ChatterBank1 min ago
Is This Close To The Truth
How much truth is there in this thought-provoking piece:
http://
http://
Answers
Billy Bragg This is not a time for celebration. The death of Margaret Thatcher is nothing more than a salient reminder of how Britain got into the mess that we are in today. Of why ordinary working people are no longer able to earn enough from one job to support a family; of why there is a shortage of decent affordable housing; of why domestic growth is driven by...
08:37 Wed 10th Apr 2013
There is a lot of truth in that article.
From it
"But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography."
And we certainly have seen a lot of that, both here on AB and in the wider media...
From it
"But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography."
And we certainly have seen a lot of that, both here on AB and in the wider media...
It's true only if there is hypocrisy in when we ask for silence and when not to. I hope that I can say truthfully that I have never celebrated anyone's death. There is always something sad when a life ends. If it were that of a good person, we can grieve that he will no longer be with us. If it were an enemy, that he will never face justice, and if just an innocent, then somewhere, someone will be upset at their passing.
Once the initial grief is over people can destroy what that person stood for all they like. In some cases, e.g. Jimmy Savile, it's clearly necessary to examine closely a person's legacy. Actually I'm sad, too, at Savile's death. With his death died the hopes of true justice for all his victims.
So the article is right if people are inconsistent in applying the rule of etiquette. But I think it's wrong in general. No death was ever worth celebrating, if nothing else because it came too late to make a difference anyway. What damage Thatcher did was over long before yesterday, and it's sad that people are still better enough 23 years later to feel joyous at the passing of an old woman lonely in a hotel bed.
Once the initial grief is over people can destroy what that person stood for all they like. In some cases, e.g. Jimmy Savile, it's clearly necessary to examine closely a person's legacy. Actually I'm sad, too, at Savile's death. With his death died the hopes of true justice for all his victims.
So the article is right if people are inconsistent in applying the rule of etiquette. But I think it's wrong in general. No death was ever worth celebrating, if nothing else because it came too late to make a difference anyway. What damage Thatcher did was over long before yesterday, and it's sad that people are still better enough 23 years later to feel joyous at the passing of an old woman lonely in a hotel bed.
em10
I myself have tried to be adult, but over the past couple of days, the 'right' (I despise that term) have pretty much gone mad in almost deifying her.
If the 'left' (again - a ridiculous term) didn't point out the flaws in her as a leader, then future generations would get a very skewed idea of what ten years of Thatcherism meant for the whole country.
It would be like brainwashing - to quote DangerUXD...
I myself have tried to be adult, but over the past couple of days, the 'right' (I despise that term) have pretty much gone mad in almost deifying her.
If the 'left' (again - a ridiculous term) didn't point out the flaws in her as a leader, then future generations would get a very skewed idea of what ten years of Thatcherism meant for the whole country.
It would be like brainwashing - to quote DangerUXD...
I was calling, really, for a short cooling-off period. The day of the news was a time for those who hated her, perhaps, to smile inwardly if that is their wish at her passing, but for those who mourn to do so in peace. Once that is over, and it doesn't have to take long, you could examine her legacy as much as you would like. But it's all about timing, and for all that this article itself may be fairly reasonable the actions of those partying last night was not by anyone's imagination.
How surprising, you've managed to dig up a Guardian article by a rare left wing new yorker. I don't think you should be asking about truth though SP as that's the easy bit, propaganda is the master of cherry picking the truth, often out of context, to support any view point. Cut through all the verbiage and basically he's saying, why can't we sl&g off the dead. He can and so can we mainly because of the activities of those who fought tyranny to ensure that we had the right.
DangerUXD
Ha!
Money on it...you haven't read the article have you!!!
A tenet to the charity of your choice if I'm wrong.
This isn't about Thatcher per se - it's about the stifling of dissent.
Have a read of it. It's very interesting...and it will give you a break from rubbing yourself down with pages of the Daily Mail.
What a genuinely hideous image...
;-)
Ha!
Money on it...you haven't read the article have you!!!
A tenet to the charity of your choice if I'm wrong.
This isn't about Thatcher per se - it's about the stifling of dissent.
Have a read of it. It's very interesting...and it will give you a break from rubbing yourself down with pages of the Daily Mail.
What a genuinely hideous image...
;-)
And danger fails to see the irony contained within their own post about propaganda.
@Em - I was referring to the article. Nothing in the article suggests that Thatchers death should be celebrated - more that stern finger-waving about disrespecting the dead should not obscure just how aggrieved people felt and still feel about her policies.
@Em - I was referring to the article. Nothing in the article suggests that Thatchers death should be celebrated - more that stern finger-waving about disrespecting the dead should not obscure just how aggrieved people felt and still feel about her policies.
