No-one can apologise for something that someone else did. I can't apologise for something you did, and you can't apologise for something I've done. And neither of us can apologise for something someone else did. Any apology we did make wouldn't mean anything since we didn't do it and so have nothing to be sorry for.

This is an obvious fact, right?

So why do politicians persist in apologising for things that happened before they were in power, grown up, or in some cases even born? How can Kevin Rudd apologise for Australia for the "profound grief, suffering and loss" inflicted by successive Australian governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population? Just like Blair or Livingstone can't apologise for the brief period in history where Britain perpetuated the slave trade [and the same goes for the Papua New Guinea tribe and the cannibalism of their ancestors]. Not with any real sincerity can they.

They can regret what happened, but they can't apologise for it. Regretting an incident is fine and not a problem. We all have some regrets about past issues. But we can't apologise for something we didn't do. Any apology made is just an empty and meaningless gesture. If we carry this idea on, children born of rape will be apologising to their mothers for their father's actions, and ultimately everyone will have to apologise to everyone for something that some long-forgotten ancestor did.

However, Rudd does have slightly more legitimacy in making his apology than Blair or Livingstone for theirs, since the period his apology covers goes right up to the 1960s. But even that is a long time ago. Way too long. Just let all this stuff go for crying out loud and let's move on a equal people, not looking back over our shoulders at past slights!

Soldiers who served during the First World War frequently wrote letters home, and it is through these documents that we can understand the true situation which they were in. The letters of one soldier, Private Harry Lamin, are being published as a blog, exactly 90 years after they were written, and are published entirely faithfully to the original, including spelling and grammar, and are also put in context by some historical explanations.

All in all, a very interesting blog and a very good idea to do, reproducing a snapshot of the past online. Read it here.

Hell yes! We should celebrate British history. Not all of it is as great, pretty, and morally righteous as we may wish, be we should showcase it anyway. History is essential to the modern world. It made us what and who we are. Through history we learn lessons, and understand the reasons behind the way the world works.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We should have a museum of British history to remind us - and the world - of our history, of our role in making the world what it is. Of course it isn't all great but I think that, overall, Britain's role in world history has been positive.

We should have a museum of British history to remind us both of what our nation has done right and wrong in the past, and how we have developed into the nation we are today. After all, it's not like we would have to struggle to fill it!

There is controversy over the unveiling of a statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square. Apparently it wrong to put up a statue to Lloyd George because he ordered bombings in Iraq between 1916 and 1922, which "makes today's celebration of Lloyd George's legacy highly topical and disgraceful."

What on earth are Harold Pinter, John Pilger and Denis Halliday on about in their letter to the Telegraph? Whilst Lloyd George wasn't perfect, it is hardly "disgraceful" to erect a statue of him in Parliament Square.

The reaction to Lloyd George's statue is especially remarkable in contrast with the reaction when a statue to Nelson Mandela was erected in Parliament Square. The BBC article on Mandela's statue has absolutely no mention of his less-than-salubrious past and objections to his statue because of it, whilst the article on Lloyd George has more on the opposition to his statue than support for it.

Mandela was a terrorist. No matter what the cause for which he fought, his actions ticked absolutely every box of that definition. Lloyd George, on the other hand, just authorised bombings during a war! There is no denying that Lloyd George has more right to have a statue in Parliament Square than Nelson Mandela. To start with, he was a British Prime Minister, and not a terrorist!

So why, why was there a deafening silence on opposition to Mandela's statue but the utter opposite for the far more noble and deserving Lloyd George?

Source: BBC

For crying out loud, why?

Why, for fuck's sake, why?! Why is Ken Livingstone apologising for something that has not happened for nearly two centuries? Slavery is not something that has been done by, or even in the lifetime of, anyone alive. Many generations have been and gone since slavery was abolished, through the 1807 and 1833 Abolition of Slavery Acts, and the efforts of William Wilberforce.

As I wrote not long ago, you can't apologise for something you didn't do. It is just an empty gesture! How can you apologise for something that you (a) didn't do, and (b) weren't alive to do anything about anyway? No, slavery is hardly a high point in British history, but since it was carried out before, and after, by Africans, any claim that we should apologise is just a load of utter bollocks. It annoys me that anyone can claim any apology from a descendent of the guilty party, especially when they themselves have never been affected by it - like the recent apology from a Papua New Guinea tribe for their ancestors eating someone else's ancestors. It is all just a load of rubbish. You can't apologise for what someone else has done, and neither should you.

Why is Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, apologising for slavery? He said:
But you don't have that right, Ken. No elected official does. You can apologise for yourself, if you really think it's worth it, but not for anyone else.

It has been claimed that Ken has set "an example" by apologising, one which Anti-Slavery International thinks
Just fuck off, Anti-Slavery International. Just fuck off. I'm not apologising for something I didn't do, and neither should anyone else. In Britain and her Empire, the slave trade ended two hundred years ago, and slavery as a whole 174 years ago. Don't you think it's time you just let it go? Just move on with your life and stop dragging up old, divisive, arguments about slavery. Everyone considers it a bad thing, it;'s not going to happen again here. Go look at Africa and stop it happening there right now, rather than wasting your time asking us for a pointless and totally illogical "apology". If we were to take the argument they make for an apology, everyone would have to apologise to everyone for some minor slight back in the mists of time. Let's just move on.

Source: The Guardian

This doesn't really make any sense:

Why are they apologising? What is the point? Those who were eaten and those who ate are long dead. This happened nearly 130 years ago, for crying out loud! Like with the calls for apologies for slavery and the slave trade, it is utterly pointless. Absolutely everyone who was connected with it is dead.

This apparent need for people to apologise for the actions of their ancestors is becoming really absurd. Things that happened so long ago that no-one involved is alive are seriously old news, and should just be left alone, otherwise everyone in the world would be apologising to everyone else for something that one of their ancestors did back in the mists of time.

You can't apologise for something you didn't do. It is just an empty gesture! How can you apologise for something that you (a) didn't do, and (b) weren't alive to do anything about anyway? The next step along this line would be for children born of rape to apologise to their mother for their father's actions! Don't tell me that's not absurd.

Source: The Telegraph

How can someone behave like this?

"A German farmer is refusing to allow British families to recover the remains of crew members of a Lancaster bomber shot down during the Second World War - unless they pay him €7,500 (£5,080).
The families of the crew are furious at the farmer's demands and are refusing to pay. They say that the farmer, Horst Bender, must not be allowed to make a profit from allowing them to give their dead relatives a proper burial with full military honours...
The farmer gave permission for an excavation in 2005 but then suddenly demanded money. At first he wanted €5,000, but recently he put up the price to €7,500." (The Telegraph)

It is disgusting that this farmer wants to be paid for the recovery of war dead from his property. He certainly should not profit from their recovery. Mr Bender, the farmer, claims that:

"Everyone wants to come on my land and dig, but no one has offered any money to cover the damages... I have nothing against giving my permission, but the costs have got to be covered. I can't say how much it would cost without making a thorough estimate, but it will not be less than €7,500."

If the cost of returning the field to a usable state "will not be less than €7,500" why was he, until recently, asking for €5,000 [after originally not asking for any]? It is fair enough that he should get some help in restoring the land, but why then did [and does] he not ask, instead of for a specific payment but for help with restoring the land after the excavation?

Mr Bender should remember his history. Would he prefer to live in a Nazi world? If not, then he certainly shouldn't be asking to be paid for the excavation! The way in which he has acted is extremely selfish and insensitive. The relatives just want to see their loved ones buried properly, and he is demanding money before they can be. It's sickening.

Maybe we should threaten to bomb him from another Lancaster unless he allows the excavation...?

Source: The Telegraph

Does this tiny tablet prove that the Old Testament is historically accurate? No, it doesn't.

"Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.
Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim.
Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city...
Evidence from non-Biblical sources of people named in the Bible is not unknown, but Nabu-sharrussu-ukin would have been a relatively insignificant figure." (The Telegraph)

But this doesn't mean that "the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power" at all. All it means is that there is a teeny tiny bit more likelihood that some of the historical narrative in the Old Testament is correct. It means little more than that.

All fiction needs to be based on fact, after all. Take the book Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown - that has plenty of "facts" in it, yet it is also a complete work of fiction. The same goes for all historical novels - plenty of fact, but a work of fiction nevertheless.

That facts are included in the Old Testament does not mean that it is correct. Least of all facts as simple as a name. Facts can very easily be twisted, or ignored, to support the argument that the writer wishes to make. What this discovery does do is add a few more grains of sand in support of the Old Testament being a true historical narrative - but there is still an entire beach on the other side of the scales.

Source: The Telegraph

Were the Princes in the Tower really murdered by Richard III? David Baldwin, a historian at the University of Leicester, claims not in his book The Lost Prince. In fact, he claims that Richard, the younger Prince, lived in Colchester and worked as a bricklayer.

The entire conjecture, however, is based on circumstantial evidence, which he admits, such as:

"The elder prince, Edward, was receiving regular visits from his doctor, and the treatments prescribed by medieval doctors, like blood-letting, were pretty awful. It's quite likely they would have finished him off.
Then there is evidence to suggest that the younger prince, Richard, was secreted in Colchester.
First of all, Frances Viscount Lovel was one of Richard III's closest friends, and after the Battle of Bosworth he rode straight to Colchester Abbey for no obvious reason.
Philip Knighton was sent to Colchester by Henry VII carrying secret papers is 1486, so it appears that there was some kind of secret there.
And when Henry VII became king, he visited Colchester no less than four times during his reign, which he didn't do for other regions.
The impression is that there was something going on there behind the scenes."

It is a very interesting idea. However, as convincing as the circumstantial evidence seems, it is just that - circumstantial. The man who called himself Richard Plantagenet, was able to read Latin (unusual for a bricklayer) and claimed to be an illegitimate son of Richard III could well have been just that, and not Richard of York, one of the Princes in the Tower.

However, it intrigues me, so I think I shall now have to buy the book and read it cover to cover rather than just picking quotes from news reports!

Sources: The Telegraph, Life Style Extra, Daily Mail

Boris Johnson is backing calls to keep the Ancient History A-level alive, and has done so by donning a toga with students currently studying the course. The course is being scrapped by OCR, the exam board who runs the course, and being combined into an A-level on "classical civilisation" instead, which would not properly examine ancient history.

I would have loved to study Ancient History, but it wasn't offered at my school, disappointingly. It is a fascinating subject and has important things to teach us about how the world developed into its modern form. Especially since the philosophy which came to the fore of modern political thought and plays a very large part in our lives was first developed in the ancient civilisations of Greece and Rome, that of democracy, it should be kept alive so that it is understood how and why democracy developed into it's modern form. No examination of democracy can begin anywhere except in the ancient civilisations, and it is important that historical study of the period is kept alive.

I have never had the chance to study ancient history, but would love to. It is such a fascinating area. It should be maintained and, as Boris says, "[i]t makes no sense to kick away yet another ladder of opportunity up to university and to reduce the options of pupils who want to study this wonderful subject."

Sources: BBC, The Guardian - article 1, article 2

Even though he has only just announced his departure date, people are already excessively over-analysing his premiership. The BBC already has three historians giving "instant expert views" and the Guardian has a similar thing, only with more historians and a higher quality of analysis - including one by Eric Hobsbawm, whose work I normally dislike, but the passage here is quite good.

Neither Blair nor the "Blair years" are yet over or finished in any way. Blair is still Prime Minister until 27th June, and Brown will inherit a majority won by Blair. Brown himself is also too closely tied to Blair's premiership for it to be possible to draw a line under the "Blair years" even after Brown takes over. You can't claim to write the history of an event until it is fully over - and the Blair years aren't.

It is plainly ridiculous to write "historical" analysis of the "Blair years" yet. He still hasn't even left office! It is simply all too modern and immediate to write this sort of thing yet. It is far too soon, at least a decade needs to pass before any real sort of historical analysis can be written. Indeed, it is questionable whether real historical analysis can be written of an era by anyone who lived through it. If you have first-hand memories of it, can you write a history that has even a small claim to impartiality? Not a chance.

Of course, historians - like all people - can never claim to be entirely impartial, as everyone has opinions and makes assumptions. I myself have read some deeply, deeply biased history that has presented itself as the "truth", and it disgusts me. Bias can come in the turn of a phrase ("murderers" rather than "killers" etc), in the selection, analysis and interpretation of sources, and even through just ignoring contradictory evidence.

This doesn't mean that no summation of the "Blair years" can be written - but it does mean that no-one who claims to be, or markets themselves as, a "historian" should write a "history" of it. When journalists write these things, they don't carry the weight that the title "historian" does. Journalists are expected to have opinions; historians aren't expect to, even though they all do - and most of them (in my experience) are on the Left.

The "history" of an event cannot properly be written until a good decade or more after its conclusion, really. And they're best not written until after 30 years when official records become available.

Graphic Hat-tip: BBC