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.
Anyone who pays £199 pa for a subscription to Nature deserves all they misinformation they get for their money.
Fraud? Sounds more like evil to me
The simply the scientific process statement is very telling. The scientific process is obviously that – regardless of any private opinions of people who do The Science[tm] for a living – work on The Science[tm] needs funding and hence, the sciencers must deliver whatever those who are willing to fund their sciencing want. Only naive people believe sciencing would be an open-ended quest to determine true information about natural phenomena. It’s really about fabricating justifications for political goals those who fund sciencing want to achieve. Preferably with lots of math and tables in them so that laymen both end up suitably impressed and rendered incapable of asking unwelcome question like Is the emperor really clothed?
Yes, giving good slide is essential for masking the truth
The NIH doles out $billions each year in grants to private pharma companies. These same companies give back $millions to NIH scientists as royalties (kickbacks) for inventions these scientists created while at work in NIH labs. Legalised bribery.
The standout message for me is the inefficiency of peer review, whether accidental or deliberate. I have a plan. ALL papers should first appear in preprint and be available for anyone to examine. Then any and all informed analysts can dissect work before it gains the imprimatur of full publication. At present the system only allows post hoc comment, from where the taking down of a paper is far more difficult.
This is such a brilliant idea (I would say that of course) that it will never be adopted.
ISTR a retired editor of “The Lancet” saying that in his (long) experience over 90% of fully peer-reviewed papers eventually proved to be wrong – and a depressing percentage proved to be fraudulent.
In reality, “Peer Review” is no better than allowing students to mark their friends’ exam papers.
The Corruption of science for political purposes. ———We no longer have “Science”. It has morphed into “Official Science”. ——–Scientists working for governments have now become an army of data adjusters providing the excuses for government policy on everything from climate to covid. ———-“Ah yes, science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” –Mark Twain. —And boy do governments know that and why they seek to convince us all that since all scientists agree then so should you.
$cientists are now down there with Politicians, Lawyers and Estate Agents in the “honest and trustworthy” stakes.