January 5, 2025.

Dear Reader: What follows is a copy of an email exchange between me and my erstwhile physician who, as he so often does while languishing on a Sunday morning after having taken his dog for a walk on the winding country trail, thoughtfully shared with me a link to an article he had read in his subscription to The Times of London. It was (putatively at least) an article about British history.  It does however tell me a broader and more formidable tale. As it happens my erstwhile physician, like I, is from a country bred in good part by British colonialism.

As you will also discover if you care to read the remainder of this entry, I am cautious about preserving myself when I already have the notable advantage;  otherwise, anything goes.  In short it is a complicated matter because, on the one hand we’re so obviously attracted to what we know (or what, in this instance, we inherited); while on the other hand we are aware of the value and incontrovertibility of changing one’s perspective.

My apologies for maybe reading too much into this.  One more thing: The latest fashion is to dismiss the value of the former “woke” conversations, societal complaints about which the public is exhausted.

More recently the word (woke) has been used in a more derogatory way, by people who oppose progressive reforms or feel that their advocates are unrealistic or interfering.

Getting back to normal, or making things great again, is not always the best or even the easiest task.  Axiomatically of course, nothing repeats.  And even if one were inclined to forego the dryness of logic, the unforgivable reality is that it will never be the same again.  And we all know it.  So why the fear about change?  The other reality naturally is that there will always be change. Fighting it doesn’t seem to me to be the answer.  For others only conflict will succeed (as it does, in a manner of speaking, in war).

Billy (Chapman)

Email
January 5, 2025

Franz – Whew!  Didn’t see that coming!  This guy Rod Liddle is part of the problem. Apart from imagining (the unfounded fear) that Shakespeare is going to become less relevant, this:

It also occurs to me that if we want to make a success of our multiracial society, rather than encouraging each minority group to wallow in its own ghetto, one of the best ways of doing so is to impart the history and literature of our country to each and every child, regardless of where they hail from, and to enjoin them to celebrate its brilliance and relevance to where they live now.

Wow!  This fellow is sadly lacking! Even historians agree that each writer puts a “popular”spin on the historical accounts they render.  Nor is the observation guaranteed without its venom for doing or having done so. But this particular writer appears to have fallen off the cliff at MAGA without knowing the company he keeps. The keys to commercial success are uniformity and dissection. A 1950’s “Father Knows Best” (black & white) television series similarity. Just like the good ‘ole days!

And “ghetto”? Has he seen where some of these rich “foreigners” live? The article is certainly a reminder of the compromised logic unwittingly adopted (or inhabited) by some people. He screams membership in hoi polloi! I am however more persuaded that the narrative is foremost designed to appeal to the vast majority of the readership. I rather doubt our insightful author would compose the same words were he in the company of a totalitarian government of a different persuasion for example.  Ultimately I believe the strength of the article lies in the support it received from the CEO (or whoever controls the purse strings of the publication).  I don’t imagine the writers are “on staff”; rather, that they are independent contractors (subject for employment to the whim of the Upper Level Censors). And money always talks.