My TV viewing included a film on the Romans in Britain broadcast on BBC4 which I found quite thought provoking. The theme of the programme was an examination of the ways in which the Roman invasion of these islands was regarded by historians in each particular era. If we go back to the Victorian Age and even to the days of the monumental Gibbon who wrote the huge ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ then the act of the colonisation of Britain was viewed through the lens of the historians of the time. So the Roman invasion was generally regarded very favourably with the Vicorians bringing civilisation to hordes of unkempt, barbaric savages as the indigenous tribal peoples of this country were then portrayed. But later generations of historians are painting a much more nuanced picture and argue that the Romans were not averse to a mixture of a mingling of cultures. For example, Simon Scharma is quoted approvingly for the way in which describes how in the quintessentially Roman city of Bath, the indigenous water deity of Sulis was merged in with the identity of Minerva to form a ‘modern’ water shrine. There was even mention of another type of history called ‘counter-factual history’ which is to speculate what would have happened if, for example, Boadicea (whose existence is even doubted) had persisted with guerilla ‘hit and run’ tactics (much as deployed by the Vietcong against the USA) rather than a pitched battle in which one side is decisively beaten. The Victorians tended to idolise Boadicea and one thinks of the huge statue of her erected at Westminster and some feminists have hailed her as a feminist icon. Bout other historians point to the recent uncovered archaeological evidence in which Roman soldiers were beheaded ‘en masse’ when Boadica successfully raided London and the fact is that if she existed, she may as cruel and savage as the Romans are often depicted. Turning to more contemporary matters, it is often obsessed that Donald Trump is absolutely obsessed with thoughts of the building of his bunker disguised as a ballroom. As evidence of this, correspondents have noted that even during a dinner in honour of Xi, the Chinese Head of State, Trump had to talk about his latest obsession. He took the time during his speech to talk about the ongoing construction of the new ballroom being built in the White House. Admitting to going off-script just for a second, he invited attendees to visit the site you’ve heard so much about. Trump said the project was a year from completion, and said he thought the guests will see something that I think you will really love, telling them they would be the first people to step foot in it. The US president has called the ballroom the Great Hall of the United States, and said it could rival the Great Hall of the People – where he dined during a state visit to Beijing in May. Last month, the US Supreme Court said it would allow the development of Trump’s $400m (£293m) project to continue for now, temporarily pausing a judicial order that was set to halt much of the building work. I am sure that on the point when the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives a way might be found, despite the Supreme Court ruling, to put an end to this folly.
After I had breakfasted, I made my way to a local Morrisons supermarket where the Philosophy group of U3A meet on the last Friday of each month. We are a small group of about eight but the discussions are always fascinating. The supermarket allows us the use of their Training Room and we each throw £2.00 into a kitty which is then donated to whatever charity the supermarket is giving its donations to each month. The topic for discussion this month was the paradox of tolerance i.e. how far can a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? As you might imagine, it is quite easy to stray from this topic to recent political developments but we pulled ourselves back into line when we strayed too far. The couple of hours absolutely raced by and then our convenor suggested the topic for a months time which is ‘Existentiaism’ For the uninitiated this is a strand of philosophy that emphasises individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, proposing that there is no inherent meaning or purpose to life. Instead, each person must define their own purpose and identity through their actions.Unlike older philosophies that argue humans are born with a predefined purpose (created by God or nature), existentialism argues that we exist first, and our meaning is created later by how we choose to live. This topic will stretch us, I am sure, because we are in effect exploring the meaning of life and religious beliefs may be implicated in all of this. About a fortnight before the meeting, our proposer (in this case, the convenor herself) will source a page or so of background or definitions to wind us up and set us going. I have suggested a topic to the convenor for the next but one topic which I have suggested might be ‘What is Science?’ which I intend to start off with an introduction to the Karl Popper doctrine of ‘falsifiability’ which may be familiar to some but not all. The convenor agreed readily to my suggestion so I shall look forward to that discussion in a couple of months time. After the meeting of the Philosophy group, I went down to the Methodist Centre to participate in the monthly Ukrainian meal venture. I finished up with a kind of potato, onion and herbs staple of Ukrainian cookery and afterwards had a pleasant chat with some others who I did not know but who had turned up for the meal. After I returned home, although it was a little gloomy, I decided to take the bull by the horns and mow the back lawn only one day after I had mowed the front green area so that the two are now in phase with each other. The night before I had started watching ‘Question Time’ on BBC1 but fallen asleep quite near the start of it so I might watch the whole programme via the BBC iPlayer the day after the broadcast. BBC4 used to broadcast some good music on a Friday evening and I think it does during the Proms concerts season but most of the year it devotes Friday evenings to repeating decades old episodes of ‘Top of the Pops’ in which I suppose some parts of the population chasing nostalgia might be interested.