I don’t think that you can either judge the standard of a website by the quality of its comments, nor consider Melanie Phillips as representative of conservatism.

Incidentally, on the Rod ‘Seacole’ Liddle thing, I caught myself getting all cross at the history curriculum for saying “the history of the slave trade should include resistance, the abolition of slavery and the work of people such as Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce.” I think it’s probably an irrational reaction, but my first thought was just ‘who? Is he really one of the two most important anti-slavery figures, or is this just multi-culti bollocks?’ Am I being a bigot here?

Hmmm…. I agree with everything you say about the vileness of Phillips et al, but I don’t think the obvious nutters are the ones to worry about: precisely because their obvious nuttiness means most people will switch off when they start spouting. The Tories I am worried about are George Osborne- who should no more be placed in charge of the British economy than a drunk 13-year-old should be given the keys to a sports car- and the neo-con duo of William Hague and Liam Fox, who are all set to prove that there are people even more ignorant on defence and foreign policy than Tony Blair.

But George Osborne gets plaudits for his ‘toughness’ in the newspapers and is the closest buddy of that nice Mr Cameron, while Hague is a well-loved entertainer noted for his witty appearances on ‘Have I got News for you’.

Tim J, Equiano was a former slave who wrote a very good autobiography, which provides some of the best primary evidence we have on the experience of slavery; and the Nat. Curr. gives him as one example of a person who should feature in lessons, not as one of the two most important anti-slavery figures. So certainly in this instance, it’s not multi-culti bollocks.

Is he really one of the two most important anti-slavery figures, or is this just multi-culti bollocks?’ Am I being a bigot here?

Isn’t the whole point of history to teach you? You’re saying a person may not be important because you don’t know about them and haven’t heard about them from your self-selecting reading list.

Anyway, Liddle Rod’s obsession with Mary Seacole goes as far back as June when he randomly started attacking her and continues for no real reason. Is she insignificant too?

Why do muslims become ‘radicalised’? Perhaps because they feel that they are not being listened to, that their culture and values are being destroyed and they want to take a stand against it.

The BNP are the natural home for whites who are also going through the same process.

Whilst you may not agree with radical muslims I suspect that you would not dismiss them as ‘wing-nuts’. Why then do you do dismiss whites for the same reactions.

Rather than poking fun at a very real and disturbing phenomenon occurring in this country and trying to score cheap political points at the same time, perhaps you should try and understand why people feel the way they do.

Before I’m branded as a racist and a fascist I would point out that I abhor the BNP and all they stand for as I also abhor radicals of any faith or colour. I do however understand that some serious talking needs to be done between both sides before this becomes very ugly indeed.

This site with it’s sneering air of superiority is as much at fault as the ‘wing-nuts’ who populate the comments of the speccie.

3/4 – I know who he is now, obviously! I’m still not sure that when providing a lesson plan on the slave trade he would be the first name that sprang to anybody’s mind, but as I said, I think mine was an irrational reaction (hence the whole ‘caught myself’ thing).

Is Mary Seacole insignificant? No, she was an entirely admirable person, but she wasn’t a terribly important person even as far as 19th century British history is concerned. Of less importance than, say, William Howard Russell or Edward Cardwell for example. Or Lord Liverpool, if we’re making mixed ethnicity our benchmark here.

Sunny re: Comment 4,

“You’re saying a person may not be important because you don’t know about them and haven’t heard about them from your self-selecting reading list.”

I think you are being a tad dismissive of what Tim J said in comment 1.

The point he made was that Olaudah Equiano was named first and William Wilberforce second – implying the former was of more importance with regard to the slave trade. Whereas, it was Wilberforce campaigning that hastened the abolition of the slavery rather than Equiano’s acounts of slavery.

It’s not about a “self-selecting reading list” it’s about the priority being placed upon characters incidental to the main players in history.

Call me reactionary but with regard to illustrating our mult-cultural past I would have thought it more obvious to teach lots + lots more about Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, Elizabeth Barrett Browning – people who’se widely recognised achievements are intrinsic to British culture / history.

But Kojak, you’re giving an account of the downfall of slavery that relies highly on ideology there. Can you be sure that Wilberforce was one of the most important figures in hastening the end of slavery, or did the thousands of un-named slaves who rebelled against it have a greater effect? Wilberforce put forward many bills before he succeeded; without the actions of the slaves none of his bills may ever have succeeded.

For what it’s worth, I’m not arguing that Wilberforce had an effect, just that his importance is often over-stated.

@Tim f – bang on target.

But yes, Equiano is one of the two most highly cited named in history classes at secondary school on the subject of slavery. Though I suspect this is mostly a self-conscious effort on the part of the national curriculum to be less white.

The point he made was that Olaudah Equiano was named first and William Wilberforce second – implying the former was of more importance with regard to the slave trade.

It implies no such thing. Nor, it seems, does Tim J, who says “one of the two most important anti-slavery figures” rather than “more important than William Wilberforce”.

“if I were a BNP apparatchik I’d be pleased with the way Coffee House has become a sounding board for the party”

Clive is a nice chap and a fine writer. But he obviously hasn’t read the Guardian’s CiF or indeed Telegraph threads when the post is about the BNP or immigration. Try this recent Telegraph thread for example.

PS – as I keep repeating, “the Brits don’t do fascism. They just don’t want to be a minority in their own country”

Nice to see Laban turn up spouting utter fiction that Brits just don’t want to be a minority in their own country, when that is long way bloody off and who is a Brit anyway?

Straight from the BNP play book, it’s a good job there is a BNP, it allows the Tories to get away with so much and they can just point at the BNP and go: ‘no THEY are racist, not us!’

I’m off to the Spectator’s Global Warming debate tonight. It should be interesting, but possibly not in a good way.