Two more classic works of English literature have been condemned by woke academics for being out of step with current progressive orthodoxy.
First, academics at the University of Lincoln have organised a tour for students in which historical figures with links to Lincolnshire are denounced, including Alfred Lord Tennyson. The Daily Mail has more.
Lincoln University said Tennyson “supported imperialism” and his “failings” needed to be “acknowledged and regretted”.
Lincolnshire-born Tennyson, whose famous works include The Charge Of The Light Brigade, was Poet Laureate for Queen Victoria and died in 1892.
Around 150 students took part in the tour around the university’s buildings which sought to expose the “offensive views” of historical figures featured on the campus.
Other leading figures with links to Lincolnshire shamed on the tour included the scientist Isaac Newton and naturalist Joseph Banks, who founded Kew Gardens.
One university staff member, who asked not to be named, said: “I am quite sure it will be the first step to Lincoln trying to rename the university buildings away from the great historical figures of Lincolnshire history, like Tennyson, to something ridiculous like the Greta Thunberg Building.
“Unfortunately, I cannot speak up without the defenders of this woke nonsense trying to get me fired.”
A campus building is named after Tennyson and his statue is on the grounds of Lincoln Cathedral.
Students on the tour were shown a recently erected plaque, which aims to enhance “equality and inclusion”.
It says Tennyson believed Africans and Asians were “children without a civilisation and history”. It also claims he supported Jamaica governor Edward Eyre, who “unleashed a reign of terror against black Jamaicans”.
The plaque adds: “As a university, we acknowledge and regret the failings of our forebears, as well as recognising their achievements.”
Meanwhile, Ivanhoe has been given a ‘content advisory’ by the University of Warwick – the term ‘trigger warning’ is too triggering, apparently – for its depictions of black and Arab characters. The Telegraph has more.
Scott’s work has been branded “offensive” in its treatment of racial minorities, but this has provoked a furious response from one of the author’s descendants, who has branded such criticism a “cowardly” response to “political fashion”.
The English department at Warwick warns students: “Amongst the aspects readers might find disturbing, this text includes offensive depictions of people of colour and of persecuted ethnic minorities, as well as misogyny.”
Scott’s great-great-great-great-grandson on his daughter’s side, Matthew Maxwell-Scott, has responded to the charges, telling the Telegraph: “Attacking those who cannot defend themselves has always been a coward’s charter.
“Today, social media and the growth of academia provide new playgrounds for the modern bully. Long-deceased artists are a particular target. Often exhibiting the hated traits of maleness, paleness and, to some eyes at least, staleness, it is open season.”
The 1819 work Ivanhoe is set in England after the Third Crusade and revolves around the battles and intrigues of the hero Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, and the conflict between Anglo-Saxon and Norman nobles.
The work includes passages depicting black slaves, who leave medieval characters “appalled”, as well as Arab Muslim captives. These are shown, along with other key characters, as being prejudiced against Jews.
It has been argued that female characters like the Saxon lady Rowenna are depicted as mere pawns in the political intrigues of the male characters, but these fears about Scott’s work being “disturbing” have been dismissed by his family.
You can read the Mail piece here and the Telegraph piece here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Note that such a frequency is properly termed ‘uncommon’ not ‘rare’: It might be better to state the difference between whatever it is compared with other vaccines, which are in common use. It’s awkward to access such records, but I’ve come across some Swedish comparisons between annual ‘flu vaccines and both the Pfizer and AZ C-19 products; they did not look very nice. No vaccine product is 100% risk free, like most activities – but the promoters avoid explaining what they mean by terms like “safe and effective”.
As things have panned out, I’m glad I said “no thanks, I might change my mind if it becomes an established product”, when it was offered to me. I suspect that the usual suspects do not want to be open about it, and in effect, proper informed consent is not available unless one does a fair bit of independent work. That is not a proper service to us.
These are the recorded adverse effects of the influenza vaccine and MMR vaccine according to the BNF. Apologies for the formatting.
“For influenza vaccineCommon or very common
With intramuscular use Chills; hyperhidrosis; induration; local reactions; pain
With intranasal useNasal complaints
UncommonWith intranasal useEpistaxis; face oedema
Frequency not knownWith intramuscular useAngioedema; encephalomyelitis; extensive swelling of vaccinated limb; febrile seizure; nerve disorders; nervous system disorder; paraesthesia; presyncope; shock; syncope; thrombocytopenia; vasculitis
With intranasal useGuillain-Barré syndrome”
and
MMR
“For measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, liveUncommonIncreased risk of infection; rhinorrhoea
Frequency not knownAngioedema; arthritis; ataxia; cough; dizziness; encephalopathy; eye inflammation; irritability; meningitis aseptic; nerve deafness; nerve disorders; oculomotor nerve paralysis; oedema; panniculitis; papillitis; paraesthesia; regional lymphadenopathy; respiratory disorders; seizures; Stevens-Johnson syndrome; subacute sclerosing panencephalitis; syncope; throat pain; thrombocytopenia; vasculitis”
“Description of the frequency of side-effects
Very common greater than 1 in 10
common 1 in 100 to 1 in 10
Uncommon [formerly ‘less commonly’ in BNF publications] 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100
Rare 1 in 10 000 to 1 in 1000
Very rare less than 1 in 10 000
Frequency not known frequency is not defined by product literature or the side-effect has been reported from post-marketing surveillance data”
Thanks for that information.
There is no hard evidence that the Covid shots are either safe or effective, or that they ever will be. The incorporation of the Covid-19 shots into the routine schedules would be based on what exactly?
German headline should read –
“Covid Vaccines cause serious injury for one in 5,000 doses – TO DATE”
The future doesn’t look too bright either. There seems to be evidence of the jabbed being more susceptible to further covid infection resulting from vaccine failure and/or a weakening of their immune systems. GVB, Dr. Peter McCollough etc.
All those I know currently ill with the C1984 are fully perforated. And there have been a few.
Add to that growing evidence of infertility
So it’s been a “success” then?
Eugenicist Bill will be pleased, won’t he?
This report on the “vaccine” injury rate is after 2 or 3 doses of the monkey-juice. Prof Bhakdi (and others) predicted that with every booster shot, the rate of adverse effects and the number of deaths it would cause would get worse.
Whilst it is progress that the Germans, and to a lesser degree, the British Government is admitting that they cause damage/death to some (the UK Government has finally paid out compensation to a handful of people) they are still down-playing the numbers affected and are pushing jabs on younger and young people and boosters on people who really don’t need one.
What these very belated admissions demonstrate to Joe Public (or would, if they used their brains and paid attention) is that by having the monkey-juice, you are participating in a mass human “vaccine” experiment. Do these people NEVER look in the mirror and suspect that they see a lab rat looking back at them?
Joe just watches the telly and believes in the adverts, reads the posters and so on. Of course, it there was a proper advertising standards outfit, a lot of it would not be published in any media, or the publishers would be at risk of being prosecuted or sued for damages.
Oi, I have never had a telly to watch
Canada is an interesting case study at present. They currently have the highest fatality rate they’ve ever experienced from Covid despite 86% vaccine coverage & far higher than this in the vulnerable age groups, 70+. So, if you were a Canadian wouldn’t you wonder why you’d taken the risk inherent in the vaccine for no benefit?
Is there anyone who can shed light on what’s happening in Canada or has OWID got the data wrong?
The reports from EudraVigilance that cover all Europe show, overall, a serious adverse reaction of 1 in 424 per jab. Averaged over the last 3 weeks, it is 1 in 111.
The actual deaths from the jabs is unclear, the last total being 46,652, but this based on summing from reactions. There appear to be currently overall 3.22 reactions per death. This makes the total 14,468.
From these death figures, we have an overall death rate per jab of 1 in 62,304. Averaged over the last 3 weeks, it is 1 in 18,380.
Overall, the deaths per case have been remarkably constant at about 1 in 40 average over all 4 jab types.
https://t.me/mikes_stuff/445
These are all short-term effects; In a few year’s time, things could be far, far worse,
That’s true. However, it seems that EudraVigilance monitor cases for a longer time that MHRA. This is evidenced by reports for AstraZeneca which is hardly used in Europe.
MHRA totally fail to follow up any cases – even fail to investigate those unexplained ‘sudden death’ cases currently running at 640.
Definitely. This Winter will see an escalation.
Hi CG, well I have tried to respond to your message – twice in fact but some reason it they haven’t gone.
Cannot find out how to PM you through this site.
Will check this post in a few hours.
So sorry about this as I would like to help.
“As it is, hardly anyone knows that these are the Government’s own data on serious vaccine reactions, and governments are making no obvious effort to tell them.”
Is it me, or is this criminal? Free and informed consent, anyone?