Alfonso Bedoya wrote:
Sid wrote:I went round Aston Hall (didn't pay to get in) and it was half royal arse licking, half realistic... The house owner was a real piece of shit who had a sign above the fireplace for all the servants/slaves to read that basically said "if you work here expect to feel some pain"
There was an incident with a 14 year old servant lad who stole a loaf of bread because his "master", the owner of the house kept them starving, they were weak, malnourished, he didn't give them sanitation either or a place to wash. So this lad nicked a loaf of bread and got caught, and he was that scared of what the master was going to do to him as a punishment - basically torture him then kill him - that he hanged himself in the attic.
That's why I'm all for bulldozing these old manor houses because they were places of horror for the likes of us, as well as countless black slaves. I think we should turn the nice ones into hostels and Wetherspoons.
Nah... it's history mate... there isn't a lot of history that's actually "good"... most of it's horror stories, but that's the point... we evolve by learning from our past, or at least, we're supposed to... if you leave history to the establishment, to teach in schools, we're only ever going to get the biased opinion of the ruling class... these castles and old houses are there, history in stone, to be studied and teach us what really went on...
Good point although I think history teaching in schools has changed over the last 20 years.However history is always written from one perspective or another, whether left or right etc. The secret is to analyse both sides and to come up with the truth.And you are right,the old houses,castles etc are there to be learned from,as Sid has found out.If you looked further into the house records you'd get a clearer picture of life at that time both bad and good.
Zebs,how can you say you don't mind the Vatican,it is the most corrupt,reactionary,conservative organisation in the world. Think about why they wanted to get rid of John Paul 1, not only because he was reforming the horrendous Vatican bank (still the most secretive bank in the world) but because he knew,through the experiences of his brother (who had 10 children) that the churches strict view on birth control should be abolished (he actually said this in 1974). To the 'conservative' hierarchy in the Vatican this was horrific-remember,to the Vatican,each baby born is not only a soul to be saved,but a potential cash machine. The Vatican aren't interested that over population is probably the biggest crisis the world is facing (ask yourself why) and that one simple change in their 'rules' could potentially prevent the suffering,in poverty,of millions.And what,really, did the reactionary,conservative Pope John Paul 11 change? He kissed a bit of tarmac,smiled,met the people and did absolutely nothing of significance.His worst crime? He supported Liverpool thus confirming his Antichrist status.
Again it is a matter of reading the history from both sides and coming to a conclusion.