Neil Oliver History Of Scotland - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Neil Oliver History Of Scotland


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

I know I said this settlement pre-dated Scotland, but according to the Herald in didn't pre-date the UK...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15049513.BBC_historians_under_fire_for_claim_Orkney_was_UK_capital/

 

I understand that Neil Oliver has found fragments of prehistoric Charles and Diana souvenir pottery that he's carbon dated himself and which shows that the UK predates Scotland by at least 5000 years. 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked how they just made up fairytales about what was happening in orkney and Chris Packham basically pointed out that it was difficult to know what people were thinking based on archaeological evidence you could find.  That was the end of that conversation.

Flouncy ##### trying to steal other peoples hard work as if he had dug it all up himself himself.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hostory revisionism due to nationalist politics always ends well.

I wonder if there is a programme on Scottish history on slavery.  That will go down a storm.  

All that tobacco wealth in Glasgow was not build via worker co-operatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan said:

Hostory revisionism due to nationalist politics always ends well.

I wonder if there is a programme on Scottish history on slavery.  That will go down a storm.  

All that tobacco wealth in Glasgow was not build via worker co-operatives.

All done under the Union Flag.. Glasgow was made rich, as was the British Empire under the Union Jack..   Slavery, pillage, Theft and genocide = British Empire.  

Scots played their part in this, however Scotland the Nation did not ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, stocky said:

All done under the Union Flag.. Glasgow was made rich, as was the British Empire under the Union Jack..   Slavery, pillage, Theft and genocide = British Empire.  

Scots played their part in this, however Scotland the Nation did not ..

Maybe the same type of Scots we have nowadays that suck up to the London establishment, the heart of the British empire, with a fawning eagerness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

BBC documentary reveals the truth about Scots and the US Declaration of Independence... [which] has long been a source of national pride, the truth may be somewhat different.

A new BBC documentary reveals that many Scots in the new republic were in fact seen as "savage foreign mercenaries" and "enemies of the American nation".

The findings form part of TV historian Neil Oliver's latest programme, The Hector: Scotland to Nova Scotia...

[From the Express]

But reading between the lines, it's to the extent that they were 'British loyalists' that they were distrusted, not as Scots nor 'savages' per se

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

I don't even consider him a historian. He is an absolute khunt of the highest order. No wonder the BBC love him. And Neil.

He's not actually a historian, he's an archelogist.

1 hour ago, exile said:

BBC documentary reveals the truth about Scots and the US Declaration of Independence... [which] has long been a source of national pride, the truth may be somewhat different.

A new BBC documentary reveals that many Scots in the new republic were in fact seen as "savage foreign mercenaries" and "enemies of the American nation".

The findings form part of TV historian Neil Oliver's latest programme, The Hector: Scotland to Nova Scotia...

[From the Express]

But reading between the lines, it's to the extent that they were 'British loyalists' that they were distrusted, not as Scots nor 'savages' per se

Well of course there's two sides to the involvement of Scots migrants in the American Revolutionary War a lot of which doesn't add up when you look at it from the current day.

For example, a lot of the Highland Jacobites who had either been forceably transported as indentured servants or had emigrated on their own account fought on the Loyalist side.  Most notable amongst this lot was the husband of Flora MacDonald.

On the other hand, in the Appalachians, the Continental forces included a large number of Ulster Scots emigrants - the relatives of who are now loyalists and Unionists in present day Northern Ireland.

I've a suspicion that this documentary will focus pretty much on the first lot and doubt the second lot will get much of a look in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

He is a man who absolutely hates scotland,,, he goes to great lengths not to even say the word... 

Thats why he is always given work by the BBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He and entourage came filming in my workplace. They were doing a documentary on "Industrialisition" or some such.

He was a Diva.

The film crew with him were doing the "eye rolling" thing behind his back.

He didn't come across that day as a very nice person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Just came across this book Scotland's Future History by Stuart McHardy. https://www.luath.co.uk/history/scotlands-future-history

One of the main themes is that so called Scottish history is too often viewed from the point of view of not only British/English worldview, but also from a classical, pro-Roman, Mediterranean perspective (compounded by Christianity) which has emphasised the importance of the Mediterranean/continental Europe as the centre and Scotland as the periphery (even within Scotland, focus tends to be on kings of mainland Scotland, not the Hebrides, Orkney or Shetland). Also the power of writing - history written and recorded by the Romans and Christian points of view, denying or suppressing the indigenous political religious and linguistic points of view. He also covers where the Scots came from (Scotland not Ireland), Jacobites, language, etc.

One of the most interesting things is the distinction he makes between Scotland as an unconquered territory, versus England that became a colony for 400 years. It was natural for 'England' (Britain) as an occupied colony for hundreds of years, with civil administration, towns and cities and all, to become Romanised to some extent and to see things from a Roman point of view, seeing Roman culture as laudable etc., to see continental ways as civilised and hairy barbarians across the wall. And to write history from this worldview. 

However those north of Hadrians wall would have a different perspective, one that is lost to us. McHardy likens to Roman incursions int Scotland to Afghanistan, where the invaders never got a proper foothold, even if they clung on for a decade or two, they were never secure or settled, and gave up. But because of the way history is written and taught, we always get the Roman/British point of view.

It's as if Afghanistan merged with India, but the Afghans were taught history from the point of view of Anglophile Indians, who appreciated the Brits for building railways.    

He admits he's biased towards a pro Scottish interpretation but this is an antidote for conventional historians pretending to be objective, and among other things is an antidote for the Neil Oliver view of the world (where Scotland is/was only a historical phase in a greater British history and where any prehistoric civilisation is branded British).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was on Simon Mayo/Jo Whiley’s show tonight on Radio 2 promoting his book on the history of Britain in 100 places. Didn’t hear all of it but he was pushing the line that the British Isles are essentially all one place, on the basis that one side of a national border looks much the same as the other side. A bizarre and remarkably simplistic angle for a historian to take that could be applied anywhere else in the world - Greece and Turkey? - and takes no account of history. He ended up with a tortuous story about believing in yourselves and standing on your own feet, but which was clearly a Brit Nat parable rather than in favour of Scottish nationalism. The guy’s fairly odd...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...