“cultural vandalism” indeed! It's ironic then that a nation that pride itself on preserving tradition should allow its national broadcaster the BBC to destroy early archives in the 60s/70s (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archi...). "Who would want to watch a program twice?" and "Wow, isn't storage expensive?!" Orwell would have turned in his grave.
The honest truth is that the Britain of today isn’t a colonial power anymore, and is rather poor by its relative standards of the past. I feel it’s more concerned with selling its past to tourists for money more than preserving it of late.
Not just to tourists, unfortunately a significant part of our (British) politics is selling our past to voters, as rose-tinted "good old days" emotions at the expense of focussing on how to make the best of the current situation (which, let's face it, despite no longer being as much of a global power as during the empire days were still an extremely privileged country compared to global averages).
Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to.
> "Who would want to watch a program twice?"
This isn't even remotely what was said.
The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such:
> So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it?
Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation.
> "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!"
Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was.
> When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too.
One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states:
> Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.
Controversial take maybe, but who really gives a damn? Filing cabinets that haven't been opened for 50 years? I'm sure people would flock to a museum to see those /s. Researchers obviously weren't that interested. If private collectors are happy to pay large amounts for these things then that seems like the best option, they'll enjoy owning it.
We really don't need the minutia of every decision Orwell made while writing his stories, I'd go so far as to say agonizing over such devalues the work.
Without the originals, however, it's not so difficult, say for a dystopian government, to replace the work entirely with a completely different propaganda attributed to his name. As modern governments do to flip the script on everything from the events of the world wars, the history of the founding of the United States, slavery, and every other politically charged topic hijacked to rally support for one violent or profitable ideal or another.
It's very easy to imagine that tomorrow some government somewhere will be describing the dystopia that George Orwell predicted would occur if people were suddenly allowed to speak freely.
In fact, it's easy to imagine that even the original works themselves can barely serve to protect the original message.
Also: the originals are mostly only relevant for their collectible value. Researchers can more easily work off digital scans. No need to buy anything or keep anything together physically, just scan it if you are really that interested.
I don't know if there are digital scans. But that there aren't proves the OPs point that researchers can't be THAT interested after all, if they didn't even take scans of the documents.
We shouldn't let the value of something be determined by the budgets and personal tastes of researchers from a random period in history.
Look at the kind of historical artifacts that provide untold insight into ancient societies. Many of these artifacts only exist today because they were accidentally buried or boarded up in a wall and forgotten about while all others were wiped from the world for whatever reason, be it simply recycling or a more malevolent and systematic purge by motivated individuals.
We don't know what is valuable so we should assume that it is all valuable.
In UK we have legislation that protects buildings if they're significant (eg peculiar, famous, old). Perhaps we should have a law requiring digitisation of significant artefacts (at public expense) in order to sell works that may be of historical/cultural significance.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping original documents, but preserving images of those documents seems reasonable.
Same would go for selling artwork or artefacts, offer true opportunity to national museums to retain a digital copy.
Fwiw, I like old artefacts, papers, books, even rusty old filling cabinets, but I don't see value for the country in preserving those things.
Also fwiw, I think the Listed Building laws go a bit far in some cases: preventing people's reasonable enjoyment of their own properties.
Before this hit the news - how many of the now-angry people had previously demonstrated any real interest in the George Orwell archives? Or had actually worked to preserve any collection of historical documents?
It's real easy to sit on your ass, while bitterly complaining that a whole legion of Somebody Elses is not working 25-hour days, for free, to make the world conform to your whims.
True...but his quoted bit of the article amounts to "why didn't somebody else, on their own time and dime, Do Stuff"? There's no hint that he (or anyone associated with him) had previously cared to even look for such materials. Let alone do a superficial study of them.
The article also notes that the company had previously tried to sell the entire Gollancz collection - vastly more material than just the George Orwell part - to institutional buyers for £1m. None of them were interested. And I don't see any criticism of them for that neglect.
But now, when it's easy for the ass-sitters to score points by screaming about Evil Corporations destroying England's sacred history, there is a huge fuss.
“That nobody had opened those filing cabinets for 50 years was because they were idiots and didn’t understand the archive’s value."
But who is it valuable to? Ultimately a great deal of this is purely interesting to the increasing small number of people who are personally or professionally invested in Orwell. The value here is that the archive could generate a couple of conference keynotes for professors, a new foreword in a reprint, or, at a stretch, a new biography.
There is a very small chance that enough new material, or changes to material, could merit a brand new publication, but ultimately the existing published works stand by themselves and the rest amounts to high brow gossip.
History. It should be a part of our historical and cultural record, not the private playthings for the wealthy.
Whenever something like this comes up, I'm appalled at how little people seem to give a shit about preserving things for the future. In the end, it's all we have to pass down through the ages.
When I die, family and close friends will have access to all my data. They can choose what to do with it. Once I'm dead, I'll have no interest in my privacy.
This is also a nonsensical argument and I don't appreciate these bad faith "gotcha" arguments. While my data might be of some historical interest in the sense of understanding the average male in Western Europe in the early 21st century, it isn't nearly of the same significance as that of Orwell. Nobody is going to buy my data and lock it away in a vault. In addition, much of my presence, my "data" is available publicly online in my posts and comments on HN, Reddit and other social media. Orwell didn't post on Reddit, afaik, so somebody buying up Orwell's archive is a much more significant and impactful loss in multiple ways.
But you just wanted to "win" an argument, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Have you given any of this any thought at all? Like, really? This really isn't the place for trolling or just making noise. Reddit's more suited for that.
I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty. These things are well defined. Nobody is going to knock on my door tomorrow.
The same is not true for you if you live under their laws, you couldn't agree with me if you wanted to.
The system you defend is banning sharp objects. We have sharp objects to prevent exactly what I pointed out is wrong. We can defend ourselves and others around us.
The US is a wonderful amazing place. I welcome you to visit or immigrate and make a life here. Heck, hit me up.
I was with you until the last paragraph. The notion that the people of the US can rise up against the US army and last more than two seconds is ridiculous. You have sharp objects and all you do with them is kill yourselves and each other.
I find the parent poster's wholesale purchase of American exceptionalism... optimistic, to be kind. But I also think you're over optimistic thinking it is a forgone conclusion that any military, regardless of any bill of rights, would be able to easily crush a popular revolt. That depends upon a lot of factors.
Of course, and the counterpoint is that there have been revolts that toppled governments. The issue is that pro-gun people take it as a given that the US army, a body of people with both vastly more training and more firepower than the population, will have trouble with it.
(a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
These are the people that care about our way of life the most. Your assumption is incorrect even if you assume that the US Mil has the ability to suppress the US population en mass without destroying it's self. They are not robots.
Oh man, if only other countries that became military dictatorships had the foresight to make the soldiers swear an oath, they could have avoided the whole thing.
cqc is the most deadly form of combat, and america has something like 4 guns per resident. if Ukraine is any indication, pacifying a well armed citizenry is not an easy feat.
The US Military is heavily dependent on reservists. There are tons of veterans with military training. The US military has a terrible record against insurgents. Soliders ordered to attack their friends and family go awol. The US military does bot train to suppress a wide scale domestic insurrection.
America is blissfully far from a civil war, bit our heavily armed populace could give the military a run for its money.
> I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty.
The people who are in jail for, as you claim "offending others online" were threatening people's lives.
> The system you defend is banning sharp objects
Again, not true. I can buy as many sharp objects as I want. I can even take them out in public if I want. The law even allows me to use them for self defence. We've had a problem with some people buying weaponry - and it is weaponry which has been banned. You can go into any DIY store and buy all the knives, machetes, and chainsaws that you want.
> The US is a wonderful amazing place.
I would encourage you to join the 40% of your fellow citizens who have passports and go explore the world rather than reading about it.
Assuming that the rules enumerated at that link are the complete rules, I have a Japanese bread knife that I use every day for its exquisite sharpness, and which would become forbidden by these rules.
The reason is that it has a 9-inch serrated blade, which is a very frequently encountered size for bread knives, and the angle at the tip of the blade is slightly smaller than the 90 degree angle mandated by the new rules.
The slightly acute blade tip is very handy when cutting some big hard vegetables, like water melons or pumpkins, or some very big breads, which have a diameter greater than the 9-inch blade length.
The rules as written on that site are ambiguous, because they could be also interpreted as only forbidding the 2-edged blades, where one edge is plain and one edge is serrated (a kind of knife that I have never seen). However this interpretation of the rules is contradicted by "other than a serrated cutting edge of up to two inches next to the handle", which is a typical feature of single-edged blades and which would not make sense on a 2-edged blade.
The rules still allow the possession of a fighting/utility knife, like the classic KA-BAR, whose blade is only 7-in long and which has a small serrated edge that satisfies the rules.
You may think that's unreasonable, but most people here don't. I encourage you to visit other countries and talk to people about their lived experiences.
The context comments you replied to is weapons. In the US (and many other places) we can carry them without a hall pass, and it's a good thing.
You don't agree; but pretending that you can carry a pointy object in this context "legally" as long as it's "not a weapon" is like saying you can protect your life as long as the other person agrees with you; it's newspeak.
Every country has a difference tolerance for risk. You may think that your weaponry allows you to live free - but for lots of us, it is an unacceptable risk.
We think people should be allowed to eat chocolate and not get shot. You think that is an unacceptable risk.
The new rules linked by another poster do not say anything about "carrying" knives.
They are rules about "owning" knives and the current owners of such knives are pressured to deposit them at the police or risk criminal charges if caught later, presumably during a home search done for any reason.
I live in London and carry a knife with me at almost all times. It's admittedly a Swiss army knife, I wouldn't be allowed to do that with a machete. In practice, I don't see the situation as a problem.
Honestly, this is just kind of shallow conversation if you don’t engage honestly with it.
Both US and UK societies have the general concept of freedom on speech - you are free to say what you want for the most part, subject to some specific limits on that right where the speech infringes on someone else’s rights.
These rights are codified, came about, and are implemented slightly differently - but in practice the difference you’re identifying is really more about what the respective societies define as acceptable.
In recent cases, the people who’ve been jailed have been done so for (among other things) incitement to racial hatred - things like public posts encouraging people to commit specific acts. The UK considers this outside the bounds of acceptable free speech.
The US maybe considers this boundary elsewhere, but it is clear that some forms of expression can constitute harassment or other criminality even in the US.
The interesting discussion is the bit in the middle - how do we build a messy consensus that deals with our differences and protects as many people’s rights to live peacefully as possible, while still allowing others to speak freely and without fear. A discussion from the starting point of “I can say whatever I want” when it is demonstrably not true doesn’t really engage with that.
The US is indeed a wonderful and amazing place full of incredible people. It would be even more wonderful and amazing with occasional bouts of self-reflection.
You banned Kinder surprise eggs and have more school shootings per month than others in a decade.
You had the January 6 United States Capitol attack because field by the former president which led to the death of five people.
Somehow Americans fear to become a tyranny (maybe because of all the armed people) and at the same time ignore all the people already dying like they were already living in a tyranny.
I'm from a country that was turned in a tyranny but I fear people with guns more than my government.
why don't they just scan it and release the images as a public archive? are we arguing over old paper now? what will we do with it in a museum? lock it in a glass case so no oily fingers can turn the pages? maybe scholars want to rub their faces all over the book cover at the weekends as a kink?
