| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:02 - Dec 14 with 3559 views | Cotty |
It's really really concerning that a minister of the crown is telling an academic what they can and cannot research. The sooner this lot are out, the better. |  | |  |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:29 - Dec 14 with 3448 views | leitrimblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:02 - Dec 14 by Cotty |
It's really really concerning that a minister of the crown is telling an academic what they can and cannot research. The sooner this lot are out, the better. |
It really is concerning. Its also baffling, I just struggle to see how it's any less legitimate then any other archaeological research. Perhaps I'm missing something |  | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:32 - Dec 14 with 3427 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I guess the Minister for Equalities doesn't want something investigating that could show inequality. Quite why she worries it would undermine trust in modern health services I am unsure. I can guess one of two things:
1) this Government intends to return modern health services to the good old days of the 14th century; or
2) she has already prejudged it as likely to show greater inequality exists now than did then.
In other news, the Chancellor is going to announce that trust should not be undermined in the economy by anyone studying figures that affect the economy. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:56 - Dec 14 with 3359 views | lowhouseblue |
this is quite an old story, so it's odd that the guardian ha picked up on it now. the mail has a critique of the research:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12789127/How-earth-Black-Death-prove-
given sample size, identification difficulties and the vast differences between every aspect of then and now, it could be argued that the researchers are trying very hard to pursue a modern agenda. it will be interesting to see some proper academic assessments of the article. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:14 - Dec 14 with 3283 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:56 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
this is quite an old story, so it's odd that the guardian ha picked up on it now. the mail has a critique of the research:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12789127/How-earth-Black-Death-prove-
given sample size, identification difficulties and the vast differences between every aspect of then and now, it could be argued that the researchers are trying very hard to pursue a modern agenda. it will be interesting to see some proper academic assessments of the article. |
You don't know why the Guardian has picked up on it now despite the article saying why - the question was asked of Badenoch in the House of Commons - the first ever use of the term "Woke archaeology" in the house.
The article was published 2 days ago. https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/bioarchaeology/article/view/2403 | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:24 - Dec 14 with 3229 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:14 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You don't know why the Guardian has picked up on it now despite the article saying why - the question was asked of Badenoch in the House of Commons - the first ever use of the term "Woke archaeology" in the house.
The article was published 2 days ago. https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/bioarchaeology/article/view/2403 |
but she sent her letter over 3 weeks ago. the only new element which has excited the guardian is that she used the word 'woke'. it clearly isn't just her being critical of the research. of course history is always written with a view to the concerns of the current day. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:31 - Dec 14 with 3171 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:24 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
but she sent her letter over 3 weeks ago. the only new element which has excited the guardian is that she used the word 'woke'. it clearly isn't just her being critical of the research. of course history is always written with a view to the concerns of the current day. |
Given that your option to get a balanced view is the Mail, I can't take you seriously. |  | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:34 - Dec 14 with 3144 views | eireblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:14 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You don't know why the Guardian has picked up on it now despite the article saying why - the question was asked of Badenoch in the House of Commons - the first ever use of the term "Woke archaeology" in the house.
The article was published 2 days ago. https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/bioarchaeology/article/view/2403 |
It is quite an amusing reaction by the Mail and Badenoch.
There have been inquires in “modern day” Britain that have concluded that institutional racism existed.
So are they trying to make the point that during a “modern” period of time, during which the Tories have been in power the most, things have become more racist, since the 14th century?
Well, it’s an interesting claim to make. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:36 - Dec 14 with 3128 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:31 - Dec 14 by redrickstuhaart |
Given that your option to get a balanced view is the Mail, I can't take you seriously. |
who said it was balanced. it's a different view to the one regularly expressed on here. it was also answering the question asked in the op - why did badenoch think there was a problem? engaging with what people you disagree with say is all part of adulthood. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:38 - Dec 14 with 3111 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:36 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
who said it was balanced. it's a different view to the one regularly expressed on here. it was also answering the question asked in the op - why did badenoch think there was a problem? engaging with what people you disagree with say is all part of adulthood. |
Its a different view almost certainly driven by agenda and bias in a likely fairly extreme way. Pretty worthless.
Also note the largely factual Guardian article, compared with the Mail article which starts with invective in the headline and proceeds to up the ante as it goes along. [Post edited 14 Dec 2023 17:42]
| | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:39 - Dec 14 with 3097 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:34 - Dec 14 by eireblue |
It is quite an amusing reaction by the Mail and Badenoch.
There have been inquires in “modern day” Britain that have concluded that institutional racism existed.
So are they trying to make the point that during a “modern” period of time, during which the Tories have been in power the most, things have become more racist, since the 14th century?
Well, it’s an interesting claim to make. |
I don't really get it at all. It seems an excuse to bring up "the woke agenda" in parliament and nothing else.
The article isn't statistically significant and recognises that fact. It does go on to state: "evidence that hazards of plague death were higher for people of estimated African affiliation compared to other affiliations, possibly because of existing inequalities, in addition to migration (free or forced) outcomes. These findings may reflect premodern structural racism’s devastating effects."
I don't get why she would want to argue against structural racism in the 14th Century to protect the trust of the modern health service, though. It is like she thinks her job is to deny the possibility that such a thing could ever exist. | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:40 - Dec 14 with 3098 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:34 - Dec 14 by eireblue |
It is quite an amusing reaction by the Mail and Badenoch.
There have been inquires in “modern day” Britain that have concluded that institutional racism existed.
So are they trying to make the point that during a “modern” period of time, during which the Tories have been in power the most, things have become more racist, since the 14th century?
Well, it’s an interesting claim to make. |
well clearly badenoch and many others don't believe that 'structural racism' explains socioeconomic inequality. so i guess they are concerned that an historical example is, in their view, being misused to support that modern agenda. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:41 - Dec 14 with 3068 views | Plums |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:40 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
well clearly badenoch and many others don't believe that 'structural racism' explains socioeconomic inequality. so i guess they are concerned that an historical example is, in their view, being misused to support that modern agenda. |
I'm sure lots of us will be interested to read their paper on the subject. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:42 - Dec 14 with 3066 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:36 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
who said it was balanced. it's a different view to the one regularly expressed on here. it was also answering the question asked in the op - why did badenoch think there was a problem? engaging with what people you disagree with say is all part of adulthood. |
How did it answer the question?
You stated it was old news because she sent her letter weeks ago and the Mail had reported it then. You wondered why the Guardian had reported it.
What you fail to appreciate is that it is a Tory MP bringing it up in the House to make a political football out of it that is the issue! | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:42 - Dec 14 with 3060 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:41 - Dec 14 by Plums |
I'm sure lots of us will be interested to read their paper on the subject. |
Ill be fascinated to read anything by Badenoch that is peer reviewed... | | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:45 - Dec 14 with 3037 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:39 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I don't really get it at all. It seems an excuse to bring up "the woke agenda" in parliament and nothing else.
The article isn't statistically significant and recognises that fact. It does go on to state: "evidence that hazards of plague death were higher for people of estimated African affiliation compared to other affiliations, possibly because of existing inequalities, in addition to migration (free or forced) outcomes. These findings may reflect premodern structural racism’s devastating effects."
I don't get why she would want to argue against structural racism in the 14th Century to protect the trust of the modern health service, though. It is like she thinks her job is to deny the possibility that such a thing could ever exist. |
i always thought the black death was fairly indiscriminate in terms of class. given that in cities and villages there wan't great geographical class separation - having servants etc ruled that out - it swept through households and killed regardless of status. lots of aristocrats and royals died. so deaths weren't strongly associated with economic condition, which seems a flaw in the argument. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:47 - Dec 14 with 3011 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:45 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
i always thought the black death was fairly indiscriminate in terms of class. given that in cities and villages there wan't great geographical class separation - having servants etc ruled that out - it swept through households and killed regardless of status. lots of aristocrats and royals died. so deaths weren't strongly associated with economic condition, which seems a flaw in the argument. |
Is that analysis based on statistically significant data or your own preconceptions?
I think you are completely misunderstanding the research and Badenoch's attempt to use it as a political weapon. | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:50 - Dec 14 with 3000 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:42 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
How did it answer the question?
You stated it was old news because she sent her letter weeks ago and the Mail had reported it then. You wondered why the Guardian had reported it.
What you fail to appreciate is that it is a Tory MP bringing it up in the House to make a political football out of it that is the issue! |
'how did it answer the question?"
well someone posts a link to an article titled 'badenoch condemns plague research' and asks 'can one of you explain the problem here?' so i link an article which explains in detail why badenoch had condemned the plague research. does that not answer the question in the op? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:51 - Dec 14 with 2990 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:47 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Is that analysis based on statistically significant data or your own preconceptions?
I think you are completely misunderstanding the research and Badenoch's attempt to use it as a political weapon. |
whatever. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:59 - Dec 14 with 2946 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 16:02 - Dec 14 by Cotty |
It's really really concerning that a minister of the crown is telling an academic what they can and cannot research. The sooner this lot are out, the better. |
Very concerning indeed. Government can obviously influence what is researched, through allocating funding for thematic calls. But it’s not their place to be criticising findings purely because they clash with their ideology. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:03 - Dec 14 with 2918 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Is it a good time to point out that the term "Woke" means to be awake to social injustice.
This Government want that to be used as an insult.
Let that sink in. | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:04 - Dec 14 with 2909 views | Cotty |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:59 - Dec 14 by Swansea_Blue |
Very concerning indeed. Government can obviously influence what is researched, through allocating funding for thematic calls. But it’s not their place to be criticising findings purely because they clash with their ideology. |
She’s a dangerous, stupid, ideologue, with a shot at being the next Tory leader. Terrifying. | | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:08 - Dec 14 with 2880 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:59 - Dec 14 by Swansea_Blue |
Very concerning indeed. Government can obviously influence what is researched, through allocating funding for thematic calls. But it’s not their place to be criticising findings purely because they clash with their ideology. |
except that we're all concerned now about impact and contributing to public debate and understanding. and indeed the authors were very keen to draw analogies with current questions. are government ministers not allowed to take part in those debates? or do academics get extra marks for impact if senior politicians take part in the debates they have started? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:10 - Dec 14 with 2850 views | Cotty |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:08 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
except that we're all concerned now about impact and contributing to public debate and understanding. and indeed the authors were very keen to draw analogies with current questions. are government ministers not allowed to take part in those debates? or do academics get extra marks for impact if senior politicians take part in the debates they have started? |
Academic research should only be discredited on academic grounds, not political. Even if the topic is itself political. If she can find evidence to the contrary of the study she should publish it, that’s how it works. | | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:10 - Dec 14 with 2846 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:08 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
except that we're all concerned now about impact and contributing to public debate and understanding. and indeed the authors were very keen to draw analogies with current questions. are government ministers not allowed to take part in those debates? or do academics get extra marks for impact if senior politicians take part in the debates they have started? |
The most worrying thing is that I don't think you are deliberately missing the point. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
