Hate and unconstitutional thinking taking over

I agree with Alexa in her time lines on what constitutes ancient.

The Magna Carta is always held up to be the brilliant thing confirming the rights of the free man. But you have to look at what "free man" really meant and as Alexa said it was far more about protecting the aristocracy from the monarchy than about the rights of ordinary people. Serfdom continued long after the Magna Carta, it was unchallenged until the Plague and that was only because there were not enough people left alive to work the estates of the aristocrats and church without better pay, or even any pay and conditions. Laws were passed trying to force people back into servitude, but as well as there not being enough people to work the land, there were no enough people left to enforce the law and it sort of settled into what because known as *** fuedalism.

The Peasants Revolt I don't know so much about, and from what I gather it was as much to do with organised crime and general anger at excess in both the aristocrats and the church as it was any sort of proto democracy, although one of the most famous sayings of the time was, 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?'

The Englsih Civil war wasn't a call for democracy either, it was as much about a crisis in how monarchy and the country was funded as as well as religious reforms or lack of them.

At the time the country was funded out of the kings pocket and treasury, all lands etc belonging directly to the monarch, tax was raised for specific purposes, such as wars, but asking parliament, who were supposed to assent but sometimes didn't. Charles I was a believer in absolute monarchy, didn't want to share his power and went against the customs of the country. He was also a closet Catholic and started to come out of the closet just before the Civil War began, it was one of the causes of it. Charles decided to bypass parliament and started fundung himself quite creatively, using the powers he did have full control over. Things boiled over with a toxic mix of economics, power and religion many people prefering a quite strict protestantism over the Church of England as set up by the Tudors and certainly more than they liked Catholicism. Cromwell didn't appear on the scene until the war had been going on for some time. Cromwell was just as absolutist as Charles I was, a bit like swapping Tzars for Stalin in Russia, but there was no plan for what would happen when he died. So Charles II was invited back and there were the beginings a of a cocnstitutional monarchy. 

I don't think constitutional monarchy as we have it today started then, I think it sort of evolved over the Georgian and Victorian periods, Queen Victoria was much more involved politically than her successors have been.

Marianne72 said:

I mean, the broad sweep of history -  example; Serfdom in medieval England giving way to Magna Carta, the Peasants' Revolt, English Civil war et al toward Parliamentary democracy.

Ah, England. History varies outside England, even within the UK, and especially in other nations. 

I tend to regard 'ancient' in the British Isles as up to (say) the end of the Iron Age, as I'm interested in earlier periods of history. I don't know enough about Chinese or Indian history to draw a line, but for Egyptian, I'd say before the Ptolemies took over. Within English post-ancient history, I prefer the early medieval period, from the flight of the Romans until the Battle of Hastings. 

I'm not sure the Magna Carta supports your argument as wasn't it just about the transfer of some power from the English king to its aristocracy? And the aristocracy continued to be dependent on the wishes of the king until (I think) the post-Carolingan period. Was it the Glorious Revolution that finally changed the power of kings in England? Although that was into the modern period. Mind you, I agree that the post-plague era in England saw a significant shift in the ability of peasants to charge more for their services, however temporary that was. And the English Civil War helped the development of parliament, which shifted power a little in England at the time.

TheCatWoman said:

Do you include all faiths, including the Christians sects

Absolutely.

TheCatWoman said:

Many Muslim women chose to cover

I know this, but they can do that in private and mosques - not whilst taking part in protests or public venues where others can't cover up [for security reasons].

TheCatWoman said:

I can read all I need from the general body language and other clothing.

I would disagree that this is always possible -  see this article. Especially when the eyes are also covered.

TheCatWoman said:

Could you expand on what you mean by '...just as human rights took over from the oppressive reigns of ancient kings.'

I mean, the broad sweep of history -  example; Serfdom in medieval England giving way to Magna Carta, the Peasants' Revolt, English Civil war et al toward Parliamentary democracy.

I asked AI what percentage of nations are 'free' [ie true democracies] & it came up with 43%. Disappointing - in the UK we are extremely lucky!

Many Muslim women chose to cover and are not forced into it at all, obviously there are extreme forms of Islam where it is enforced.

Do you include all faiths, including the Christians sects that want women to be kept out of politics and in the home, to have to submit to their husbands and never have an opinion?

Head and face coverings are ancient and I think we in the West are outliers in that we reserve head and face coverings either for winter, fashion purposes and ceremonial events like weddings.

Peronally I don't have a problem with covered faces, I can read all I need from the general body language and other clothing.

Could you expand on what you mean by '...just as human rights took over from the oppressive reigns of ancient kings.' please, particularly ancient, as I think our understanding of ancient maybe be different? 

Gosh, I am getting opinionated! I think I'll get back to finding a new hobby.

B said:

I wonder what will happen with women who wear hijab.

Face covering is face covering. Sadly, in this time of history there cannot be a law that applies to some and not others, particularly on spurious 'religious grounds'. The same goes for carrying weapons. If Sikhs want to wear a kirpan, then it must be made of material that can do no harm. In 21st century society, law has to come before religious practice, just as human rights took over from the oppressive reigns of ancient kings. Religions and faith systems have to adapt, particularly  cult-like ones where women particularly are oppressed, their opinions discounted. This is something that, for example, the Taliban do not accept in their own lands, where medieval practices are forced on people - this is not true faith but religious 'practice' manipulated to oppress a minority. 

We now have a ban on face coverings and it was put to good use in Portsmouth today as someone was arrested:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn450jwvw9do

I'd quite like to see the wording of this as I wonder what will happen with women who wear hijab.

From what I have so far found online, it looks like it's not a blanket ban but will be used in specific circumstances such as demos.

Yes and electric outages, petrol rationing and t.rolls.

lostmyway said:

the loony left that has created a kind of “mania,” interpreting even the most harmless remark as a threat against some minority or another.

There are many who bully and bullying is always awful. On the whole, though, the far left don't tend to threaten violence or turn up outside someone's door. I had a lot of experience as a seniorish trade union rep in handling the endless calls for purity by those on the far left and I'd still rather have that than masked men in black marching the streets to give the physical presence to back up the violent online threats of the far right. 

profdanger said:

There is always a point to struggle against tyranny.

Maybe I would believe Trump, if he offered $100 to every poverty-stricken family in the third world or better still, cancelled all third world debts.

I agree, Cinnabar_wing . I'm glad about the police looking into banning face masks and balaclavas under the Crime and Policing Act. If these youths were genuine, why not show their faces? So often, if you look at images in the news, it is clear many so-called, 'protesters' use this as a form of entertainment they would not otherwise get - setting cars on fire, bullying others, hurling missiles then being photographed as if some kind of 'hero'. 

Thank you for making me smile leveller61 

Brilliant reply.

Let me see (checks mirror)

 socially aware and reasonable (woke)

️ belief in equality and sharing (left)

  inured to being othered️ ('loony')

️ voice for self and other out-groups

Oh good. I'm ready for my day.

 lostmyway 

Yes, nasty is word to describe it. I don’t suppose they are too focussed on the shortages or queues. The German commentator also said there is an element in Germany who looks to Putin and supports him, even with all the hardships they are currently facing.

Here, in Europe and the US,  bits of communism and fascism are becoming normalised through what has been described as a ‘Theatre of Cruelty’. That is when cruelty is celebrated and joked about in political circles. Trump, obviously, through his disgusting AI generated videos and images, where he performs physical violence against people like Canada’s Mark Carney. Real videos of the Reform Party’s recent conference show a protester being removed from the conference by dragging her by the hair and hitting her with a stick. One Reform member joked, something about the stick breaking and needing a new one. Since when has it been acceptable to be violent like that and to celebrate it in such a way? Yet voters love it. Cruelty is the mark of fascism and communism.

There's an excellent foreign film called "Goodbye Lenin" that I found an easy watch about the various reactions of a family within the ex-DDR after the wall came down.

Sounds like a nasty mix of history and nostalgia, people often only remember the good stuff, I bet if they had to stand in queues for hours for a limited amount of goods again and were afraid of being reported to the Stazi by thier neighbours because they'd said something vaguely critical of the government they'd remember exactly why the Berlin Wall came down.

I think we have a lot of this nasty mix in this country too, people believing bad things didn't happen because they were taboo to talk about. Or the strikes and shortages, anyone remember coffee shortages and sugar too? 

I think what people are really remmenising about is thier youth and that aint ever coming back!

It's very much the same thing

I think the research B shared below is instructive on this, Iain , and there's always hope because things progress in cycles.

B said:

The rise of populist politics around the world is very unnerving

Why do you think these sort of politics (left or right wing) are becoming so poplar?

Why are people desiring these more extreme perspective now and is there hope for a more moderate future?