Making 'Us vs. Them' History - David Cannadine

Sir David Cannadine, one of Britain's most distinguished historians visits the RSA to provide a new paradigm for historical understanding that emphasises our commonalities, rather than our differences.

Distinguished human rights lawyer, barrister and academic, Professor Conor Gearty argues that a new vision of universal freedom is urgently required.

Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.

[mr.talarico]

Just shared this with my AP Lit students and I can tell they truly enjoyed and appreciated this lecture. Thank you!

[liambailey]

It does not matter what terms he talks about. What he is saying is that 'society' should not be divided by whatever terms you might think of. He is not saying that 'individuals' cannot apply the terms to themselves.

[BrendanSparrow]

Thank you! You managed to pinpoint the exact problem with this speech that I was having difficulty pinning down. When I clicked on this video, I expected a rallying talk emphasising the commonalities of man and providing a better way of looking at the world. In his speech, however, he spent so much time picking apart other peoples’ views that his message got lost, and he quickly lost credibility. The irony of his own stereotypes concerning historians and non-historians wasn’t lost on me either.

[THESocialJusticeWarrior]

This is why we are screwed. Too few people want to think deeply about anything.

[liambailey]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but he is not saying that people should not identify themselves in different ways, only that it is too simplistic to divide society in those terms.

[GOATPAC]

“It's an universal law-- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.. Point being, education is key.

[Mutough]

Yeah, dividing people, thereby creating conflict, is very useful.

[jenisedai]

I really wish I could have paid more attention to this, it sounded like a great speech. But it kept getting interrupted by a really LOUD Harley Davidson commercial.

[liambailey]

I understand you, but I am saying that he is 'not' dividing people. This is where our disagreement lies; you say he is, I say he isn't. For example, he did say 'politicians' and 'historians', I accept that. But he did not say 'politicians v public' or 'historians v philosophers', etc.

[exaltdragon]

My comment is about his divisions, and how he portrays himself using us-versus-them heuristics. Of course his terms matter. If you are looking to discuss personal identity, that's a different matter altogether, and not within the scope of either this speech or my comment.

[liambailey]

Yes, a very good point. Sure, painting broad strokes may create and reinforce prejudices and generalisations, but this is not the division he is talking about; whether or not you want to call these broad strokes a 'division'. If my argument is correct, there is no irony.

[Gnomefro]

But unfortunately, it's impossible to avoid conflict this way. Conflict will become apparent the moment one group in society with the willingness to assert its own worldview over the earlier postmodernist government, and people will actually have to deal with the consequences of other people's false beliefs.

[colourmegone]

From a cursory exploration Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" seems to be the rough equivalent of Spengler's "Decline of the West" reworked for the 21st century. Since "Decline" was a foundation work for Nazism it begs the question,
"...what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born." (W B Yeats - The Second Coming)

[exaltdragon]

Yes, but what makes his terms any better than those terms? Generalising based on simple political affiliation or a person's job? I am not convinced.

[derfshaya]

Is he wrong, though, to take a step up another conceptual layer? Perhaps you would like to provide your version of his concept without mentioning the importance of occupational roles and their influence on our thinking throughout history? Why did you see his speech as an "equally", "simplifying", "attacks"? Perhaps he should never have given this speech in the first place, then.

[buttole]

what he's saying is very obvious and has been common sense since man could think. wars were never fought over 'this group is different that means theyre bad', wars are fought over economics and power. the insignificant differences between people are used by those who want war in order to demonize the enemy and is easily done

natural cultural identities are good in that variety promotes progress; unnatural political entities taking advantage of these identities formed by greedy men are dangerous

[jeremymiller]

John Green says civilizations are useful when comparing one civilization to another civilization but not when comparing a civilization to a noncivilization.

[stephentsang]

Us vs them is human nature. Even children knows this well at schools.

[chodeshadar]

Plus the fact that, in speaking to an audience that is young, college-educated, & liberal, he is preaching to the choir :>p

[capricioussole]

Domination of resources has little or nothing to do with "worldview" other than basic materialist sensibilities. Cultural, religious justifications come later to reinforce what has already been decided to be the "right" thing to do.