Comments by "Acid Joke" (@PWMoze) on "The New Culture Forum"
channel.
-
11
-
Simon's description of Bridgerton as 'really grotesque' because it features non white actors is very revealing. It is a historical fantasy drama, and not intended to be seen as historically accurate. No one thinks there was a black Queen in Regency times. It is simply a device to not exclude black and Asian actors from tv historical drama, they deserve to earn a crust too don't they, or should they only be allowed to play drug dealers and gang members in modern urban settings?
Bridgerton is not supposed to be realistic. Its supposed to be entertaining. Most people think it is and enjoy it for its superficiality, like a Regency 'Keeping up with the Kardashians'. Personally I don't like either show, but not because of the melanin in the skin of the principle characters. But I suspect that is the reason why Simon doesn't like it.
As for the complaints that he continually receives, I think that is because his views are always race critical, gender critical or in some way at odds with the social justice agenda. Whether they are based upon any historical analysis or not, they are always reactionary and anti-progressive..
His resentment of the modern SJW influences in society overwhelm his analysis and inform all of his opinions
He resents public figures (such as Emma Radicanu and Lewis Hamilton) who he sees as not being 'properly British', clearly because of the colour of their skin and not because of any defecit in the quality of their character or their competency.
He describes education as indoctrination but he clearly has very little understanding or experience of what teachers actually do in classrooms, what the curriculum demands, how teachers relate to the times they live in or how they approach multi cultural pupils in multi ethnic schools. I suspect that all he knows about modern teaching practise and content is what he gets from the right wing reactionary press. "Our history is becoming propaganda!" How does he know, has he visited schools to see how it is taught, has he sat in on any lessons? Of course not. If the teaching of history in British schools was really just the indoctrination of the woke agenda wouldn't OfStEd, the Ministry for Education and the Conservative government be strenuously opposing all that? It is a myth perpetuated by the likes of Simon and the reactionary right wing newspapers he reads.
He likes to characterise British history as 'under threat' from being taught in a particularly narrow way. But that is precisely what he does, or proposes should be done, ignoring race, gender and class from his analysis. Never question historical figures or the value of their actions. Never prosecute the past for injustice unless it has no bearing on race, gender etc. Never be sceptical of what the previous generations have taught as the orthodoxy and never undermine historical institutions. Sounds very authoritarian doesn't it? Needless to say, most professional historians would not approve of such restraints. Nor should they.
He describes British culture as 'high culture' implying that it is above every other or at least suggesting that other cultures are 'lower'?
He thinks 'great literature' should never be re-evaluated by new generations, even if it embodies values that are no longer held or reflects societies that are deeply flawed.
He resents modernity and pop culture and believes it has no merit. Perhaps because it is so often informed by non white influences.
He speaks for people who can not speak for themselves, but in many instances what he says should be very carefully unpacked before its taken as gospel. He likes to characterise his views as what most people think but dare not say. Most people do not think like him because they are not on a one man campaign to fight a race critical battle against modern culture through the use of the internet. Most people in Britain want to be tolerant and open minded, get on with their neighbours and make the best of it? Not enforce their culture on others.
He knows a fair bit about history but he is very selective about his choice of supporting evidence and quite deliberately biased in many cases. He exagerates and distorts facts to draw simple conclusions. Usually to support a race critical conclusion. For example, children are not taught that there was a 'black' Roman emperor who died in Britain. Responsible teachers teach that Severus was a Roman citizen who came from a Roman province in North Africa. Draw your own conclusions about how dark his skin was.
Because of all this Simon is a very problematic old chap. I suspect, however, he probably really enjoys the notoriety that he now enjoys? If not, he would pack it all in. Enoch Powell enjoyed notoriety too, didn't he? As did Sir Oswald Mosely. I could go on...
Of course there are those that admire him, but I wonder whether they support his analysis of history or rather support his problematic take on race and modern British social culture? I personally think he is smug and very unsettling. But that's just me, I'm a bit smug and unsettling myself.
Trolls, you may now begin...
3