THank you both for your kind comments, and for hearing me out.

Also, Mr Dave the Gnome, about revisionists: I agree with you, it is always subjective, of course, tho' there are fundamental facts that need to be respected within an interpretation.

Someone on this forum speculated that Kenneth had been asked to leave South AFrica. That is categorically untrue! Such a thing never happened: the only British historian who has ever been asked to leave this country was David Irving, maybe one of you is confusing Kenneth with him (though that is one heck of a quantum leap - from Irving to Kenneth Griffith!)

Irving was kicked out of this country after his last attempt at public speaking here, sometime in the 1980s. When he reapplied to enter SA, he was informed that though British subjects do not require visas to enter South AFrica, in his case the SA government was going to make an exception.
Thank God.

And to Mr Penguin Egg: possibly, if you view Kenneth's outpourings within the context of, say, his championing of the Untouchables of India, you will see why I am saying that for him, finding the underdog - any underdog - was crucial. Where he could not find, he created one. Thus his (crazy!) championing also of Zola Budd, the Afrikaans girl who was barred from running in the Olympics because she refused to renounce apartheid (the subject of more brawls with us). And his championing of Gay Liberation. (Please note, I am NOT in any way denigrating that worthy and important movement! Simply illustrating how Kenneth sought out, and then loudly extolled, any group of people or individual he could portray as outcasts. His choice of subject matter was guided not so much by rational seeking as by intuitive floundering towards situations where he might find an injustice, real or imagined, to protest against. Very often, though, he did get it right: his film on Tom Payne was superb ("The most Valuable Englishman WHo Ever Lived"), also his films on CLive of INdia and on Jesus.

THank you again for letting me join the forum.