Talk:1066 and All That
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1707, your statement is a bit odd. As I recall -- and it is about twenty years since I last read it -- it was mostly a spoof on British history until the formation of England, followed by English history. History of the other countries of the UK was scarcely touched upon. -- Derek Ross
- Fair point. I was just restoring the previous wording. It's anglocentric, in that Wales and Scotland are not memorable ;) The Scots ("originally Irish, but now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; ... " etc) get a few mentions, as well as Welsh kings. Best thing to say it's a history of Britain I suppose. We should mention the test papers too... -- Tarquin
my copy says "first published 1930 by Methuen" -- which would imply that it was serialized in Punch earlier than the 1930s. -- Tarquin
didn't it mention the Second World War? -Adrian Hobbs
No. Even if Sellars and Yeatman had been clairvoyant, when America becomes Top Nation (end of WWI) history comes to a . - Bth
- I've added a mention of '1984 And All That'. --Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] "in english schools"
What is the context of the paragraph that starts with "in English schools"? It seems just stuck in there at random, moreso because it's in a box. Is it a quote from something, or is there some other reason for it being boxed and having serious grammatical errors? I would gladly turn it into a normal paragraph, but I want to be sure that the boxing isn't intentional... --LostLeviathan 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Reatman or Yeatman?
Amazon.com lists this book's authors as W. C. Sellar, R. J. Reatman, and Frank Muir as a contributor. Link However, other sources I've found list it as Yeatman. This recently came up in a crossword clue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows which is correct. --Psyk0 10:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The copy of 1066 and All That that I have before me proudly states that the authors are Walter Caruthers Sellar and Robert Julian Yeatman. Grstain 11:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Heh, fair enough. Guess I'll contact Amazon then! Thanks for clearing that up. --Psyk0 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Illustrations
The cartoons are memorable. Are they out of copyright? --Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fukuyama reference
Hi there,
This article's Fukuyama reference, while apt, has the potential for confusion due to its phrasing, which I feel implies (states?) Fukuama argues the USA will attain domenence, and history will end.
As the End of History Wikipedia article states, Fukuyama did not argue that American democratic ideals would cover the world, but rather: liberal-democratic ideals, combined with liberal economic policies, have been/are the only robust ideology, and in the long-term the sole surviving ideology. Also, he seems to believe the ideals from the French Revolution are the epitomee of human philosophical development, but his comments led me to suspect that he feels the current application of these ideals is not, well, ideal.
Further, while Sellar and Yeatman were before Fukuyama, they did not forsee or predict Fukuyama's work (though the similarity is amusing)
Currently: As such, Sellar and Yeatman anticipated Francis Fukuyama by six decades.
Perhaps:
Interestingly [or similarly non-commital adjective], this conclusion resembles some interpretations of Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History", published six decades later.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my little spiel,
Max Way (Renaissance College student, currently analyzing Fukuyama) Max Way 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the Fukuyama reference worked in earlier versions of the article, but no longer does, for reasons that have already been made. As such, I have boldly removed it. If people feel strongly enough, they can boldly revert this - Grstain 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nameunknown - my comment on TSSAAT on the 'End of History' page is still there as a footnote, with a little editing by the maintainer to show that he doesn't agree (but at least sees the funny side). 'The End' was also possibly parodied in one of the Star Trek movies (Star Trek IV : when Kirk states “Some people think the future means the end of history...")
[edit] Non Campus Mentis
Should we mention Non Campus Mentis? It's the non-fiction version (so to speak), and mentioned 1066 as a predecesor. -67.180.56.14 06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
