Good or bad?

I liked his History of Britain books. Readable history.

hard work to watch but i like his histories.

He was on the radio talking about these nutters complaining about the Mosque near the twin towers site. I think he's a top bloke, and I admire him. Even though his Histories of Britain are a bit misty-eyed nostalgic for England (so far) 🙂

They were apparently going to have him on at the same time as the Republican, but sadly it didn't work out. He'd have sorted him out.

I heard him on the radio too and I can't decide if he is earnest and passionate or shrill and contrary for publicity purposes.

All of the above I reckon.

The former I think. One of those people I wish I knew.

His 'serious' historical work on dutch republic and french history is very good, he is an old school type of historian who doesn't pretend to objectivity and is willing to get caught up in the affairs of the world.
Also a spur's supporter.
Top man.

He managed to make me feel really sad when the Normans invaded Saxon England…

He does seem to pretty right on but he is very combative, one might ask what an English historian is doing weighing in on the placement of an American Mosque.

We could probably do with more combative right on types.

plenty on here

too true.

one might ask what an English historian is doing weighing in on the placement of an American Mosque.

He's lived in America for years, working at a university.

I really enjoyed An American History (book, haven't seen the series) – explained a lot of why the US is the way it is in a pretty acessible package.

Have you seen the way he subtly dislocates and then relocates his left shoulder in one smooth movement, whilst reading the autocue? Seriously impressive. Top bloke.

one might ask what an English historian is doing weighing in on the placement of an American Mosque.

Americans have never treated the destruction of the Twin Towers as a purely personal issue which concerned only themselves.

In fact, they have always been very keen that it should be seen as the day "which changed the world". Likewise they were very keen the whole world should join them in the "War on Terrorism" which they launched after the attack.

It is therefore perfectly reasonable that any issues concerning "hallowed Ground Zero" should be subject to international and public debate.

And of course it should also be remembered the US insists on offering itself to the whole world as an example of unbridled freedom, tolerance, and democracy.

The very fact that senior politicians are even debating whether or not to allow individuals to freely practice their religion without restriction, is yet another example which seriously challenges this claim.

It also challenges the claim which they have always made to the whole world that the War on Terrorism was not a "war against Islam". Clearly a great many people in the US see it as precisely that.

I have always liked Schama on TV. I could never find history interesting at school, but I find his programmes which are in essence the same topics, truly riveting. Top bloke imo. And all the more so now I know that he is prepared to defend the rights of Muslims in the US……not something which every Jew is prepared to do.

one might ask what an English historian is doing weighing in on the placement of an American Mosque.

Because he's an interfering right-on little git. And good on him for it 🙂

The very fact that senior politicians are even debating whether or not to allow individuals to freely practice their religion without restriction, is yet another example which seriously challenges this claim.

Yeah, especially as it's a constitutional right.

"You have complete religious freedom, as long as the rest of us approve".

Animal farm, anyone?

Animal farm, anyone?

The movie? Hey ho! 😀

The irony there is that probably IS what the founding fathers meant when they said 'people'. They certainly did mean white people. Not to mention 'intelligent decent folk not the common riff-raff' – hence the electoral college system.