in this context, but the risk of future emergence of one must nevertheless be guarded against for obvious reasons.

[ahinton]

My experience of working in Japan and with Japanese people is that there was a conscious discussion about what it means to be a member of a society and an individual at the same time, in my experience directing a project with Autistic adults it was a really healthy level of mindful self examination something that we could learn a lot from.

Interesting - and agreed!

Unlike many people in the UK who seem to think that "we" (as a nation) have the "right" answers to the worlds problems

It beats me how anyone really could genuinely think any such thing!...

and the rude sense of entitlement that goes along with many of our "leaders", a little humility would go a long way!

Wouldn't it just?! - though perhaps, sadly, not as long as the odds of it replacing that "rude sense of entitlement" of which you write!...

Patrick Moore was a great populariser of Astronomy but he was no saint and held some rather extreme views, pretending otherwise is naive

Indeed, on all counts; some of those views were also not merely extreme but at times also grossly inconsistent and on occasion bordering on the incomprehensible...

[Lateralthinking1]

Ahinton, Thank you for the good comments. I added a paragraph while you were writing that you might find less agreeable. I don't know. Yes, life is moving faster. The additional problems that could cause are fortunately counter-balanced by the fact that most in middle age now did not have horrific early experiences. It seems to me that a combination of rapid change and widespread, ongoing, deep-rooted issues would have had a greater potential to be disastrous. We live in times that are challenging enough!

By implication, you present a series of theoretical options for Patrick Moore and his generation. They could have either fallen silent, moaned about "the krauts" or moaned about "the krauts" while being open to overcoming their prejudices. The latter might well be to have expected too much of them. I think complex psychology was involved. One can't generalise but my belief is that many of the silent types were both protective of themselves and others. I also feel that many in that silence worked through their feelings to accommodate at least partially the new world. Not all of them held on to deep resentment. We should see that as extraordinary.

How do I know this? Occasionally one had glimpses. You would hear from some that it was "a problem of German leadership in the 1930s but not the German people". From others there would be that slightly odd over-compensation of expressing a big admiration for the "German work ethic" in post-war reconstruction. To me, it always seemed to reveal some anger turned inwards on Britain for ever having had to send them to war. I tend to think that a very public counselling session on those who continued to use discriminatory language would have backfired for being in public. It couldn't be resolved in that way as it was like accepting defeat.

Incidentally, on anger towards the home nation, we saw with Iraq that it tends to be heightened when war seems less than fully justified. That was not the case with WW2. But a key part of the difficulty was that WW2 appeared to reinforce feelings among many that WW1 had not been justified. A war against fascism wasn't widely questioned. The anger was about war upon war.

In any case, I am not sure that these things are easily put into the past from generation to generation. Young men are often warlike. They often need reference points to "justify" their outlook and will frequently dig them out, however much matters seem to be resolved. The current situation in Northern Ireland is one particularly vivid example. At best, it is perpetuated in a milder form. Supporters of the England football team still celebrate a victory with arms outstretched whistling the tune of "The Dambusters". Regret appears to come with age and experience but in truth it loses its appeal as soon as it is made official and compulsory.

On tolerance, we have different definitions. I think we agree on the principles. As for slavery, I feel that your opinion is a little contradictory, which I expected, but I have had my say now. We do appear to have moved some way from the original topic.

[Mandryka]

He was right-wing but hardly off the scale. He didn't believe in capital punishment, or hunting, and nor did he support the 2nd Gulf War (then again, who did apart from Blair and those close to him?).

As for his remarks about Germans....probably standard for people of his age and background.

I met him once, briefly, and he was extremely charming and wholly unassuming. Friends of mine who are interested in astrology knew him better and couldn't say enough good things about him.

[Tony Halstead]

astrology

Well well, that is indeed an aspect of Sir Patrick's work that hasn't been fully documented.

[Ferretfancy]

Mandryka

It was kind of him to indulge your friends in their interest in astrology, although I know that he condemned it often enough, astronomy was a different matter.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ahinton, Thank you for the good comments. I added a paragraph while you were writing that you might find less agreeable. I don't know. Yes, life is moving faster. The additional problems that could cause are fortunately counter-balanced by the fact that most in middle age now did not have horrific early experiences. It seems to me that a combination of rapid change and widespread, ongoing, deep-rooted issues would have had a greater potential to be disastrous. We live in times that are challenging enough!

By implication, you present a series of theoretical options for Patrick Moore and his generation. They could have either fallen silent, moaned about "the krauts" or moaned about "the krauts" while being open to overcoming their prejudices. The latter might well be to have expected too much of them. I think complex psychology was involved. One can't generalise but my belief is that many of the silent types were both protective of themselves and others. I also feel that many in that silence worked through their feelings to accommodate at least partially the new world. Not all of them held on to deep resentment. We should see that as extraordinary.

How do I know this? Occasionally one had glimpses. You would hear from some that it was "a problem of German leadership in the 1930s but not the German people". From others there would be that slightly odd over-compensation of expressing a big admiration for the "German work ethic" in post-war reconstruction. To me, it always seemed to reveal some anger turned inwards on Britain for ever having had to send them to war. I tend to think that a very public counselling session on those who continued to use discriminatory language would have backfired for being in public. It couldn't be resolved in that way as it was like accepting defeat.

Incidentally, on anger towards the home nation, we saw with Iraq that it tends to be heightened when war seems less than fully justified. That was not the case with WW2. But a key part of the difficulty was that WW2 appeared to reinforce feelings among many that WW1 had not been justified. A war against fascism wasn't widely questioned. The anger was about war upon war.

In any case, I am not sure that these things are easily put into the past from generation to generation. Young men are often warlike. They often need reference points to "justify" their outlook and will frequently dig them out, however much matters seem to be resolved. The current situation in Northern Ireland is one particularly vivid example. At best, it is perpetuated in a milder form. Supporters of the England football team still celebrate a victory with arms outstretched whistling the tune of "The Dambusters".

On tolerance, we have different definitions. I think we agree on the principles. As for slavery, I feel that your opinion is a little contradictory, which I expected, but I have had my say now. We do appear to have moved some way from the original topic.

Nevertheless, the issue of prejudices is germane to the subject of discussion, for all we know informing some of the posts that won't have any of it! It's good to have it aired given its prevalence on these threads!

Fwiw I don't believe warlike tendencies to be characteristic of young men as a whole; our civilisations, leavened on the judaeo-christian ethic of human separation, intra-, inter-personal, and from "lower orders" of the evolutionary chain, concomitant with language's way of dividing into categories, coupled with brutalising circumstances and upbringings, in part in consequence, not to mention an economic system success-predicated on change for profit's sake being ascribed to the natural order of things, and the associated mind-**** should be enough to make the sanest and wisest among us wonder how any of us survive mentally intact. The drugs of work for work's sake, mass consumer conformism, nationalism, religious literalness, celebrity worship as god or inadequate parenting substitutes do, of course, "help".

[MrGongGong]

Friends of mine who are interested in astrology knew him better and couldn't say enough good things about him.

I once had to visit the department of Astronomy at Cambridge, but resisted the temptation to do this

"no, don't tell me"
"hang on a minute"
"I know..................... Aquarius ? " (in a triumphant tone of voice)