The point is these snowflake, woke mongering rsoles are judging people by what is deemed acceptable here and now instead of using context.
As a kid I had a gollywog, does that mean that either myself or my parents were racist.
Guess what if you answer yes to that question YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
You say ''woke'' a lot, obviously in a very negative context. I'm curious to know what 'woke' means to you? Genuine question btw.
I've always understood it to mean an almost pious obsession about social issues usually from a position of privilege.
In this particular example if people of colour were shouting about it then that's ok but for English Heritage who make profit out of history founded on dubious activities in many aspects to suddenly get all P.C. is a pi55 take.
The point is these snowflake, woke mongering rsoles are judging people by what is deemed acceptable here and now instead of using context.
As a kid I had a gollywog, does that mean that either myself or my parents were racist.
Guess what if you answer yes to that question YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
You say ''woke'' a lot, obviously in a very negative context. I'm curious to know what 'woke' means to you? Genuine question btw.
I've always understood it to mean an almost pious obsession about social issues usually from a position of privilege.
In this particular example if people of colour were shouting about it then that's ok but for English Heritage who make profit out of history founded on dubious activities in many aspects to suddenly get all P.C. is a pi55 take.
So to be, generally speaking, socially aware? Though some may take that awareness to levels that are a bit OTT for you?
Doesn't sound like being ''woke'' is actually such a bad thing then; much better to be socially aware and observant than have your head buried in the sand I'd say.
This is why it amuses me when people use it as a derogatory term, because the alternative to 'woke' is far far worse.
The point is these snowflake, woke mongering rsoles are judging people by what is deemed acceptable here and now instead of using context.
As a kid I had a gollywog, does that mean that either myself or my parents were racist.
Guess what if you answer yes to that question YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
You seem very upset over a children's book changing a few words. Are you the snowflake?
No just pi55ed off that yet another British Institution comes under attack by f****** wanna be guilt ridden for something I didn't do dikwads.
Give it another 50 years and all our history will be deleted in the name of political, racial or diverse correctness.
Then the roles will be reversed ala Rhodesia oh sorry Zimbabwe.
If I've done wrong then I will be the first to apologise, but I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE OR TAKE ON "WHITE GUILT" FOR STUFF THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WORLD AND ITS ATTITUDES WERE DIFFERENT.
Actually according to statistics I am a minority. As a white, hetrosexual, practising Christian I am in fact in a percentile of less than 20%.
I await your guilt and shame for everything bad that's ever happened to me whilst insisting that you change history to delete anything I consider to be offensive and calling on society to boycott vast swathes of everything on my behalf.
Pretty ridiculous yes. EXACTLY but wait that's actually what you're supporting.
I'm sure some of this is tongue in cheek but it's just a book for kids.
Why anyone would get so worked up about this non-issue is beyond me.
Yes, Enid Blyton wrote things that we'd never say today but that doesn't cancel the joy she brought to my childhood and shouldn't deny future generations her magical worlds
DAN WOOTTON: Was some of Enid Blyton's writing racist, with examples of abhorrent language that was and is completely unacceptable? Absolutely. Should the joy of her storytelling that helped develop the imagination of so many children, including mine, be erased for future generations? Absolutely not. But that is my fear after a decision by English Heritage today to update the blue plaque information connected to Blyton (left) after a review sparked by last year's Black Lives Matter protests. The new online addition to the blue plaque first installed in 1997 is headlined: 'Racism in Blyton's works.' Who matters more? Snobby literary types or the hundreds of millions who have lovingly consumed her work without any idea of Blyton's dodgy personal views. I certainly had no idea as a child devouring the vivid storytelling of the Famous Five (right) as I felt like I was living the English adventures of ****, Julian, Anne, George and their dog Timmy.
Enid Blyton fans slam English Heritage 'insulting' re-appraisal of children's author's work as 'racist and xenophobic' as group stands by move (and gives Benjamin Franklin and Rudyard Kipling the same treatment)
Enid Blyton, the prolific English children's writer, has enchanted millions of young readers for a century with tales of adventure, ginger beer and buns, selling 600million books in 90 languages.
The point is these snowflake, woke mongering rsoles are judging people by what is deemed acceptable here and now instead of using context.
As a kid I had a gollywog, does that mean that either myself or my parents were racist.
Guess what if you answer yes to that question YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
You seem very upset over a children's book changing a few words. Are you the snowflake?
No just pi55ed off that yet another British Institution comes under attack by f****** wanna be guilt ridden for something I didn't do dikwads.
Give it another 50 years and all our history will be deleted in the name of political, racial or diverse correctness.
Then the roles will be reversed ala Rhodesia oh sorry Zimbabwe.
If I've done wrong then I will be the first to apologise, but I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE OR TAKE ON "WHITE GUILT" FOR STUFF THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WORLD AND ITS ATTITUDES WERE DIFFERENT.
Actually according to statistics I am a minority. As a white, hetrosexual, practising Christian I am in fact in a percentile of less than 20%.
I await your guilt and shame for everything bad that's ever happened to me whilst insisting that you change history to delete anything I consider to be offensive and calling on society to boycott vast swathes of everything on my behalf.
Pretty ridiculous yes. EXACTLY but wait that's actually what you're supporting.
I'm sure some of this is tongue in cheek but it's just a book for kids.
Why anyone would get so worked up about this non-issue is beyond me.
I fear you and others may be missing the point.
It isn't about a few books for kids, it's about the systematic, institutionalised destruction of British heritage and history, to appease white, middle class, apologists who seem to think that they need to get offended on behalf of other people.
Personally I find their desire to be offended on someone elses behalf condesending and patronising, as Kofi my Church friend says "Don't need no body to get offended on my behalf, I'm perfectly capable of doing it for myself".
Maybe if B.L.M. activists are burning the Famous Five in the streets or blaming The Secret Seven for the problems of black inner city children then the outrage might be both valid and justified.
Where will it stop?
Will we be villifying Little kids in 20 years time because of their choice of sweets?
Blackjacks = racist, rainbow drops = all for diversity.
These things are perpetrated by people looking to cause division and find offence where previously there wasn't any.
No just pi55ed off that yet another British Institution comes under attack by f****** wanna be guilt ridden for something I didn't do dikwads.
Give it another 50 years and all our history will be deleted in the name of political, racial or diverse correctness.
Then the roles will be reversed ala Rhodesia oh sorry Zimbabwe. If I've done wrong then I will be the first to apologise, but I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE OR TAKE ON "WHITE GUILT" FOR STUFF THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WORLD AND ITS ATTITUDES WERE DIFFERENT.
Actually according to statistics I am a minority. As a white, hetrosexual, practising Christian I am in fact in a percentile of less than 20%.
I await your guilt and shame for everything bad that's ever happened to me whilst insisting that you change history to delete anything I consider to be offensive and calling on society to boycott vast swathes of everything on my behalf.
Pretty ridiculous yes. EXACTLY but wait that's actually what you're supporting.
Your statistics will improve if you drop the practicing Christian bit.
The part in bold is interesting, isn’t that fundamental to Christianity, the idea of Original Sin?
I await your guilt and shame for everything bad that's ever happened to me whilst insisting that you change history to delete anything I consider to be offensive and calling on society to boycott vast swathes of everything on my behalf.
Pretty ridiculous yes. EXACTLY but wait that's actually what you're supporting.
Her books were sanitised such that hundreds of millions of children growing up within different cultural standards could enjoy them. Arguably if they weren't censored in this way her popularity would have diminished decades ago. Which would you prefer?
No just pi55ed off that yet another British Institution comes under attack by f****** wanna be guilt ridden for something I didn't do dikwads.
Give it another 50 years and all our history will be deleted in the name of political, racial or diverse correctness.
Then the roles will be reversed ala Rhodesia oh sorry Zimbabwe. If I've done wrong then I will be the first to apologise, but I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE OR TAKE ON "WHITE GUILT" FOR STUFF THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WORLD AND ITS ATTITUDES WERE DIFFERENT.
Actually according to statistics I am a minority. As a white, hetrosexual, practising Christian I am in fact in a percentile of less than 20%.
I await your guilt and shame for everything bad that's ever happened to me whilst insisting that you change history to delete anything I consider to be offensive and calling on society to boycott vast swathes of everything on my behalf.
Pretty ridiculous yes. EXACTLY but wait that's actually what you're supporting.
Your statistics will improve if you drop the practicing Christian bit.
The part in bold is interesting, isn’t that fundamental to Christianity, the idea of Original Sin?
Lol at the first bit there Mike, I like it.
Regarding the second bit No. What's fundamental to Christianity is that Christ died to pay the wages of our sin and that in accepting his sacrifice we are judged pure and righteous by God.
The original sin was the refusal of Adam and Eve to obey God's command regarding the fruit of the tree of life and thus sin entered the world.
Nowhere does the Bible say that we as Christians have to feel guilt for the actions of others. I can be appalled, shocked, disgusted and horrified by the actions and deeds of others. I can try to alleviate some of the harsh impacts or remedy some of the results of these actions but I don't need to feel guilt.
It's like me expecting modern Germans to feel guilt for the holocaust when it had absolutely nothing to do with them. Yes I expect them to accept it happened and acknowledge the horror of it all.
Then I expect them to get on with their lives, free from guilt, shame and blame.
The original sin was the refusal of Adam and Eve to obey God's command regarding the fruit of the tree of life and thus sin entered the world.
I don't want to get too into theology as I have limited knowledge, but the idea is that this sin was passed down, Original Sin suggests you are sinful simply because you have the propensity to commit sin as a human - but I'm not sure how this interacts with Jesus having died to pay for all future sins.
Anyhow, the Nazi analogy in this context is a good one as a direct descendant of a Nazi would have been born with the same propensity to sin as their ancestor was - this works as a useful reminder that we have to keep a few things in check as a society to prevent a similar recurrence, and it also allows us whilst we don't accept any personal guilt for the sins of a fellow human, to be forgiving of others who may not have lived to the same moral code we have now. That is to say, if we were them, we'd be likely to have acted in the same way.
Part of those checks I think would be to call out racism where it exists, but also not to consume ourselves with trying to find individual examples of it that we have all moved away from.
I personally think it's good that work can be sanitised such that you don't lose all the good bits when culling the bad, but I know there are differing views on the sanctity of art etc.
Yes, some attitudes were different back then Did that make it right at the time?
I assume that you’re aware that black people and gay people existed in that era too?
Love life, love each other and love yourselves
No it didn't make it right and trust me I'm well aware that we have always had black people and gay people but to change the way that morality is measured and then go back through history and start to judge people is wrong.
Let me put it this way Bernard Manning was one of the biggest names on the comedy circuit in the 70's and early 80's. Racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted and brash and yet he was featured on prime time tv in shows such as "The Comedians" and also shows such as "Love thy Neighbour" and "Til Death us do Part" pulled in viewing figures in the millions. AND WE LAUGHED.
Those shows are totally unacceptable today as we have become aware of how what we perceived as funny back in the day was actually anything but.
Here's the rub though, it happened so do we keep on reliving it or do we acknowledge the wrong and move on with a better understanding and an open and tolerant attitude.
The original sin was the refusal of Adam and Eve to obey God's command regarding the fruit of the tree of life and thus sin entered the world.
I don't want to get too into theology as I have limited knowledge, but the idea is that this sin was passed down, Original Sin suggests you are sinful simply because you have the propensity to commit sin as a human - but I'm not sure how this interacts with Jesus having died to pay for all future sins.
Anyhow, the Nazi analogy in this context is a good one as a direct descendant of a Nazi would have been born with the same propensity to sin as their ancestor was - this works as a useful reminder that we have to keep a few things in check as a society to prevent a similar recurrence, and it also allows us whilst we don't accept any personal guilt for the sins of a fellow human, to be forgiving of others who may not have lived to the same moral code we have now. That is to say, if we were them, we'd be likely to have acted in the same way.
Part of those checks I think would be to call out racism where it exists, but also not to consume ourselves with trying to find individual examples of it that we have all moved away from.
I personally think it's good that work can be sanitised such that you don't lose all the good bits when culling the bad, but I know there are differing views on the sanctity of art etc.
I would not disagree with any of that. I don't object to the rewording of Blyton's texts either.
What I object to is this almost pathological desire by some to trawl through history in the hope of unearthing racism, and especially when the trawler in this case is named after the centuries of history that was founded on colonialism and racism.
English Heritage either change your name or accept that our heritage comes with lots of baggage, controversy and down right evil, but stop cherry picking the parts that suit you in an attempt tp present a clean P C image.
The original sin was the refusal of Adam and Eve to obey God's command regarding the fruit of the tree of life and thus sin entered the world.
I don't want to get too into theology as I have limited knowledge, but the idea is that this sin was passed down, Original Sin suggests you are sinful simply because you have the propensity to commit sin as a human - but I'm not sure how this interacts with Jesus having died to pay for all future sins.
Anyhow, the Nazi analogy in this context is a good one as a direct descendant of a Nazi would have been born with the same propensity to sin as their ancestor was - this works as a useful reminder that we have to keep a few things in check as a society to prevent a similar recurrence, and it also allows us whilst we don't accept any personal guilt for the sins of a fellow human, to be forgiving of others who may not have lived to the same moral code we have now. That is to say, if we were them, we'd be likely to have acted in the same way.
Part of those checks I think would be to call out racism where it exists, but also not to consume ourselves with trying to find individual examples of it that we have all moved away from.
I personally think it's good that work can be sanitised such that you don't lose all the good bits when culling the bad, but I know there are differing views on the sanctity of art etc.
I would not disagree with any of that. I don't object to the rewording of Blyton's texts either.
What I object to is this almost pathological desire by some to trawl through history in the hope of unearthing racism, and especially when the trawler in this case is named after the centuries of history that was founded on colonialism and racism.
English Heritage either change your name or accept that our heritage comes with lots of baggage, controversy and down right evil, but stop cherry picking the parts that suit you in an attempt tp present a clean P C image.
You seem very confused.
The "trawling" was done by various publishers, librarians, scholars, historians, etc and dates back many, many years, as far back as when Blyton was still alive and still attempting to get her racist nonsense in print. Much of this first came to light more than 50 years ago. All EH has done is summarise those findings, with a very generous lack of detail about how truly grotesque some of her work was.
It's a curious complaint to make when you seem to agree in your previous post that acknowledging her problematic past has value. Given some of the comments in this thread, it is hard to disagree. And that is precisely what is happening here.
As far as I can tell, you've allowed yourself to be taken in by a false and misleading Daily Mail narrative suggesting Blyton has been "cancelled" when nothing of the sort is happening or being called for. It's quite clear from the EH's press materials that the intent is merely to present a full picture of a person of great import in British culture, as is their stated mission, not to bring her down or diminish the value of her less offensive works.
If you had spent a little more time trying to understand the substance of the article in question, rather than allowing yourself to be taken in by its deliberately polarising language, we could have avoided a lot of embarrassing and comical coments about white guilt and racist sweets.
The original sin was the refusal of Adam and Eve to obey God's command regarding the fruit of the tree of life and thus sin entered the world.
I don't want to get too into theology as I have limited knowledge, but the idea is that this sin was passed down, Original Sin suggests you are sinful simply because you have the propensity to commit sin as a human - but I'm not sure how this interacts with Jesus having died to pay for all future sins.
Anyhow, the Nazi analogy in this context is a good one as a direct descendant of a Nazi would have been born with the same propensity to sin as their ancestor was - this works as a useful reminder that we have to keep a few things in check as a society to prevent a similar recurrence, and it also allows us whilst we don't accept any personal guilt for the sins of a fellow human, to be forgiving of others who may not have lived to the same moral code we have now. That is to say, if we were them, we'd be likely to have acted in the same way.
Part of those checks I think would be to call out racism where it exists, but also not to consume ourselves with trying to find individual examples of it that we have all moved away from.
I personally think it's good that work can be sanitised such that you don't lose all the good bits when culling the bad, but I know there are differing views on the sanctity of art etc.
I would not disagree with any of that. I don't object to the rewording of Blyton's texts either.
What I object to is this almost pathological desire by some to trawl through history in the hope of unearthing racism, and especially when the trawler in this case is named after the centuries of history that was founded on colonialism and racism.
English Heritage either change your name or accept that our heritage comes with lots of baggage, controversy and down right evil, but stop cherry picking the parts that suit you in an attempt tp present a clean P C image.
You seem very confused.
The "trawling" was done by various publishers, librarians, scholars, historians, etc and dates back many, many years, as far back as when Blyton was still alive and still attempting to get her racist nonsense in print. Much of this first came to light more than 50 years ago. All EH has done is summarise those findings, with a very generous lack of detail about how truly grotesque some of her work was.
It's a curious complaint to make when you seem to agree in your previous post that acknowledging her problematic past has value. Given some of the comments in this thread, it is hard to disagree. And that is precisely what is happening here.
As far as I can tell, you've allowed yourself to be taken in by a false and misleading Daily Mail narrative suggesting Blyton has been "cancelled" when nothing of the sort is happening or being called for. It's quite clear from the EH's press materials that the intent is merely to present a full picture of a person of great import in British culture, as is their stated mission, not to bring her down or diminish the value of her less offensive works.
If you had spent a little more time trying to understand the substance of the article in question, rather than allowing yourself to be taken in by its deliberately polarising language, we could have avoided a lot of embarrassing and comical coments about white guilt and racist sweets.
Oh pardon me for any embarrassment, but the facts regarding "white guilt" are real. More than one supposedly intelligent person from both sides of the racial divide has appeared both in print and on screen and stated that as somebody who happened to be born white in the UK I automatically receive privilege and entitlement denied to others.
Now whilst this may be true, that's another argument, I certainly don't understand why I should apologise or feel guilty about it.
As far as the sweets are concerned that was merely an attempt to show that in years to come what we perceive as normal and acceptable today might well be judged morally offensive, so it's not silly it's a satirical warning.
Finally as a reader of all 21 famous five, several secret seven, some adventurous four and many faraway tree stories when I was a child I can't remember reading racist, xenophobic or other evil things in the stories.
The point is these snowflake, woke mongering rsoles are judging people by what is deemed acceptable here and now instead of using context.
As a kid I had a gollywog, does that mean that either myself or my parents were racist.
Guess what if you answer yes to that question YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
You seem very upset over a children's book changing a few words. Are you the snowflake?
No just pi55ed off that yet another British Institution comes under attack by f****** wanna be guilt ridden for something I didn't do dikwads.
Give it another 50 years and all our history will be deleted in the name of political, racial or diverse correctness.
Then the roles will be reversed ala Rhodesia oh sorry Zimbabwe.
If I've done wrong then I will be the first to apologise, but I WILL NEVER APOLOGISE OR TAKE ON "WHITE GUILT" FOR STUFF THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WORLD AND ITS ATTITUDES WERE DIFFERENT.
Actually according to statistics I am a minority. As a white, hetrosexual, practising Christian I am in fact in a percentile of less than 20%.
I await your guilt and shame for everything bad that's ever happened to me whilst insisting that you change history to delete anything I consider to be offensive and calling on society to boycott vast swathes of everything on my behalf.
Pretty ridiculous yes. EXACTLY but wait that's actually what you're supporting.
I'm sure some of this is tongue in cheek but it's just a book for kids.
Why anyone would get so worked up about this non-issue is beyond me.
I fear you and others may be missing the point.
It isn't about a few books for kids, it's about the systematic, institutionalised destruction of British heritage and history, to appease white, middle class, apologists who seem to think that they need to get offended on behalf of other people.
Personally I find their desire to be offended on someone elses behalf condesending and patronising, as Kofi my Church friend says "Don't need no body to get offended on my behalf, I'm perfectly capable of doing it for myself".
Maybe if B.L.M. activists are burning the Famous Five in the streets or blaming The Secret Seven for the problems of black inner city children then the outrage might be both valid and justified.
Where will it stop?
Will we be villifying Little kids in 20 years time because of their choice of sweets?
Blackjacks = racist, rainbow drops = all for diversity.
These things are perpetrated by people looking to cause division and find offence where previously there wasn't any.
Ok, I'm missing the point, so enlighten me.
Perhaps you can tell me more about the ''systematic, institutionalised destruction of British heritage and history''.
At the moment it would appear that the latest spectator sport is to take prominent people in British history and dig until you find something that sticks then don sackcloth and ashes and try to get the self flagellation right.
Nelson, Churchill, Her Maj, Drake, Sir Walt, Sir William, Wellington, both DH and TE Lawerence, Sir Arthur Conan, and various Arcbihes of Canto have all been bashed by the racist stick
That's just a few without even delving into the merchants, bankers and engineers responsible for the British Empire.
As I've already stated, it's not a pretty history, no empire ever was, there's no need to keep digging it up. Yes we were responsible for some really cr4ppy stuff like apartheid and exploitation.
It would appear therefore that certain institutions would rather, delete or edit history and heritage because they are unable to accept it and move on.
The Bible contains sexism, racism, xenaphobia, homophobia, aparthied, exploitation, slavery, genocide and ritual human sacrifice.
Comments
In this particular example if people of colour were shouting about it then that's ok but for English Heritage who make profit out of history founded on dubious activities in many aspects to suddenly get all P.C. is a pi55 take.
Though some may take that awareness to levels that are a bit OTT for you?
Doesn't sound like being ''woke'' is actually such a bad thing then; much better to be socially aware and observant than have your head buried in the sand I'd say.
This is why it amuses me when people use it as a derogatory term, because the alternative to 'woke' is far far worse.
Why anyone would get so worked up about this non-issue is beyond me.
DAN WOOTTON: Was some of Enid Blyton's writing racist, with examples of abhorrent language that was and is completely unacceptable? Absolutely. Should the joy of her storytelling that helped develop the imagination of so many children, including mine, be erased for future generations? Absolutely not. But that is my fear after a decision by English Heritage today to update the blue plaque information connected to Blyton (left) after a review sparked by last year's Black Lives Matter protests. The new online addition to the blue plaque first installed in 1997 is headlined: 'Racism in Blyton's works.' Who matters more? Snobby literary types or the hundreds of millions who have lovingly consumed her work without any idea of Blyton's dodgy personal views. I certainly had no idea as a child devouring the vivid storytelling of the Famous Five (right) as I felt like I was living the English adventures of ****, Julian, Anne, George and their dog Timmy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9697673/DAN-WOOTTON-Blyton-wrote-things-wed-never-say-doesnt-cancel-joy-brought.html
Enid Blyton, the prolific English children's writer, has enchanted millions of young readers for a century with tales of adventure, ginger beer and buns, selling 600million books in 90 languages.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9695159/Enid-Blytons-work-racist-xenophobic-lacking-literary-merit-says-English-Heritage.html
It isn't about a few books for kids, it's about the systematic, institutionalised destruction of British heritage and history, to appease white, middle class, apologists who seem to think that they need to get offended on behalf of other people.
Personally I find their desire to be offended on someone elses behalf condesending and patronising, as Kofi my Church friend says "Don't need no body to get offended on my behalf, I'm perfectly capable of doing it for myself".
Maybe if B.L.M. activists are burning the Famous Five in the streets or blaming The Secret Seven for the problems of black inner city children then the outrage might be both valid and justified.
Where will it stop?
Will we be villifying Little kids in 20 years time because of their choice of sweets?
Blackjacks = racist, rainbow drops = all for diversity.
These things are perpetrated by people looking to cause division and find offence where previously there wasn't any.
The part in bold is interesting, isn’t that fundamental to Christianity, the idea of Original Sin?
Yes, some attitudes were different back then
Did that make it right at the time?
I assume that you’re aware that black people and gay people existed in that era too?
Love life, love each other and love yourselves
Regarding the second bit No. What's fundamental to Christianity is that Christ died to pay the wages of our sin and that in accepting his sacrifice we are judged pure and righteous by God.
The original sin was the refusal of Adam and Eve to obey God's command regarding the fruit of the tree of life and thus sin entered the world.
Nowhere does the Bible say that we as Christians have to feel guilt for the actions of others. I can be appalled, shocked, disgusted and horrified by the actions and deeds of others. I can try to alleviate some of the harsh impacts or remedy some of the results of these actions but I don't need to feel guilt.
It's like me expecting modern Germans to feel guilt for the holocaust when it had absolutely nothing to do with them. Yes I expect them to accept it happened and acknowledge the horror of it all.
Then I expect them to get on with their lives, free from guilt, shame and blame.
Anyhow, the Nazi analogy in this context is a good one as a direct descendant of a Nazi would have been born with the same propensity to sin as their ancestor was - this works as a useful reminder that we have to keep a few things in check as a society to prevent a similar recurrence, and it also allows us whilst we don't accept any personal guilt for the sins of a fellow human, to be forgiving of others who may not have lived to the same moral code we have now. That is to say, if we were them, we'd be likely to have acted in the same way.
Part of those checks I think would be to call out racism where it exists, but also not to consume ourselves with trying to find individual examples of it that we have all moved away from.
I personally think it's good that work can be sanitised such that you don't lose all the good bits when culling the bad, but I know there are differing views on the sanctity of art etc.
Let me put it this way Bernard Manning was one of the biggest names on the comedy circuit in the 70's and early 80's. Racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted and brash and yet he was featured on prime time tv in shows such as "The Comedians" and also shows such as "Love thy Neighbour" and "Til Death us do Part" pulled in viewing figures in the millions. AND WE LAUGHED.
Those shows are totally unacceptable today as we have become aware of how what we perceived as funny back in the day was actually anything but.
Here's the rub though, it happened so do we keep on reliving it or do we acknowledge the wrong and move on with a better understanding and an open and tolerant attitude.
You can't move on if you're still looking back.
What I object to is this almost pathological desire by some to trawl through history in the hope of unearthing racism, and especially when the trawler in this case is named after the centuries of history that was founded on colonialism and racism.
English Heritage either change your name or accept that our heritage comes with lots of baggage, controversy and down right evil, but stop cherry picking the parts that suit you in an attempt tp present a clean P C image.
The "trawling" was done by various publishers, librarians, scholars, historians, etc and dates back many, many years, as far back as when Blyton was still alive and still attempting to get her racist nonsense in print. Much of this first came to light more than 50 years ago. All EH has done is summarise those findings, with a very generous lack of detail about how truly grotesque some of her work was.
It's a curious complaint to make when you seem to agree in your previous post that acknowledging her problematic past has value. Given some of the comments in this thread, it is hard to disagree. And that is precisely what is happening here.
As far as I can tell, you've allowed yourself to be taken in by a false and misleading Daily Mail narrative suggesting Blyton has been "cancelled" when nothing of the sort is happening or being called for. It's quite clear from the EH's press materials that the intent is merely to present a full picture of a person of great import in British culture, as is their stated mission, not to bring her down or diminish the value of her less offensive works.
If you had spent a little more time trying to understand the substance of the article in question, rather than allowing yourself to be taken in by its deliberately polarising language, we could have avoided a lot of embarrassing and comical coments about white guilt and racist sweets.
Now whilst this may be true, that's another argument, I certainly don't understand why I should apologise or feel guilty about it.
As far as the sweets are concerned that was merely an attempt to show that in years to come what we perceive as normal and acceptable today might well be judged morally offensive, so it's not silly it's a satirical warning.
Finally as a reader of all 21 famous five, several secret seven, some adventurous four and many faraway tree stories when I was a child I can't remember reading racist, xenophobic or other evil things in the stories.
Mind you I wasn't looking for them.
Perhaps you can tell me more about the ''systematic, institutionalised destruction of British heritage and history''.
I'm all ears, genuinely.
Nelson, Churchill, Her Maj, Drake, Sir Walt, Sir William, Wellington, both DH and TE Lawerence, Sir Arthur Conan, and various Arcbihes of Canto have all been bashed by the racist stick
That's just a few without even delving into the merchants, bankers and engineers responsible for the British Empire.
As I've already stated, it's not a pretty history, no empire ever was, there's no need to keep digging it up. Yes we were responsible for some really cr4ppy stuff like apartheid and exploitation.
It would appear therefore that certain institutions would rather, delete or edit history and heritage because they are unable to accept it and move on.
The Bible contains sexism, racism, xenaphobia, homophobia, aparthied, exploitation, slavery, genocide and ritual human sacrifice.
Better rewrite it in case it offends people.
Could probably do with another revision though I agree.