Letters from the Herald On Sunday: The casting of Anne Boleyn is ridiculous. Historical accuracy must not be undermined by an instinctive accusation of racism
YOUNG PEOPLE today would be horrified that the BBC’s Black And White Minstrel Show steadily had an audience of 16 million people for 20 years until 1978 with the faces of prominent singers blackened. It was a cultural appropriation, but today Channel 5 openly pursues advertising while similarly subverting expectations of the genre.
There is no doubt that Jodie Turner-Smith has a track record as a good actress. Do we really have to replay The Emperor’s New Clothes to emphasize that its cast, as a historical figure like Anne Boleyn, is ridiculous?
After that ? A Chinese actor playing Adolf Hitler? A white actor representing Martin Luther King or a white actress representing Rosa Parks? There would be indignation and rightly so.
Few people today would be the least bit concerned if actors of color played James Bond or Mary Poppins or Sherlock Holmes or Princess Leia. Indeed Dev Patel played David Copperfield. They are, however, fictional characters.
Is it important? Well, imagine the confusion among school children if a major historical figure like Nelson Mandela was portrayed in a movie by a Caucasian actor. This is nonsense. Historical accuracy should not be undermined by an instinctive accusation of racism.
John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing.
NO PANIC, CONTINUE
CLARK Cross and Neil J Bryce (Letters, May 30) both seem motivated more by confirmation bias than rational analysis.
As Paul Simon says: “a man hears what he wants to hear and ignores the rest”.
The deniers often have a 100% filter. A perceived prediction error, or a wrong quote, heralds the rejection of the entire complex web of research evidence and proves that climate change is a myth. Alternatively, human numbers are presented as being too small to have an impact, so this is 100% “natural” causation.
Science rarely has 100% certainty, which is why the IPCC rates its full range of high, medium, or low predictions by the degree of uncertainty involved, which is then changed over time as new data emerges. materialize. Yes, simple things are really complicated – and as the statistician’s aphorism says “all models are wrong, but some are useful”.
Things have really changed since Al Gore’s 2006 documentary Inconvenient Truth. Melting ice research means the 2007 IPCC projection of an average sea level rise of 300mm in the 21st century has been tripled to 900 mm in 2014.
By 2100, that would be 3 feet, not 30 feet – but then a gross exaggeration or incorrect citation of the data is the practical truth for climate change deniers.
The “data” Mr. Bryce cites comes naturally from misinformation first promoted by Exxon Mobil in the 1990s. Its cited headline figure of 96% is revenue through the carbon cycle. Such gross circulation does not matter when it is net growth that is important. This 45% increase (125 particles per million, ppm) is entirely caused by humans.
The amount of CO2 in the air is 3,200 billion tonnes. Humans are responsible for nearly 1000 billion tonnes of it. In fact, over the past 150 years we have emitted around 2,000 billion tonnes, although forests and oceans have taken up about half of the atmosphere, resulting in ocean acidification and some absorption. of the carbon cycle.
My first encounter with climate change was in 1970, when my geography teacher explained to me that global CO2 levels were increasing – and why. So it was 325 ppm… now it’s 418 ppm. This increase is about 25% in five decades, entirely of human origin.
Professor Myles Allen (physicist) first introduced the concept of net zero in 2001 and carbon budgeting in 2005. IPPC adopted both as the easiest way to convey arithmetic to governments and the public. .
He gave a recent interview where he noted that we have long passed 1.0 ° C and the current rate is 0.2 ° C of average increase per decade – so 1.5 ° C, the target limit. current for net zero, will be exceeded before 2050.
His group Climate Dynamics recently recommended mandating the elimination of carbon from all fossil fuels by sequestration at the source with producer responsibility – an extremely serious proposal indeed.
This is the reality of the current situation. Don’t panic, go ahead, it’s an opportunity as much as a crisis.
Tony Philpin, Gigha.
* I was delighted to see that you dared to print a letter from Neil J. Bryce challenging the almost sacred orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming (May 30). The elephant in the room in this case is the sun, without which no matter how much greenhouse gases are in the air, there could be little or no warming.
Our planet has undergone a series of ice ages, each of which could only have been caused by the sun’s periodic growth and decline; indeed, we are currently in the final thaw of the last ice age and that alone could explain the current global warming. The fact that two phenomena occur at the same time, in this case more CO2 and more heat, does not automatically mean that one is caused by the other as a third factor could be involved. It is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I believe has fueled the current panic.
The planet has survived CO2 levels many times higher than today. The real villain of the play is the sun and about that we can do very little (although covering all sunny deserts with solar PV panels would make a difference). Stop using fossil fuels as fuel by all means as they are valuable chemical sources and we are suffering from pollution caused by their abuse, but don’t expect warming to stop when CO2 levels return at their assumed normal levels. It really is the sun wot dun it!
Tim Flinn, Garvald, East Lothian.
THE MYTH OF THE HIGHLANDERS
I must say I am extremely disappointed with the coverage given to this silly (I use the word loosely) artistic depiction of the Battle of Culloden (“Scotland’s greatest historian explains exactly why the Union is in peril “, May 30). The display perpetuates the myth that the Highlanders were a sloppy, disheveled scum, facing off against a uniformly dressed troop of well-trained professional soldiers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Through the ages, the Highlanders have regularly undergone military training at the hands of their leaders and did so with an enthusiasm that was evident in the aftermath of battle. When corpses on both sides were skinned by scavengers, Highland soldiers were always said to be distinguished from their regular army opponents by having no bulges on their backs. I was born and raised in Fraser Country, so I learned a bit of their history. For many years before Culloden, the Frasers of Stratherrick would meet the Frasers of Strathglass in a field in Inverness outside the townhouse of their leader, Lord Fraser of Lovat. These military training meetings were held so often that the location eventually became known as the Northern Meeting Park.
Note that we have no representation of the Jacobite victory at Prestonpans. The tactics devised by Keppoch (a former distinguished officer in the French army for 10 years) ensured a landslide victory that could not have been achieved without immense discipline from the Highlanders involved. The first person to recognize this was a guy by the name of John Cope.
As for Culloden, as my ancestor said, “no one fought like the Chisholms. If only they had been a bigger clan, we would have won the day.” After 25 years of research, I have finally found the proof, so this is what I intend to provide, rather than an opinion. For example, no one seems to have noticed in 250 years that Cumberland wrote that he knew before the night march on Nairn, but that he didn’t bother to wake his men because he knew it was going to be sabotaged. .
George F Campbell, Glasgow.
JACOBITES WAS NOT TO END THE UNION
I WOULD NOT WANT to speak from top to bottom to Sir Tom Devine, but the Jacobite uprisings were aimed at reclaiming Britain for the Stuart Princes, not ending the Union. They made it to Derby in the ’45, but the promised French landing on southern England did not arrive
These campaigns weren’t quite on the rise as they were planned and sponsored from afar.
The 1715 was in part an insurrection as it raised substantial troops for the time of Scotland and England. But Jacques VIII disembarked to make Jacques III of England
Some of Charles Edward Stuart’s forces of 1745 landed with him. There were hardly any troops in his army and few Scots in his troops. Some joined in opposition to the Union, but that was not part of this prince’s plans. Some Scottish troops fought against him
Reckless and cruel retaliation colored the 45s in popular history as England v Scotland. The attitude of London and some Scots was clearly anti-Gaeltacht, and the vindictive crackdown was like war against the Highlands. It was the most tragic part of the affair and a very great wrong. Regimes around the world still do this, showing an uneven distribution of enlightened ideas over the 275 years since then.
A desperate war had been waged in England and returned in the form of defeat. Glasgow had never opened the doors to unwanted Jacobite warriors
Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland.
OSAKA SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED
NAOMI Osaka has been the most complex, compelling, and exciting sports figure in decades. Hurricane Higgins was catastrophic. McEnroe was an infant. Jocky Wilson was the underdog of the underdogs. What sets the young tennis star apart is the fact that she is serious; and, it deserves to be taken seriously.
So when Naomi announced that she would not be attending any post-match press conferences because it was damaging to her mental health, I found Susan Egelstaff’s comment on the same topic astounding: “Without the press. , Osaka wouldn’t earn the millions of dollars it is “(” Osaka Boycott Sets Dangerous Precedent “, May 30).
If her shin was encased in a bulky plaster stookie, would Ms. Egelstaff expect Ms. Osaka to limp desperately around a tennis court, just to fulfill her professional obligations to the press? Because this is where the argument of the parity of esteem between mental health and physical health would lead us.
Why can’t the press cheer on this talented young prospect in her campaign prowess and work, both on and off the pitch, and talk about it from a distance, instead of emphasizing other opportunities to subdue her in distress?
Archie Beaton, Inverness.