Good News, the Moslims saved England!

It's true. The English didn't beat the Spanish Armada, it was the Muslims that did it! 'Clever' Trevor Philips says so, so it must be true. What a pillock.

Quote:

---

"And if there is a practical thing, I would say it is that we need to revisit some parts of that national heritage. to rewrite some parts of that national story to tell the whole story.

"When we talk about the Armada it's only now that we are beginning to realise that part of it is Muslims," Mr Phillips told the meeting.

"It was the Turks who saved us, because they held up Armada at the request of Elizabeth I.

"Now let's rewrite that story, let's use our heritage to rewrite that story so it is truly inclusive.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7012698.stm

Anything to promote the [failed] multicultural agenda. It's only been within my lifetime that significant numbers of non-white immigrants have come to the UK. Still never let the truth get in the way of political correctness eh?

Battle of Lepanto.

Sounds like a fundamentalistic multicultist to me. So now it has gone so far that revisionism is needed to press the agenda. We had something similar, to prevent young rascals from playing football with flowers at memorialday they invented marrocan soldiers liberating us in WWII. Relics from the eighties, a period of absolute faith where missing a days prayer was enough to be labeled a heretic :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I sincerely hope this idiot is joking.

Rewrite history?

So some gits who refuse to integrate themselves into our society feel more included?

:daisy: off, Mr Phillips.

Quote:

---

It was the Turks who saved us, because they held up Armada at the request of Elizabeth I

---

Well, they didn't do a very good job then, did they, since it turned up in the channel just the same?

I wonder if Trevor Philips will be reminding us of muslim slave raiders attacking the Devon and Cornish coast?

Ah, what's the point arguing with a moron? History is bunk. It's rather like those glib comments "we are all immigrants" (...so don't worry your little heads about immigration). Yes we are, but:

(1) The arrival of Anglo Saxon warriors in the 5th century AD* is probably not very informative when it comes to the arrival of immigrants into a 21C welfare state, and

(2) in any case the native population could be forgiven for regretting the arrival of the Anglo Saxons, since we killed them and took their land.

Frankly if Trevor Philips thinks a load of Turkish builders sailed over and built St Paul's cathedral it would not affect how I feel about anything today.

* thank you Azi, typo corrected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Well, they didn't do a very good job then, did they, since it turned up in the channel just the same?

---

LOL that makes it even sweeter :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

ES MUSS SEIN!!!!

radicalising :yes:

Quote:

---

Rewrite history?

So some gits who refuse to integrate themselves into our society feel more included?

---

Well inclusion sounds far better to me than having their contribution ignored. History has been written about the Upper Classes and Politics, etc for far too long and as such the fundamental humanity behind it has been ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Well inclusion sounds far better to me than having their contribution ignored. History has been written about the Upper Classes and Politics, etc for far too long and as such the fundamental humanity behind it has been ignored.

---

The problem is that it isn't being ignored, it simply isn't true. What next? The Chinese helped Robert the Bruce regain his throne from the English? Or Owen Gyndower was secretly a Hindu? Utter codswallop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Well inclusion sounds far better to me than having their contribution ignored. History has been written about the Upper Classes and Politics, etc for far too long and as such the fundamental humanity behind it has been ignored.

---

What's the point of including them and their imaginary contribution when they refuse to try and integrate?

How are they meant to function in our wildly different society when they insist on bringing their way of life here?

Either live with and tolerate our way of life and integrate into our society, or bugger off back to DurkaDurkastan or wherever you come from so you can go back to your cultured and superior society of abusing women and blowing up people.

Dunno about the Armada, but I did hear an interesting story about King John. He approached the Moors and offered to convert to Islam in an effort to buy their support for his failing rule in England. The version I heard said the Moorish king chastised him for being such an insincere opportunist.

Quote:

---

The problem is that it isn't being ignored, it simply isn't true. What next? The Chinese helped Robert the Bruce regain his throne from the English? Or Owen Gyndower was secretly a Hindu? Utter codswallop.

---

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

@MC - You are trying to drag this off on a tangent that is both irrelevant and pointless. Contribution to current society (or lack thereof as you percieve it) should not make any difference. I don't think the Normans have contributed much these days... but they are remembered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

---

I'd like to think that your kidding, sadly I suspect you're not.

@ econ 21

Yeah I heard about that as well. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

(1) The arrival of Anglo Saxon warriors in the 5th century BC is probably not very informative when it comes to the arrival of immigrants into a 21C welfare state, and

---

BC? Didn't they paddle across the European version of the Rio Grande in the 5th C. AD?

Anyway, that was one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while. I still want to know how the Moslems held up the Spanish Armada.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

---

We can only guess about his motives for lying the way he does. If you want to rebuild a culture you have to break it down first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'd like to think that your kidding, sadly I suspect you're not.

---

Indeed I am not. Ironic considering I am hopefully going to be doing a History course at University... Basically the idea is called the Post-modernist Theory of History. Basically, everything is written for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious bias that all people have. This leads to exclusion and concentrating on many, generally more Nationalist, lines of thought.

Post-modern contructivism might be a better theory to evaluate what is happening here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Indeed I am not. Ironic considering I am hopefully going to be doing a History course at University... Basically the idea is called the Post-modernist Theory of History. Basically, everything is written for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious bias that all people have. This leads to exclusion and concentrating on many, generally more Nationalist, lines of thought.

---

So history is a theory now eh? So it's only a matter of time before political meddling is taught as fact. It seems the education system in the UK isn't the only one going down the bog.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Post-modern contructivism might be a better theory to evaluate what is happening here.

---

Yeah but describing the sub sets of them is quite difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yeah but describing the sub sets of them is quite difficult.

---

It's rather broad but it all comes down to social enginering basicly. But we are not the players here, we are being played.

:fishing:

What I'd like to see is the actual arguments the man makes for the Turks having held up the Armada - 'cause by what I know of the naval warfare of the period, the Spanish Atlantic sailing-ship fleet (which was the one used for the Armada) was a whole different arm from the Mediterranean galley fleet. AFAIK the only overlap were the two galeasses (a type of large, heavy galley designed more as a floating gun tower than for frontal attack as normal) taken with the Armada, which thanks to their ability to maneuver independent of the wind under oars gave the English some problems.

Don't be such a spoilsport. You can't let a little thing such as a fact get in the way of 'celebrating our diversity'. Are you a fascist? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

---

Yes, but why stop there? I say we take this to its full postmodern consequence! All knowledge is accumulated for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious, nationalistic bias that all people have.
So let's focus on the more pressing, overarching question here: can we even be sure that Turkey exists? I mean, have you been there? I haven't either. So any conclusions as to the actual existence of Turkey is, at best, guess work. I am going to take a course in geography next semester, and I have learned this much already. :2thumbsup:
____

Leaving postmodernist thought out of it, it is true that the Ottoman empire was a major adversary to the Hapsburg ambition of hegemony in the 16th century. I assume England and the Ottomans were allies of some sort.
Come to think of it, so were France and England. I say it was us who saved England, by waging incessant war against Hapsburg. I mean, if we didn't refuse Spain passage trough France by the shedding of our own blood, they wouldn't have needed that Armada to sail all the way from Spain in the first place. France saved England, much more so than the Turks.

Hence I demand England renames Trafalgar square into Place de la France, that all British schoolchildren will be taught that France gave them their freedom, that the 14th of July becomes a British national holiday, and that Mr Phillips seizes his trivial activities and becomes head of a new 'thank you France' commission, the goal of which is to double Britains annual CAP contribution by way of settling Britains old debt to their cross-channel saviours.

Actually, lets break this down.

Traditional version:

Sir Francis Drake beat the Spanish bloody because he was so brilliant an Admiral.

Trever Philips version:

The Turks aquienced to Elizabeth I request to delay the Armarda long enough for the English fleet to gather so that they could beat the Spanish bloody.

So the Turks did what the English monarch asked them to do, probably because they didn't want the Spanish Navy to become any more powerful.

It's a fairly minor change really and we still di all the fighting.

It's like saying the Navy won the Battle of Britain because even if Hitler had won the Air War his still wouldn't have been able to execute a landing.

Damn you Louis VI the Fat, damn you to hell! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

can we even be sure that Turkey exists? I mean, have you been there? I haven't either. So any conclusions as to the actual existence of Turkey is, at best, guess work.

---

I've been somewhere that claimed to be Turkey, but now you mention it everyone there was a white working class English person. I've seen more Turks in Haringey. Maybe the plane flew in circles for three hours and then landed at Margate?

Quote:

---

Mr Phillips seizes his trivial activities and becomes head of a new 'thank you France' commission

---

This would probably be an improvement.

This thread piqued my intrest soely due to the posters within and my personal value attached to thier cred.

I am posting because I am intrested in the immigration dynamics of the EU, and find it curious that what seemed to be sacred european historical events are up for revision.

Is the example from InsaneApache an isolated incident or is this becoming a trend in the EU?

In the states there are a growing number of us watching with curiosity as to how the multicultural dynamic evolves. There is a misconception in the states (inncorrectly perhaps?) that europeans are deeply national. I havent been there since 98 (yes I was in france with a german and an englishmen when they won the world cup, oh the joy...), things have changed a bit in 10 years eh?

Right... the approach recommended by Philips has nothing to do with history or facts, it has to do with political needs and twisting facts so people who don't feel British can do so. Supposedly. If I were an immigrant targeted by Philips' drive for 'equality' I'd be rather offended to be lumped together with the Turks along with all other non-European ethnicities, as if I should feel more included in British society by what a completely unrelated people did hundreds of years ago. That approach is inherently racist by seeing as one large otherness the culturally, racially and historically distinct immigrants who have settled in Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Indeed I am not. Ironic considering I am hopefully going to be doing a History course at University... Basically the idea is called the Post-modernist Theory of History. Basically, everything is written for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious bias that all people have. This leads to exclusion and concentrating on many, generally more Nationalist, lines of thought.

---

Very basically indeed. The idea has evolved way beyond what you depict it as, and crucial aspects have been adapted by many historians who recognise their worth. The version you present is outdated, generally considered counter-productive to actually doing the best we can in uncovering history, and quite frankly has no relevance at all regarding this particular topic.

Quote:

---

There is a misconception in the states (inncorrectly perhaps?) that europeans are deeply national

---

I think it may be truer to say we (well, the English, I can'rt speak for the rest) are not strongly European rather than that we are strongly nationalist. I would identify myself as a Londoner, a biker, middle class, English, capitalist, and probably a few other things besides, before being "British". So if I had to pick sides between a Berliner (ie fellow big city dweller) who rode a motorcycle and a Scot who lived on a farm I'd go with the Berliner.

Although my feeling is that sadly people are becoming more nationalistic in Europe, yes.

Quote:

---

Is the example from InsaneApache an isolated incident or is this becoming a trend in the EU?

---

Its a trend. You can get over excited about it. I saw a very good production of Henry V a few years back, with a black actor as Henry, and it didn't register with me at all. Why shouldn't a black person play Henry V. (He was good, too.) So that's at one end of the spectrum. At the other end is an approach to history that demands that, eg, we find out that there were black people or women aboard Nelson's ships at Trafalgar, as if the battle somehow lacks meaning unless it was suitably multiethnic. There's a lot of that going on now too.

In a similar trend I've been noticing in my coursebooks written in the US, there's a disproportionate emphasis on the role of women in history, and to a lesser degree of obtrusiveness what kind of racial policies were followed, in almost any era. I'm starting to wonder if this is an exception or a rule when it comes to history coursebooks in the States

“Hence I demand England renames Trafalgar square into Place de la France, that all British schoolchildren will be taught that France gave them their freedom, that the 14th of July becomes a British national holiday, and that Mr Phillips seizes his trivial activities and becomes head of a new 'thank you France' commission, the goal of which is to double Britains annual CAP contribution by way of settling Britains old debt to their cross-channel saviours.” AND they do apologise for having burn Joan of Arc…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

AND they do apologise for having burn Joan of Arc…

---

Please try to keep up. :no:

Joan of Arc wasn't killed by the English, that is just history filtered through a sub-conscious, nationalistic bias. :smash:

"a new book has sparked anger among historians by claiming the Maid of Orléans was not an illiterate peasant but a royal. She did not hear voices and was not burned at the stake, but escaped with the help of English soldiers and went on to live a happily married life."

"She spoke English and it was the English who saved her from the stake," Gay told the Guardian. "Everything we were taught at school was wrong."

French medievalists this week rubbished the book, saying it rehashed discredited ideas to satisfy the booming audience of conspiracy theorists intent on dismantling the Jeanne d'Arc story. The publisher said the work fitted the trend for Da Vinci Code-style investigations debunking official history.
"

Link.
I say we make this book obligatory reading at all French schools, to aid in the making of a new, inclusive, pan-European and post-national identity. :2thumbsup: