European Union Rewrites History
From the desk of Elaib Harvey on Thu, 2009-01-08 10:03
The European Union is slowly trying to rewrite history to its own benefit. We have the President of the Parliament's own little vanity project, the House of European History, which is causing controversy, and we have the Euro Clio project, with its slightly sinister subset Connecting Europe.
According to Euro Clio
Education policies and regulations are commonly decided by national governments. In history this results in a focus that is very nationally oriented. Research by EUROCLIO confirms that the national dimension in history education is overrepresented, whereas the regional, European and international dimensions are underrepresented.
The disadvantage of a dominantly national approach is a distortion in historical events. The EUROCLIO Annual Meetings have always been a way to increase the European Dimension.
History educators from all over Europe have addressed a variety of topics and good practice that broadened their perspectives. Furthermore, EUROCLIO uses of trainers from a variety of European countries and beyond it all its project work. This transnational cooperation also increases the European dimension of history education and reduces the risk of a national bias in the developed material.
You get the idea.
Flicking through the "Connecting Europe Through History" booklet one can find on page 4 a picture of the storming of the Bastille. The caption reads:
Storming the Bastille: 1789 was a turning point in establishing human rights in Europe
Well I suppose you could say that. It was the precursor to all the ghastly ideological regime's who have murdered millions in the name of ideology. The "Quartering of the Vendee" was the first time that a form of genocide was practiced against a largely civilian population because they rejected a political ideology. Estimates of the dead range from 120,000 to 600,000.
Yes they are right. I suppose it did usher in a new era of human rights in Europe.
However, my favourite European history project is the Franco-German textbook, whose lead author Professor Marcel Spisser – an Alsatian Frenchman – spoke at a conference in Brussels last Tuesday about the troubles they had getting the academics to agree...
There was a big clash at the first meeting [of the editorial team of academics] a content problem. Was it about the Versailles Treaty or international relations post 1945?
No it wasn't about that at all, it was about the barbarian invasions.
"Barbarians – Are you calling the Germans Barbarians!!!".
It appears that in Germany the waves of Goths, Visigoths, Vandals and not least Huns are referred to as 'the movement of peoples' rather than 'the barbarian invasions.'
"Genuine democrats"
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2009-01-11 23:00.
@ Capodistrias
We all make unintended 'mistakes'. But, some of us make the conscious/intentional decision to make 'mistakes'. There is a big difference. And, it raises the deeper question as to whether 'democracy' is even possible (over time) under conditions of widespread extreme-moral-relativism, i.e. when adherence to moral virtues (especially honesty and courage) is waning in a population.
Obviously, it is not easy to define the concept of "genuine democrats" in an exhaustive manner in a paragraph or two. But I can give you my view in a very general and rudimentary way. Under my definition, in order to qualify for the status of "genuine democrat", a person would have to: (A) accept (temporary) 'majority rule', i.e. the outcome of genuinely-free elections, but (B) under ACTUAL conditions of constitutional limitations that guarantee certain basic INDIVIDUAL rights, and that also prescribe major limitations on (and division of) on governmental power. Much more needs to be said about these two 'conditions', and people should read serous books about them. But, if I had to distill it down to one sentence, I would say that a genuine democrat must believe in 'habeas corpus' and in total freedom of political speech.
P.S. Given that the second condition (B) is a very complex one, I cannot deny that actual conditions in the real world often are at odds with it in various ways, which can create a serious moral dilemma for a 'genuine democrat' as to adhering to condition A. But, at the same time, in extreme cases it is very easy to make judgements about the nondemocratic character of certain individuals (even on this blog).
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2009-01-10 21:33.
1. I'm glad that you admit that monarchists were not "genuine democrats". You finally get this. :))
2. I don't know what is your definition of "genuine democrats", however revolutionares were "pure democrats" for sure. Let me remind you that pure democracy means terror of majority. Those people brainwashed by Jacobian propagandists felt that they are part of majority. If people of Vendee ever had any delusions about democracy, they abandoned this when they saw how it works. Later they bravely fought for monarchy.
3. In opposition to your suggestions situation in France at that time was quite good. It was intellectual virus that lead to such horrific outcome. The same intellectual virus caused Bolshevik revolution.
4. The fact that you are unable to back people of Vendee in this conflict speak for itself.
@Armor
Let me add that Solzenitsyn was a well known Russian monarchist.
prosecutor Marcfrans
Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2009-01-10 18:58.
"Armor's racism and manifest dishonesty"
You've called me racist about a hundred times.
Next time, I wish you would just call me an anti race-replacer.
And I will call you a neocon race-replacer.
Memories # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2009-01-10 17:05.
@ Kapitein Andre
1) Let's be very clear. Your "personal details" are of no interest to me whatsoever, nor should they be to anyone else in the context of this kind of internet debates. And, I repeat, we should not concern ourselves here with "mere mortals", but rather focus on " 'eternal' human attitudes and ideas". Yes we can agree on that. You misinterpret past 'banter' among various people as "fishing expeditons", and I venture to say that you are as much responsible for that banter as anyone else. Many participants, including yourself, have at times voluntarily given personal details (I recall you claiming to have just had lunch with Frau Merkel). Extreme 'sensitivity' is - yes it is - one more characteristic of cultural naive-leftism (not "socialism") that dominates our Zeitgeist.
2) There is no point in repeating here all the various accusations that you have levelled against me in the past. And I see no need to retrieve from the past numerous examples of manifest displays on your part of irrational anti-Americanism and anti-semitism. I certainly have never accused you of "socialism", but rather of extreme moral relativism. The latter is reflective of broader cultural conditions in the West today, and which you do share with most (not all) socialists.
3) The historical fiction or alternative history was a satirical response to Atlanticist's latest witicism. Indeed, the outcome of WW2 is irrelevant to understanding the attitudes and ideas of das Dritte Reich. I certainly defer to your greater knowledge of such attitudes and ideas. However, it should also be evident that the 'alternative history' in question was NOT about the Third Reich, but rather about the attitudes and ideas of Amor, Monarchist, KA, Yitzak, Amsterdamsky, De Bruycker.... It was speculation about the ways in which such kind of attitudes (people) would have fared in alternative history, i.e. under the assumption of a victory by nazi Germany. It was fantasy, but - in contrast with what Armor and others often do here - it was presented as such, i.e. AS FANTASY.
Under the current sentimental cultural naive-left orthodoxy that rules Europe today, this sort of fantasy surely is cause for a lawsuit, if not for an appearance before some selective anti-racism or anti-hate 'tribunal' or 'centre' of some sort. American readers better be forwarned, because this might be heading for them too.
Vendee
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2009-01-10 16:12.
@ Capodistrias
You disappoint me by your lack of careful reading and failure to put things in context. I have clearly stated that I do NOT LIKE the French Revolution, and I have explicitly expressed my DISAPPROVAL of the actions of the Revolutionary regime of Paris in the Vendee . How you can now claim that I "assert that the Vendeens' mentalite was the author of their own slaughter by the agent of the Revolution's frenzy..." is absolutely beyond me...! You are veering closely into fantasyland behind Armor (a man who publicly expresses his manifest racism) and Monarchist who openly states his hatred for "democracy". Is it because I mentioned the "depredations of absolutist monarchy" in the same breath as "the depredations of the successor revolutionary regime"? Are you denying either kind of depredations?
Can we get back to the present reality instead of re-fighting the French Revolution of over two centuries ago? When I wrote "Forget the Vendee", it was IN THE CONTEXT of returning to the ridiculous charge of Armor that I would be a "neocon". It is Monarchist who introduced here the totally irrelevant subject of the Vendee, and you would be well advised to mind the company that you keep. You should no more "forget the Vendee" than you should NOT forget the Gettysburg Address or the American Declaration of Independence.
I do not need any lessons in "defending the core values of Western Civilisation". Neither Armor's racism and manifest dishonesty (as reflected by his numerous misrepresentations of other people's views), nor Monarchist's absurd attachment to authoritarian governance represent such core values. On the contrary, these are betrayals of Western values for which former generations have sacrificed so much to obtain them. I submit to you that the core values of Western civilisation are (a) the recognition of the individual's freedom of (responsible) self-determination and of (b) the moral duty to allow reason to govern passions (which includes the duty to make 'balanced' judgments about anything and everything, including the French Revolution).
@Marcfrans, forget my post ;-)
Submitted by Capodistrias on Sat, 2009-01-10 22:16.
Marcfrans,
You are correct I misread your post, you said:
"As to the particular citation, I stand by my earlier opinions which were that: (a) neither the monarchists nor the revolutonaries were genuine 'democrats', and (b) (phrased differently) that the depredations of the absolutist monarchical regime in France contributed mightily to the depredations of the successor 'revolutionary' regime. The 'Vendee' belongs among the latter."
You are right, my eye dwelt too long on the first part of this paragraph and not on the last word. I assume I extended the "latter" to "contributed mightily to the depredations" whereas upon more careful reading, guided by your 'gentle' admonition, you obviously intended it simply to apply to "depredations" Apology offered.
I am curious as to the definition of 'genuine democrats,' Are you arguing that there were no'genuine democrats' among both monarchists and revolutionaries at the time, or that they simply didn't carry the day, the era? I assume the latter. :)
RE: "Memories..."
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2009-01-10 08:53.
marcfrans: Do I have a choice? I will have to take your word for it, won't I?
No, you don't.
I'd like to think that we're in agreement when it comes to the use of unverifiable personal details for exactly the reasons you give here.
Unfortunately, you've gone on several fishing trips now to divine my background. But thus far, I haven't bitten.
marcfrans: However, on a quality-website, such as this one, IMAGINARY 'alternative' history is not concerned with mere specific mortals, like you and me...
Yet you are.
marcfrans: ...but rather with 'eternal' human attitudes and ideas (or ways of thinking)...
You have repeatedly accused me of professing anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and socialism ("naïve leftism"), and have never before needed the aid of alternative history or historical fiction to illustrate your accusations. Moreover, it is self-evident that the outcome of the war is irrelevant in understanding the "attitudes" and "ideas" of the Third Reich. Indeed, Berlin had clear policy positions concerning the United States, in addition to post-war occupation plans. Therefore, you were claiming that I'd have "fit right in" with the National Socialist administration. However, in reality, that would have been quite impossible. Nor is anti-Americanism unique to or a defining feature of National Socialism, it was much more defined in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Iran, et al.
Memories...
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-01-09 18:07.
@ Kapitein Andre
Do I have a choice? I will have to take your word for it, won't I? However, on a quality-website, such as this one, IMAGINARY 'alternative' history is not concerned with mere specific mortals, like you and me, but rather with 'eternal' human attitudes and ideas (or ways of thinking) that are, well....recurring over and over again in ACTUAL human history.
@ Monarchist
Thank you for refreshing my memory. Suddenly, the year 2007 seems far away... But, I now understand better what you meant by the word "neutral".
As to the particular citation, I stand by my earlier opinions which were that: (a) neither the monarchists nor the revolutonaries were genuine 'democrats', and (b) (phrased differently) that the depredations of the absolutist monarchical regime in France contributed mightily to the depredations of the successor 'revolutionary' regime. The 'Vendee' belongs among the latter.
I will now address your complaint about my presumed "neutrality", but this will require some mental agility on your part, and a willingness to be open to subtleties as opposed to simple certainties. OK, here we go. I still remain of the same opinion that I do not like either party, i.e. I do not like the monarchists nor the revolutionaries, at least those among them who had no genuine democratic goals (of responsible individual liberties) in mind. That is the 'big picture' context. Now, as to the narrow point of the particular actions undertaken by the Revolutionary regime in Paris against the (largely pro-monarchy) population of the Vendee, I DISAPPROVE of them in general. Does that satisfy you?
Forget the Vendee, and just take it 'from the horse's mouth', Marcfrans is NOT a "neocon", but he is not afraid of neocons either and can recognise that he has common enemies with the neocons. For the survival of one's progeny in a dangerous world, it is crucial to be able to distinguish between one's enemies and one's 'friends'. That advise applies as much to you as to the more 'sensible' Kapitein Andre.
Forget the Vendee?!!
Submitted by Capodistrias on Sat, 2009-01-10 05:05.
Marcfrans,
How not to begin a sentence, even if the rest of the sentence is reasonable in every way.
Remind me never to drink with you in certain parts of France. :)
If my memory serves me right didn't the Vendee start out as much as an attack on the Church as on the Monarchy. This requires a little openess to subtleties on your own part. To assert that the Vendeens' mentalite was the author of their own slaughter by the agent of the Revolution's frenzy is a little like blaming those executed by the guillotine to be kneeling in the wrong place.
You are missing what the Vendeens were fighting for, maybe if the French revolutionaries had a better sense of Man's limits, like the American Revolutionaries, the Vendeens would have been more open to the potential synergy bewteen democracy and Free Will.
Forget the Vendee?
"If I Advance, Follow Me,
If I Retreat, Cut Me Down,
If I Die, Avenge Me!"
Courage and eloquence, hard qualities to forget and qualities much needed today to defend the core values of Western Civilization.
@Neocon - Fraternity or Death
Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2009-01-10 01:02.
Neocon Marcfrans: " neither the monarchists nor the revolutonaries were genuine 'democrats' / the absolutist monarchical regime"
Genuine democracy can not exist in the genuine world. It was not an absolutist regime. Louis 16 had less power and was certainly less of a slimy crook than Sarkozy. I cannot imagine Louis 16 making a speech in support of mandatory race-mixing, as Sarko did a few days ago.
It is true that Louis 16 was not elected. But then, Sarko was elected with the understanding that he would kick the Arabs out of the country.
What made the revolution and the ensuing carnage possible was the process of political liberalization, and the reluctance of the government to use repression against the leftist psychopaths.
Neocon: "the depredations of the absolutist monarchical regime in France contributed mightily to the depredations of the successor 'revolutionary' regime."
On the contrary, those who organized the massacres were people who used to have comfortable lives under the monarchy. And they killed more peasants than aristocrats.
Neo: " I do not like the monarchists nor the revolutionaries "
The insurgents were not so much in favor of monarchy as they were against violence, tyranny, vandalism, and leftist murderous psychopaths.
" Forget the Vendee "
In france, the administration and the media remain admirers of the 1789 revolution. But in 1993, Solzhenitsyn was in Vendée to inaugurate a monument in memory of a village whose population had been massacred 200 years earlier by the "republicans". In his excellent speech, he said the same tragedy had happened in Russia on a much larger scale, as well as in China, Vietnam and Cambodia. He said that revolutions are not a good idea. A rough translation of his words:
"Now, we understand always better that the social effect we desired so fervently can be obtained through normal evolutive development with infinitely fewer casualties, without widespread mayhem. We must learn how to patiently improve what each day gives us. It would be vain to hope that revolution can regenerate human nature. That is what your revolution, and more particularly ours, the Russian revolution, had hoped so much."
Mr Marcfrans, let me refresh your memory...
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2009-01-09 11:12.
- A far as I know I have never expressed an opinion on the "Vendee" (or what happened there during the French revolution). I do not like the French revolution, especially since it did not bring 'human rights' to Europe, quite the opposite. The Brits have a far better record on that score. So, how could I be "neutral" on the Vendee??
Let me refresh your memory... http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2731
Monarchist
French revolution was caused by weakness of king Louis XVI explored by Jacobian conspiracy. You actually give a support to Jacobian ideas of democracy turning back from the people of Vendee, legendary heroes of all true conservatives. Tell me on which side you stand in this battle, democratic demagogues or monarchists?
RE: European Union Rewrites History
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2009-01-09 10:04.
Harvey: It appears that in Germany the waves of Goths, Visigoths, Vandals and not least Huns are referred to as 'the movement of peoples' rather than 'the barbarian invasions.'
On this point I am in complete agreement with the Euro Clio Project. Whereas the Romans undertook military operations solely for the purposes of conquest, which invariably involved acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide, the Germanic tribes crossed the Roman frontiers en masse to settle, motivated mainly by the Hunnic invasions.
marcfrans: If nazi Germany had won WW2 in the European theatre...As to Kapitein Andre, it is conceivable that he would be a leading (academic) member of the Council of International Relations in Berlin, issuing pronouncements on the imminent demise of the Decadent American Empire...
On the contrary, it is inconceivable. I would not exist.
Marcfrans & Atlanticist
Submitted by Capodistrias on Fri, 2009-01-09 06:13.
Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, Cosby & Hope, Martin & Lewis....you guys crack me up.
@Monarchist
You would like the name of the High School track team I help coach - the "Vendéens."
Marcfrans,
One minor point, the Russians, not the Brits, in the immediate period after the Napoleonic Wars were the real champions of human rights, if you define them in classical liberal terms.
@ capo
Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2009-01-09 09:53.
The only problem with the Russians is their uncontrollable enthusiasm for extremes. After the necessary wodka they want to change the world in one night. They nearly did a couple of times.
@traveller
Submitted by Capodistrias on Fri, 2009-01-09 14:50.
Of course, you're right on that matter. And as many accompanying Irishmen have tried to explain to them in the course of those all night drinking sessions, vodka is just not enough to get the job done right, several bottles of good Irish whiskey are an Absolut necessity. Think of what the Irish have accomplished!...well don't think too hard but we did manage to get ourselves exiled to an island, where we get to have all nighters, dream up fantastic 'what ifs' and beat each others brains in, not to mention that we were the reason the Royal Navy was created to save the world.
EUchronia # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-01-09 05:13.
@ Atlanticist
I am now being accused of being a "neocon" and of being "neutral" concerning the Vendee. In my defense I say the following:
- I cannot be a neocon since I am not a former leftie, and I do not believe in 'nationbuilding'. But I do like to read Victor D. H.
- A far as I know I have never expressed an opinion on the "Vendee" (or what happened there during the French revolution). I do not like the French revolution, especially since it did not bring 'human rights' to Europe, quite the opposite. The Brits have a far better record on that score. So, how could I be "neutral" on the Vendee??
It would appear, Atlanticist, that the real world (or certain parts/people of it) is even more 'fantastical' than your imaginary "what ifs" of alternative history.
Vetting History
Submitted by Wynne on Fri, 2009-01-09 01:53.
One imagines the EU will mark the growing body of revisionist Western history as the foundation for a new one.
Wonder how the role of the church will be treated? Or capitalism? Or national sovereignty?
And who will be the new history's winners? Well, the Jacobins and the mullahs will just have to fight it out.
Note: Trendy though it is, drawing an equivalence between neocons and the heirs of Rousseau is too facile by half. But a Good talking point for EU historians.
EUchronia (3)
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2009-01-09 00:46.
EUchronia is the enemy and Amphibological warfare is its favourite weapon of choice.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/amphibological.asp
@Armor
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2009-01-08 20:20.
In fact, the french 1789 mass-murderers sounded like today's American neocons.
@Monarchist
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2009-01-08 21:23.
Yep! Marcfrans has some serious explaining to do.
EU history
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2009-01-08 19:57.
Euro Clio: "This transnational cooperation also increases the European dimension of history education and reduces the risk of a national bias in the developed material."
I don't think they really want to enhance European awareness. Unless being European has nothing to do with being white?
[the 1789 french revolution] "was the precursor to all the ghastly ideological regime's who have murdered millions in the name of ideology."
Here are the words of Charette, a leader of the resistance against the 1789 french revolutionists:
Pour eux, la patrie semble n'être qu'une idée, pour nous elle est une terre. Ils l'ont dans le cerveau; nous, nous l'avons sous nos pieds, c'est plus solide !
For them, the fatherland seems to be only an idea, for us it is a land. They have it in their brains; we have it under our feet, it is firmer!
--
In fact, the french 1789 mass-murderers sounded like today's American neocons. They had nothing in common with the authors of the American declaration of independence.
EUchronia # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2009-01-08 15:26.
@ Atlanticist
Yes, the "what ifs" narratives of alternative 'history' do present a real challenge for human imagination. If nazi Germany had won WW2 in the European theatre, chances are that Kappert would now be dutifully (but confusedly) beavering away in the Ministry of Propaganda, Armor would be railing anonimously against Berlin (instead of Paris), and Monarchist would have been appointed to lead the state church in the Polish colonies. As to Kapitein Andre, it is conceivable that he would be a leading (academic) member of the Council of International Relations in Berlin, issuing pronouncements on the imminent demise of the Decadent American Empire (along similar lines as that Russian academic did a month ago to ingratriate himself with Putin). Yitzak and Amsterdamsky would have disappeared in a successor mini-holocaust (that would have been specifically designed to deal with naive-lefties from abroad attracted to the 'progressive' and eternal THird Reich), while De Bruycker would have conceivably been put in charge of disposing of their 'jewish' properties.
The possibilities are endless, as they are for the Euro Cleo Project.
Welcome to EUchronia *
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2009-01-08 12:19.
In the alternative history book I'm writing they are referred to by neither the term "barbarians" or 'the movement of peoples'. The truth is, they were led by a charismatic (kappertian) character known to his followers as Bart the Unkempt and they referred to themselves as NEUE URBANE KOLONISTEN.
http://www.uchronia.net/ * (pronounced: EU/ crony/ a).