Oh, Simon, if the Queen wants to see a video she’ll have staff get it. She was trying to give you an opening for further comment on your part. What you heard was all on you.
Précis of Talk: Sir Simon Schama follows a classical liberal interpretation of revolution. It begins with transhistorical claims drawn from facile etymological claims to the 'original' meaning of revolution. His contenders are directly English-speaking historians and Anglo historiography, such as Christopher Hill. These are the parameters and the theoretical space of investigation. To be sure, Schama rightly sees the limits of semantics and pedantic observations. To use a concept internal to his observations (which they seem to seldom go into analysis), which may be useful to characterise Schama's general posture toward revolutions- namely include, interpreting transhistorical revolutions in relation to "tactics of incrimination" and the "ritualized hunt of culprits" (~12:30). These heuristic pairs are both Schama's parameters of revolutions. This is a liberal interpretation in that it heavily relies on lamenting rather than clarifying; specifically, as it relates to empirical-historical conditions. Schama's expertise may be squarely in the English revolution. This is both its geographic delimitation as far as it can claim relevance to revolutions of the rest of the world, though the title attempts to fight above its weight-class. This is a talk of the 19th century of the English empire, nothing more - nothing less. It is conversational with the French revolution. This talk runs the risk of being a prolonged bemoaning on the part of Sir Simon Schama. His work is not a scholarly betrayal of conventional literature as Schama claims. It is tangential and derivative at its best (~24:00). His beef with Roger Chartier is entertaining. This talk would have been better if it engaged the ritual of violence (mentioned in 27:00). His self-reflection of the presence of English chauvinism and ironic condescension in the discipline of history is appreciated. It is mentioned in passing, neither theoretically nor epistemically confronted. This talk would have done well to draw on the intellectual history of the idea of oppression (as mentioned in ~32:25).
This isn’t much good at all. I hold Schama and his work in very high regard, but his delivery here is sub-par, to put it mildly. He was invited to give a lecture, but what he’s doing is merely reading out an article aloud and, perhaps even worse, too fast. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the article itself or the points he makes, but as a lecture this is all rather sad, considering what a brilliant scholar he is. Perhaps he was pressed for time or some other particular reason why he felt he had to do it in this way - or maybe he’s simply getting too old (79 years in 2024) for this type of performances.
unfortunate to hear Schama's dogmatic views on Oct 7th. He seems to take the stance that ethnic cleansing is a proportionate and legitimate response. So much for being a humanist
One couldn't agree more with the statement made in the title...but where would we be without them?
That is an excellent description I must say. I look forward to hearing this later.
Lost causes are always worth rescuing. Failure is often a point of reflection, not always of surrender.
Oh, Simon, if the Queen wants to see a video she’ll have staff get it. She was trying to give you an opening for further comment on your part. What you heard was all on you.
Précis of Talk: Sir Simon Schama follows a classical liberal interpretation of revolution. It begins with transhistorical claims drawn from facile etymological claims to the 'original' meaning of revolution. His contenders are directly English-speaking historians and Anglo historiography, such as Christopher Hill. These are the parameters and the theoretical space of investigation. To be sure, Schama rightly sees the limits of semantics and pedantic observations.
To use a concept internal to his observations (which they seem to seldom go into analysis), which may be useful to characterise Schama's general posture toward revolutions- namely include, interpreting transhistorical revolutions in relation to "tactics of incrimination" and the "ritualized hunt of culprits" (~12:30). These heuristic pairs are both Schama's parameters of revolutions. This is a liberal interpretation in that it heavily relies on lamenting rather than clarifying; specifically, as it relates to empirical-historical conditions. Schama's expertise may be squarely in the English revolution. This is both its geographic delimitation as far as it can claim relevance to revolutions of the rest of the world, though the title attempts to fight above its weight-class. This is a talk of the 19th century of the English empire, nothing more - nothing less. It is conversational with the French revolution.
This talk runs the risk of being a prolonged bemoaning on the part of Sir Simon Schama. His work is not a scholarly betrayal of conventional literature as Schama claims. It is tangential and derivative at its best (~24:00). His beef with Roger Chartier is entertaining.
This talk would have been better if it engaged the ritual of violence (mentioned in 27:00). His self-reflection of the presence of English chauvinism and ironic condescension in the discipline of history is appreciated. It is mentioned in passing, neither theoretically nor epistemically confronted. This talk would have done well to draw on the intellectual history of the idea of oppression (as mentioned in ~32:25).
The straw story about Necker's successor tells us a lot about human nature in crowds. Scary stuff. No trial. No justice. Brutal times.
Well said
This isn’t much good at all. I hold Schama and his work in very high regard, but his delivery here is sub-par, to put it mildly. He was invited to give a lecture, but what he’s doing is merely reading out an article aloud and, perhaps even worse, too fast. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the article itself or the points he makes, but as a lecture this is all rather sad, considering what a brilliant scholar he is. Perhaps he was pressed for time or some other particular reason why he felt he had to do it in this way - or maybe he’s simply getting too old (79 years in 2024) for this type of performances.
Nice one, Sir Simon! (about 6:00 mins) - re a guillotining, ' ... took the edge off ... '
Missed that completely. Nice catch!
Why does Sir Simon Schama not have a word to say about the destructive and violent crowd behaviour of the BLM riots?
they are not worthy of the name revolution
I changed brands lol😂
unfortunate to hear Schama's dogmatic views on Oct 7th. He seems to take the stance that ethnic cleansing is a proportionate and legitimate response. So much for being a humanist
The only people who blame victims in the Middle East are musIim supremicists