Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "History Debunked"
channel.
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
In essence, from the late 1960s at least, politics ceased to involve principles, where individuals with widely differing opinions based on their different experiences of life could argue their cases against a background of mutual respect, and evolved into a profitable career which could be exploited by those with little or no such experience.
Basically, get a degree, become a researcher for an existing MP, then get parachuted into a safe seat. Ingratiate yourself with those already in authority, and before you know it you are a minister.
As most of this breed of MP had little or no understanding of the real world beyond the occasional undergraduate debate, they had no concept of the idea that opinions other than their own might just possibly be valid. Hence, the politics of enmity that has arisen.
Add to that, the fact that modern politics has become a nice little earner, with numerous extra sources of income, and it is understandable that these now well heeled individuals will put self interest before national interest'
I believe that either Plato or Aristotle argued that anyone who sought public office should be excluded from it for that very reason. It seems he was right.
10
-
10
-
10
-
I wonder if the reality is that the Dear Leader is unable to come to terms with the differences between being Leader of the Opposition and being Prime Minister? He has always, in Opposition, been able to say more or less anything he liked, as no one paid much attention, much like dear Angela, with her chants of 'Tory scum' etc. (whatever happened to Angela, by the way?)
Now he is realising that, as Prime Minister, his words and actions have consequences, and he seems not to like the idea much.
Perhaps the quality of people around him, such as Reeves, Rayner, Cooper, Lammy, and Miliband, are not much comfort, either?
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@karobimukherjee2029 How did a few traders manage to exert control over a country the size of India? Basically, because the rulers of the various princely states allowed them to in order to maintain their wealthy and privileged positions, and brought an end to incessant internal wars.
At the beginning of the Raj, in the late 1860s, some 169 million Indians were governed by around 20,000 British administrators.
By the time of independence in 1948, the population had risen to 358 million, apparently, as a result of falling mortality rates, due to improvements in health, sanitation and infrastructure. I wonder who brought that about?
Read a little about the reality of the British presence in India instead of blindly believing propaganda.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
As best I can ascertain, Mr. Olusoga is similar in many respects to Mr. Rafiq of cricket fame, in that he tends not to produce any credible evidence to substantiate his claims, but he has a certain advantage which mean that he not be challenged, and nor may his views be disputed.
Actually, however, I suggest that Mr. Olusoga is neither incompetent nor dishonest, in that he is not an actual historian, but simply a propagandist with a particular story to promote. Moreover, as the darling of the BBC, he knows which side his bread is buttered.
I wonder if he ever revised his opinion of 'Beachy Head Woman' after the revelations of the Crick Institute? Or has he, like Mary Beard, simply chosen to remain silent on the matter?
9