Registered On: April 2, 2014
Some good comments above on recent events.
A Democrat history would certainly differ from a Republican one or Trump’s own. Just as a recent history of SUFC would differ according to who wrote it. We can usually agree on the facts – the matches played, won, drawn lost, goals scored and conceded.
But the really interesting stuff of history are the ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions – why did we lose so many games – what were the reasons, the contributory factors, etc. Was it the manager’s bad team selection, bad tactics? Was it an interfering chairman, a lack of cash, player rebellion, bad luck with injuries and cards, etc. etc?
My explanation may differ from someone else’s, but we might judge which is most persuasive by looking at the line of argument, the strength of my evidence, who I spoke to (my ‘witnesses’) and what they had to say about that period, all of which which led me to my conclusion that the club’s plight was down to the chairman.
Having said that, a history of the club written in 100 years time might well look back on the period and judge Prawn less harshly, arguing he was right to be fully involved and careful with his cash in such a precarious time when clubs were faltering and almost going under, due to an economic crisis and global pandemic.
Back to the OP, that letter is a classic ‘you need us to protect you from those evil Marxists’. And the comments of Stowell reflect the interests of her boss… the boss of Culture, Media and Sport (was Matt Hancock, now Dowden).
It’s an example of how the current government is seeking to assert itself much as Thatcher did with Thatcherism – i.e. not limit their influence to politics and economics, but extend it into every area of public life – in this case how we should regard our own history, how we should deny the evidence of our own eyes and ears. What’s the word for that, hegemony or summat?