Ah, yes, but did RTD say that it was the original Benedict Arnold standing behind him?
Were Time Lords Ever Nice?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Ah, yes, but did RTD say that it was the original Benedict Arnold standing behind him?
If you read what I said, I never said there wasn't any. As for the N. Ireland Issue. It's quite simple really so long as the majority of people of N. Ireland wish to British, it should be respected same goes for the Falklands Islands. Self determination and all that If they vote to become part of the Repbulic of Ireland well than Sorry to see you go but I wish you well.
As for British Heroes from around the period of the American War of Independace. True they are almost 40 years later but the likes of Nelson and Wellington come to mind. But like you say more history to cover. So less time to spend on each subject. Plus of course we also touched on other periods Roman, Greece, Stone Age, Bronze age etc...
Sorry. I didn't mean to turn the thread into a history debate.He also said the Woman in White was ment to be the Doctor's mother too but, left the character vague enough for the audience to fill in who she was. I like to think she was Romana myself. The President also has enough vagueness on screen that a viewer could choose whether he was or wasn't THE Rassilon. There is no right or wrong answer since it's left to the individual viewer to decide. If you think he was THE Rassilon, then he was. If you think he wasn't, then he wasn't.
And again, I wasn't engaging in a debate. I was never trying to convince anyone that it wasn't the original Rassilon. I was simply saying that, when I saw the episode itself, it was ambiguous to me, and it surprised me that nobody else seemed to consider the alternative interpretations that occurred to me. That's not debating, it's simply describing my thought process.
They might have considered them and then rejected them. Sometimes people see things differently. For example the name Rassilon could be quite a common name given to children on Gallifrey given the historical importance oof Rassilon int Galifrian history.
But the writers of DW slowly intrdocued elemnets of the 63-89 run of the show into the current run. Once again it comes down why use the name Rassilon if you don't want people to infer it's the original one , one of the founders of Time Lord society.
But the writers of DW slowly intrdocued elemnets of the 63-89 run of the show into the current run. Once again it comes down why use the name Rassilon if you don't want people to infer it's the original one , one of the founders of Time Lord society.
I wouldn't call it a "theory." Hope or Desire, perhaps. It's one of a couple possible "outs" that allow them to come back. But a theory would involve putting together something actually shown on the show (the closest you get is The Doctor's Wife explaining that the Doctor doesn't sense Time Lords in other universes).
I've heard of Benjamin Franklin (I passed by a house he lived in when walking in London a couple of weeks ago, in fact) but you'd have to admit that Christ is slightly more famous.
I don't know where you got the idea to cast this discussion as some kind of pissing contest between American history and Christendom. I'm just curious about the topic of how much Britons tend to know about the American Revolution.
In general we don't know very much at all! It's considered much more a part of American rather than British history and since American history is rarely taught in schools we just don't come across it very often. People will know names like Washington and Ben Franklin but the ins and outs of the revolution, no chance. I studied history up to degree level and it is very light on 18th Century history - we tend to go 1066, Tudors & Stuarts (incl Civil War & Glorious Revolution), then a jump to Victoria/Industrial Revolution then 1906-1945. You might get a bit of the Napoleonic wars but that's about it.
As an American, I have no expectations that British people should know more than the most basics of the American Revolution. Americans are expected to know more British history, but only when it is shared. Even as a history major, my knowledge of British history after George III can be superficial and uneven.
I'd expect Ben Franklin would be known, but more generally since he was a Renaissance man known in Europe for scientific achievements, as a diplomat, as a printer, etc. For the rest, I'd expect George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Maybe some of the more folk lore-ish people like Paul Revere. But even most Americans don't know Daniel Morgan, Francis Marion, Baron Von Steuben, the Marquis de Lafayette, etc. Benedict Arnold is well-known here as an idea, but I doubt most people even know his history.
I'd expect Ben Franklin would be known, but more generally since he was a Renaissance man known in Europe for scientific achievements, as a diplomat, as a printer, etc. For the rest, I'd expect George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Maybe some of the more folk lore-ish people like Paul Revere. But even most Americans don't know Daniel Morgan, Francis Marion, Baron Von Steuben, the Marquis de Lafayette, etc. Benedict Arnold is well-known here as an idea, but I doubt most people even know his history.
But that's just it! The American Revolution is shared with Britain. They're the ones we revolted against. The English settlement of North America and the Caribbean was the beginning of the British age of empire, the dominant part of what's considered the First British Empire, which lasted for nearly two centuries. And the thirteen colonies that revolted and founded the United States were the first overseas colonies that the Empire lost, a huge chunk of formerly British territory and millions of formerly British subjects torn away from the crown. So the American Revolution is a major, integral part of the history of the British Empire.
But from what VDCNI says, maybe British history classes tend to shy away from the stuff that paints England in a less than flattering light, like the American Revolution, the Boxer Rebellion, the Raj in India, and so forth. Just as American history classes tend to gloss over things like the slaughter of the Native Americans, the subjugation of Hawaii, our encouragement of Japanese imperialism in the Russo-Japanese War, and the like (or at least they did when I was in school).
^well as a Brit I've heard the name Paul Revere and know it's from the time of the American War of Independence, but beyond that it's a bit of blank. Other Americans who might be familiar to non-Americans, Lincon, Custer, maybe the likes of Jackson, Grant etc..
But the question is how much of tis is taught at school or learned from the likes of TV/film and what has passed into more widespread. I mean what do many non-Americans know about Lincon aside fromhe was assinated and passed the Emancipation Act(1863?) abolosihing slavery in the US. (The British Empire passed two acts well before this 1807 Abolosihing the slave the trade and 1833 freeing the slaves, if my history is right)
But the question is how much of tis is taught at school or learned from the likes of TV/film and what has passed into more widespread. I mean what do many non-Americans know about Lincon aside fromhe was assinated and passed the Emancipation Act(1863?) abolosihing slavery in the US. (The British Empire passed two acts well before this 1807 Abolosihing the slave the trade and 1833 freeing the slaves, if my history is right)
We do have a problem teaching the Empire as there is an ideological dispute over how you teach it so it's not so much that we avoid the bad bits of Empire more that we ignore it completely! Plus the American Revolution simply isn't a particularly important event in the grand sweep of British history. Though a setback at the time it was quickly overtaken at the time by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars where Britain was truly under threat. It doesn't really fit in with the decline of the Empire narrative either as the scope of the British Empire grew in the 19th century.
It's about as integral as the Philippines were to the United States and I bet most Americans don't know who Emilio Aguinaldo was (and he's the George Washington of the conflict).
True. But I'm also not too surprised to think that those who design British history courses might be none too eager to spend meaningful time on Britain losing hold of its Thirteen Colonies, especially given their later ascendance as a world power.
Makes sense. As James Loewen argued in Lies My Teacher Told Me, the function of history courses in America is not to teach history; the function of history courses is to attempt to indoctrinate children into a belief in the historical righteousness of the state in order to inculcate support for the powerful. No particular reason that can't be true in Britain as well.
Where did you get the notion of a pissing contest? Wind your neck in, as they say in my (non-British) neck of the woods. (And I don't regard myself as Christian either FWIW). If the two names being discussed are Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot, then obviously the recognition value US history and Christ are going to be compared. If anyone introduced an element of competition, it was you, with the 'Judas only betrayed one man' quote.US history isn't generally taught as a core in either the UK or Ireland (my own theory is that the British don't like talking about wars they've lost, for one thing!). So people who have an interest in history might know the name of Benedict Arnold or Benjamin Franklin, but they'd by no means be as well known as, well, Jesus Christ for example. It's not a question of a pissing contest, it's a simple statement of fact, given that religion is a core subject in both the UK and Ireland and both are prevalently Christian subjects.
I don't know why you think there's any element of compeition here. The name 'Lundy' is often used in the Nort of Ireland by unionists/ loyalists as a term for traitors (usually to the unionist cause) but I don't kid myself that it means anything to most people outside this part of the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lundy) So just bear in mind that what may seem ubiquitous or common knowledge to Americans may not be so to the rest of us. Pissing doesn't come into it.
"You'd have to admit..." makes it sound like you were treating it like a contest between which name is more well-known. Christopher's point was never to argue that the name "Benedict Arnold" was equally well-known as the name "Judas Iscariot." As a result, he seems to have felt that your comment came across as though you were implying there to be a competition between U.S. and Christian history.
^ I don't see why that sounds like I'm introducing a contest. If someone said to me 'You'd have to admit that Barack Obama is better known than Enda Kenny [Irish Taoiseach]', I'd agree. I wouldn't view it as a pissing contest between the US and Ireland. It's essentially a statement of fact.
Jesus Christ is the founder of one of the largest religions in the world, followed by millions. Outside of the US, Benedict Arnold is a little to moderately well known historical figure. Indeed, I suspect that Christ is better known to most Americans too.
Jesus Christ is the founder of one of the largest religions in the world, followed by millions. Outside of the US, Benedict Arnold is a little to moderately well known historical figure. Indeed, I suspect that Christ is better known to most Americans too.
True, the British Empire is largely not covered or at least it wasn't when I did history at high school. and as noted other events overtook it. Though perhaps the loss of the American colonies had an impact on the shape of the British Empire following it.
Besides it was hundreds of years ago, and it's the relationsip today that matters.
