Battle of Hastings 1066 AD - An important event or merely a preoccupation of Anglo-Centric historians?

I dunno, but the ancestors were from Normandy and moved to Essex following 1066. So yes it was a big deal for western history, but butthurt idiots here be damned there are indeed other important threads of history outside western Europe and England.

Looking at you Igy, why do you have to be such a putz, day in and day out?

Birkoboy wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

More like Franco-centric historians. The Frenchies won.

The Anglos have been under their Norman boots ever since, and quite salty about it. Affects their behavior all the time.

Last time we lost a war,how's that going for you fatty?

You're forgetting about the outcome of the Hundred Years' war, I take it.

"The French victory marked the end of a long period of instability that had been seeded with the Norman Conquest (1066), when William the Conqueror added "King of England" to his titles, becoming both the vassal to (as Duke of Normandy) and the equal of (as king of England) the king of France.

When the war ended, England was bereft of its Continental possessions, leaving it with only Calais on the continent. The war destroyed the English dream of a joint monarchy and led to the rejection in England of all things French, although the French language in England, which had served as the language of the ruling classes and commerce there from the time of the Norman conquest, left many vestiges in English vocabulary. English became the official language in 1362 and French was no longer used for teaching from 1385."

Not afraid to see the world as it is and to over glorify the past, far from it . A good historian knows that there is no such thing as an unbiased observer and attempts to have a lens of the past that is objective. The problem with academia is that everything is viewed through the limited lens of modernity and self-iniated biases of reinterpreting history for their own purposes. The extreme overempahsis of race, gender, and ethnicity distorts, slants, and ultimatley makes the teaching of history a politcal weapon to be used to control people. Marrxist ideology is well entrenched in academia and their goal is to use their power and tools to promote their ideology by rewriting and distorting the past.

The only two outcomes of true Marxism Utopian future are either the Gulags or the Killing Fields.

Wake Up America! The enemy within is teaching your children to hate God, Family, and Country!!!

We need less Fear Mongering about the Chinese man-made virus and more about the ongoing genocide of Uyghurs by the Communist led Chinese government.

Do you have any examples of what is being taught to kids that sets you off? Because every where I look it’s mostly just phony panic and the over use of the buzzword of the day because their kids are learning about the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Remember: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

NERunner03533 wrote:

TMADDDHASFNE wrote:

The lefty marxist commie goal is fill academia with historians who teach false history to the young so to pollute their minds with false information and indoctrinate them with propaganda against all the good the West has accomplished.

No.

Some want to teach more than just the "West." & some want to fairly critique actions taken during that history. I think you're just mad because history is changing in the US from purely a study of the greatness of white people to include other races/cultures/perspectives. Stop fear mongering. There is nothing marxist about that. We need to have a 101 about definitions if you want to use words just to instill fear.

Say's the African American History major who can't get a job.

says, no apostrophe.

xczvzxcv wrote:

The war destroyed the English dream of a joint monarchy and led to the rejection in England of all things French, although the French language in England, which had served as the language of the ruling classes and commerce there from the time of the Norman conquest, left many vestiges in English vocabulary.

Exactly! For centuries they have tried and failed to shed their essential Frenchness. Even now it rules over them.

While the rest of the English-speaking world writes "color," "favor," "labor," they write "colour," "favour," "labour." Deep down they know this is their Frenchie snoot held high over the more-common Anglophones.

698;hjb.;hiolkn][p;l wrote:

Its importance outwith the south east of England is generally over-stated. Norman influence took a long time to reach the outermost parts of Britain and in some places, arguably never did.

Likewise, the influence of Scandinavian culture and language is generally under-stated, due to a London and south east of England centric view of the UK.

Have you ever been north of Watford Gap?

The Norman conquest gradually took control right up to the Scottish border.

It was important back in 1066. Not so much now.

I've written to Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis over the years and they all used "colour," etc.

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

An important event or merely a preoccupation of Anglo-Centric historians?

The Battle of Hastings was a major turning point in English history which would have been very different had the English won which means the history of the places they colonized would have been very different. And really the history of other countries would be different as well. Do the Germans do their massive naval build up at the end of the 19th Century, a major contributor to the outbreak of WWI if England never became seriously involved with Continental Europe because their monarchs never became Dukes of Normandy and maybe never became a naval super power or even created the United Kingdom? Does Japan sweep to a quick and permanent victory in the East Indies in 1940-41 because there is no British military to slow them? Does Israel exist if there'd been no Balfour Declaration? It is really hard to dismiss any event that shaped Britain's history as relevant only to Anglophobes.

sayyestonepotism wrote:

European history really is by far the most Important because it Has conquered the world. It is and was vital for the most of the state the world is in today and was exported in most corners of the world. As such you cant really be euro centric enough

I find it sad though.

Look at Australia. Beautiful country. Indigenous peoples lived there for 50,000 - 65,000 years. 200 years ago Europeans arrive. Basically eradicate the people who were there. Take their children away to try to breed them out. The history is shocking.

Bad Wigins wrote:

More like Franco-centric historians. The Frenchies won.

The Anglos have been under their Norman boots ever since, and quite salty about it. Affects their behavior all the time.

If you're bitter about the British treatment of the Irish, then you should hate the Normans amd their upper class descendents, not the Anglo plebs.

Most 'Anglos' have more Irish blood in them than 90% of 'Irish' Americans.

Who's bitter? America never lost a war to France. I recall America even jumped into a war to save BOTH France and England from defeat.

Canadians get a pass for using the "-our" ending to "-or" words because many of them actually are French. No excuse for the Aussies though.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Who's bitter? America never lost a war to France. I recall America even jumped into a war to save BOTH France and England from defeat.

Canadians get a pass for using the "-our" ending to "-or" words because many of them actually are French. No excuse for the Aussies though.

Yet you manage to lose in Vietnam, Afghanistan,pretty much lost in Iraq and Syria when ISIS kicked you and that's just in the last few years.Absolute loser nation.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Who's bitter? America never lost a war to France. I recall America even jumped into a war to save BOTH France and England from defeat.

Canadians get a pass for using the "-our" ending to "-or" words because many of them actually are French. No excuse for the Aussies though.

And you pretty much lost the Quasi war against France,you needed us to save your arse as usual

You're welcome.

Birkoboy wrote:

Absolute loser nation.

Don't you mean "losour nation?"

Or should it be "louser nation"

HRE wrote:

I've written to Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis over the years and they all used "colour," etc.

Loyal subjects all.