I have to say that I had the impression both while she was alive and after her death that the American Media had a fascination with Diana all out of proportion to even the usual Royalty worship that is common on these shores. Whether there needed to have been another inquest, or not, I don’t think that the tenth anniversary media blitz would have been avoided here in the States for anything short of another 9/11 attack.
There are frigging books coming out full of hagiography for this woman, this year. That’s not happening because of any fucking inquest.
So, you can’t blame the UK population as the sole source of the worship for this woman. There’s plenty of it here in the US.
For that matter, look at the frigging Ottawa Treaty: It was basically signed because of the international cult of Diana.*
*Note: I’m not trying to claim that abandoned minefields aren’t a problem, but like any military weapon system: abuses don’t define the role of the weapon. And I believe that Ottawa is an attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To me, that’s tantamount to saying opposing the war in Iraq is not supporting the troops. While the slave economy was justifiably destroyed by the Civil War/Reconstruction, there were a lot of people acting in bad faith under the guise of reform (Carpetbaggers and the like). That’s what people have a problem with today, not the concept of reconstruction itself. The treatment of the south during Reconstruction period was pretty much the opposite of the treament given to the Germans and Japanese after WWII. Ironically, had Lincoln not been assassinated, the Reconstruction probably would’ve been less punitive than it was. Geez, some cows must be getting hungry with all this straw being used for other purposes.
I saw him in a Florida Sam’s Club a few months ago. You would think that someone trying to be incognito would shave the sideburns and get a new haircut, wouldn’t you? But it is not so.
Hey, I will take all your Diana hype but only if you can remove all the Anna Nicole and her offspring hype from the past, present and future.
Well, it is a Wikipedia cite. I don’t pretend it’s authoratitive, it was just quick and easy way for me to support my belief in the cause and effect of Diana’s death the ratification of the Ottawa Treaty.
Though - if I’d noticed that when I first skimmed the article I’d have looked for a better cite. :o
jjimm, the Wikipedia article I linked seems to be suffering from a greater-than-normal amount of Wikipedia fuckwittedness. I suspect it’s the act of a virtual vandal, but…
You know, I wish the American Media would stop obsessing on Princess Diana too. It takes away from the important stories, like Britteny Spears, and Lindsay Lohan! We need to have priorities!
I’d suggest Eric Foner’s book on the subject, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 ( 1988, Harper & Row ). It won or was nominated for a whole passel of awards and rightly so. While the standard view is that Reconstruction was harshly, unnecessarily punitive, Foner very evenhandedly shows where that notion was correct and where it wasn’t. And he makes an excellent case that yes, Reconstruction ended prematurely.
Good suggestion! I don’t want to sound like Reconstruction itself was bad, just that I don’t think it was handled well in some areas, which is why some of the bitterness about the period came about. I also recognize that while there were some bad actors on the Northern side, there were a whole bunch of really bad actors on the Southern side…
Back to the OP…of course, the only reason why they keep shoving Diana down our throats is because we the people are sitting there expecting it, like baby birds.
I should note that while that is still somewhat the standard view among the public ( in the South in particular ), the academic revisionism that trumpeted the successes of Reconstruction and played down the corruption ( often compared to far worse scandals in the contemporary North ) came in a wave in the 1960’s. That overoptimistic polar shift was somewhat challenged in later decades. Foner’s book is a synthesis, not simple revisionism.
offers up some conciliatory rat cheese