Winston Churchill

[amolbhatia50k]

This whole debate is quite dumb as there is a lack of understanding or respect for the fact that different things represent different values to different people, so you can only judge each thing and each person on its and their own merit.

The Churchill statue for example. I know enough about Churchill to be of the opinion that he wasn't a particularly great man and was actually responsible, or at least oversaw, some pretty awful things. However to me what a statue of him represents is taking in pride in fighting and defeating the nazis, and in ending a racist regime that was intent on eradicating "inferior" races of people from the planet. If someone defaces it with "was a racist" then although I'm never going to care enough about a statue to get angry about it, to me that is an extremely disrespectful and ignorant thing to do. It is also a very stupid thing to do given that it is actually quite obvious what the statue represents to a lot of perfectly reasonable people.

To another person the same statue might represent British led atrocities, or historic racism...and I would be all for engaging in discussions that find a way to be respectful to everyone. Whether that means moving the statue, replacing it with something else, taking steps to more fully acknowledge what it represents to everyone. I suspect not many people at all would be completely against this. Only the very extreme end of the right wing spectrum.

There are some statues which are literally just statues of rich men who were rich because they traded slaves. There are some, like the one that got thrown into the sea, that widely divide people as to what they represent...and then there are some, like the Churchill one, which are clearly not there to glorify or celebrate historical racism.

If we're really serious about making this all about statues, and I don't know why we are, then there should be discussions and a unified approach. Remove a statue because, as a society, we want to respect what it means to black people, rather than just to ourselves. Not have an angry mob go around targetting statues or vandalising people's streets without giving anyone else so much as a say in the matter, never mind respecting them.

Completely agree. I'm Indian so I couldn't give a flying feck about Churchill tbh. Sounds like someone whose glorified reputation doesn't match his deeds which appear to be pretty woeful.

But he is probably the most well known and respected (within Britain?) British leader who is an important figure for many Brits I imagine who don't care about his darker past and only of how he did well in their interests. Regardless of the morals involved in that, which can be debated, you don't go around vandalising such statues like a bunch of hooligans.

 

[entropy]

@oates I brought up Islamophobia because it is a by-product of this exact style of thinking and we are witnessing its rise in tenfolds. When you’re exposed to history, media, culture etc all told through the lens of an empire, you are bound to defend it at every turn. It's just that you have replaced one enemy for another. It was fascism Churchill was fighting then. But now it is terrorism or nuclear weapons when we invade Iraq or bomb some poor country in the middle east. By refusing to look or acknowledge the disasters these issues were built on and have lead to, you are basically enabling it.

 

[fergies coat]

Like others have said before, to me the statue signifies the achievements in the second world war.

It feels like the message of blm has been a bit lost with all this. We need to look at the future not the past.

 

[Cassidy]

Like others have said before, to me the statue signifies the achievements in the second world war.

It feels like the message of blm has been a bit lost with all this. We need to look at the future not the past.

Can't do that without understanding the past. Which is why the years of airbrushing of Churchill and his character and actions are an important topic.

 

[fergies coat]

Can't do that without understanding the past. Which is why the years of airbrushing of Churchill and his character and actions are an important topic.

I know, which is all about education in schools. Vandalising things that a lot of British care about is not the way to go.

 

[RedC]

I know, which is all about education in schools. Vandalising things that a lot of British care about is not the way to go.

Caring about people like Churchill, while fully aware of the things he did, is part of why racism exists in your country.

 

[Cassidy]

I know, which is all about education in schools. Vandalising things that a lot of British care about is not the way to go.

Yeah the vandalism is the problem...

 

[fergies coat]

Yeah the vandalism is the problem...

Fantastic response.

 

[fergies coat]

Caring about people like Churchill, while fully aware of the things he did, is part of why racism exists in your country.

It's more of a moment in time, than the person. What would of happened if Hitler or Stalin got their hands on the rest of Europe?

 

[The Purley King]

Caring about people like Churchill, while fully aware of the things he did, is part of why racism exists in your country.

It is possible to respect (edit - and be grateful for) his leadership during the war, his speeches and his never say die attitude whilst at the same time disagreeing with other things that he did and views that he held.

 

[RedC]

It is possible to respect (edit - and be grateful for) his leadership during the war, his speeches and his never say die attitude whilst at the same time disagreeing with other things that he did and views that he held.

I'm not saying it isn't, but people with this level of 'other things' should not be lauded. There is a difference between what you've said, and having statues of someone who was as bad a person as Churchill was.

 

[Brwned]

I think it will take another 10-20 years to move on from Churchill. My parents generation are still deeply connected to the war narrative because they grew up straight after it and their parents were directly involved in it. The generations after mine will have much less of a connection to it because of never having a living link to it like I did growing up.

I think going after Churchill is a bad move for BLM personally. It’s massively divisive because of what he means to those generations. I don’t think talking about his very mixed legacy, to be polite, will result in any shift from the attachment that those generations have to him.

If this culture war becomes even further embittered, as I fear it will this weekend, then I think you’ll see a Nigel Farage type fire up a political movement standing in opposition to BLM, this will draw a significant number of socially conservative Tory voters away, the ones that are disgusted with the police response to the protests last week and so on. As a result The Tories will adopt a more right wing position In the next election that disenfranchises minority voters in order to win them back.

I think wanting people to suddenly shift their opinion from hero to monster is silly. The subjectivity in deciding what would have happened if he wasn't there, how much influence he had etc. allow plenty of room for disagreement.

Whether he was a racist or not isn't really in question, though. They can be attached to him while still acknowledging the simple fact he was racist. There's lots of iconic figures in history that people identify with or look up to while recognising their flaws.

You have people in this thread saying "no-one denies he was a racist" or "surely the history books don't ignore his failings" but this is how he is still talked about today:

While Churchill is credited with helping lead the Allies to victory in World War Two, some critics accuse him of racism because of comments he made about Indians.

Some critics accuse him of that, that's as far as it goes. I think it's possible that this spectacle could move the conversation on to the point where it's no longer framed as an attack on his legacy, but a recognition of his unquestionable failings. I believe how people think about defining moments and people in a country's history plays a role in a country's identity, and it isn't a pointless or academic endeavour. Recognition that Churchill was racist would be a positive contribution to combatting racism in the country now.

 

[oates]

@oates I brought up Islamophobia because it is a by-product of this exact style of thinking and we are witnessing its rise in tenfolds. When you’re exposed to history, media, culture etc all told through the lens of an empire, you are bound to defend it at every turn. It's just that you have replaced one enemy for another. It was fascism Churchill was fighting then. But now it is terrorism or nuclear weapons when we invade Iraq or bomb some poor country in the middle east. By refusing to look or acknowledge the disasters these issues were built on and have lead to, you are basically enabling it.

No, I think it was a bit of the old Whataboutism going on from you at the time and I'm struggling tbh to make any kind of sense of your post and any attempt to relate to mine. Personally I think it's just an attempt to avoid an admission of double standards. I think people mostly understand that.

 

[sammsky1]

Like others have said before, to me the statue signifies the achievements in the second world war.

It feels like the message of blm has been a bit lost with all this. We need to look at the future not the past.

Despite years and huge numbers of abuse, it took 2 VDO's (Floyd George and Amy Cooper) to provide irrefutable evidence that racism against blacks was alive and prevalent in USA. It's now also clear that unless you can visually demonstrate racism, you wont be able enforce real change.

Racism in UK isn't expressed through police brutality any more, but its roots remain in Britain's 'original sin', which was the 300 year culture of the white supremacist colonial empire. Slave trader, Churchill and other colonialists statues are an obvious and crude representations of this to UK BAME people, so it's obvious to me that protestors would target visible 'low hanging fruit' as the first act to spark a conversation.

BLM will have many vastly experienced and intelligent campaigners, who know exactly what they are doing, and will be formulating plans to visually expose how racism exists in UK. In just one week, BLM has forced UK to confront a subject were are so afraid to admit. It's blown open the entire conversation.

Cancelling todays BLM protest for example was a masterstroke, as it allowed the UK silent majority to understand what far right supporters of Churchill look like without distraction or MSM manipulation; people can make ups their own minds on which sides of the fence they wish to be.

I'm convinced BLM is attracting huge numbers of UK sympathisers every minute of the day, whom will interpret the issues of racism through a UK context

 

[sammsky1]

It is possible to respect (edit - and be grateful for) his leadership during the war, his speeches and his never say die attitude whilst at the same time disagreeing with other things that he did and views that he held.

I agree with you. And I hope it is neutrally taught and expressed this way in British culture and education in the years to come.

 

[The Purley King]

I'm not saying it isn't, but people with this level of 'other things' should not be lauded. There is a difference between what you've said, and having statues of someone who was as bad a person as Churchill was.

Well that is where you and I will disagree and probably the vast majority of the UK will disagree with you too.
That’s fine though everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[entropy]

No, I think it was a bit of the old Whataboutism going on from you at the time and I'm struggling tbh to make any kind of sense of your post and any attempt to relate to mine. Personally I think it's just an attempt to avoid an admission of double standards. I think people mostly understand that.

Nonsense. If anything, I am baffled by how you can’t seem to connect the dots between the rise of right wing lunatics like Farage or Boris, and the rhetoric against removing these statues. Just look at the idiots who descended upon London to protect these statues. These are the same lunatics in the US, who adore the likes of Washington and founding fathers who helped oversee the genocide of native Indians.

 

[fergies coat]

Despite years and huge numbers of abuse,. It took 2 VDO's (Floyd George and Amy Cooper) to provide irrefutable evidence that racism against blacks was alive and prevalent in USA. It's now also clear that unless you can visually demonstrate racism, you wont be able get enforce real change.

Racism in UK isn't expressed through police brutality any more, but its roots remain in Britain's 'original sin', which was the 300 year culture of the white supremacist colonial empire. Slave trader, Churchill and other colonialists statues are an obvious and crude representation of this to UK BAME people, so it's obvious to me that they would target visible 'low hanging fruit' as their first act to spark a conversation.

In just one week, BLM has forced UK to confront a subject were are so afraid to admit. It's blown open the entire conversation. BLM will have many vastly experienced and intelligent campaigners, who know exactly what they are doing, and will be formulating plans to visually expose how racism exists in UK.

Cancelling todays BLM protest for example was a masterstroke, as it allowed the UK silent majority to understand what far right supporters of Churchill look like without distraction or MSM manipulation; people can make ups their own minds on which sides of the fence they wish to be.

I'm convinced BLM is attracting huge numbers of UK sympathisers every minute of the day, whom will interpret the issues of racism through a UK context

They have forced us to look at our history, and that starts with education in school.

Not everyone who understands what Churchill did (as in regards to ww2) is a far right racist.

If we did sign a peace treaty with Adolf Hitler, racism and society could be a lot worse today.

You can admire and respect what Churchill did, and not be racist, without whitewashing the other stuff.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

It's more of a moment in time, than the person. What would of happened if Hitler or Stalin got their hands on the rest of Europe?

It's been raised before in this thread by myself and others, but the idea that anything particular that Churchill did made a massive difference to the outcome of the war is a bit of a British fairytale. In 1940 neither Germany or Britain realistically had the resources to launch a cross-channel invasion and both sides knew it, which is why the bulk of the German army was moved to the Eastern Front, where they lost the war - the Luftwaffe was told to bomb Britain almost as an afterthought in the hopes it might result in a peace settlement. Churchill's reputation as a great hero is built on the idea that he never backed down in the face of overwhelming odds, but the reality is that Britain never seriously faced overwhelming odds outside of our own propaganda. In 1940, Churchill knew there was no serious prospect of invasion and so surrender was never a credible possibility. He himself later said that the government intentionally encouraged the fear of invasion for propaganda purposes. Ultimately, the idea that we were bravely facing off an insurmountable enemy on the doorstep was (and remains) far more satisfying than the reality that we'd been fought to a stalemate and the Germans were comfortable to concentrate their strength elsewhere safe in the knowledge that we posed no threat to their occupation of mainland Western Europe.

 

[oates]

Nonsense. If anything, I am baffled by how you can’t seem to connect the dots between the rise of right wing lunatics like Farage or Boris, and the rhetoric against removing these statues. Just look at the idiots who descended upon London to protect these statues. These are the same lunatics in the US, who adore the likes of Washington and founding fathers who helped oversee the genocide of native Indians.

Well now we're on a shifting sands argument from you and a suggestion just like @sammsky1 of aligning myself with either Boris and Nigel or with the idiots themselves can't be long in arriving. We have in reality the same goals but a sense from you that you cannot brook any difference in approach.

 

[sammsky1]

They have forced us to look at our history, and that starts with education in school.
Not everyone who understands what Churchill did (as in regards to ww2) is a far right racist.
If we did sign a peace treaty with Adolf Hitler, racism and society could be a lot worse today.
You can admire and respect what Churchill did, and not be racist, without whitewashing the other stuff.

Not sure how many times I have to repeat the same point:

Yes you can, but it's not what Britain did after WW2. You may know British history better but your lived experience is not what the vast majority has lived.

Britains 300 year white supremacist colonial empire history and Churchill's 'other' attributes to war time leader are not part of government education or mainstream culture.

Forget schooling before 18, even during my 'UK Economic History' classes at University of Manchester, we covered 'The Protestant Work Ethic' and 'Industrial Revolution' but the Colonial Empire was never mentioned even once. Ditto, we covered WW2 as part of my politics classes, but Churchills white supremacist beliefs or acts in India were never covered.

 

[fergies coat]

It's been raised before in this thread by myself and others, but the idea that anything particular that Churchill did made a massive difference to the outcome of the war is a bit of a British fairytale. In 1940 neither Germany or Britain realistically had the resources to launch a cross-channel invasion and both sides knew it, which is why the bulk of the German army was moved to the Eastern Front, where they lost the war - the Luftwaffe was told to bomb Britain almost as an afterthought in the hopes it might result in a peace settlement. Churchill's reputation as a great hero is built on the idea that he never backed down in the face of overwhelming odds, but the reality is that Britain never seriously faced overwhelming odds outside of our own propaganda. In 1940, Churchill knew there was no serious prospect of invasion and so surrender was never a credible possibility. He himself later said that the government intentionally encouraged the fear of invasion for propaganda purposes. Ultimately, the idea that we were bravely facing off an insurmountable enemy on the doorstep was (and remains) far more satisfying than the reality that we'd been fought to a stalemate and the Germans were comfortable to concentrate their strength elsewhere safe in the knowledge that we posed no threat to their occupation of mainland Western Europe.

Have you never heard of operation sealion? Okay so we sign a peace treaty with Hitler then, he loses the war in russia. Do you think Stalin wouldn't of took the rest of Europe, if the U.S and Britain wasn't involved?

 

[sammsky1]

Well now we're on a shifting sands argument from you and a suggestion just like @sammsky1 of aligning myself with either Boris and Nigel or with the idiots themselves can't be long in arriving. We have in reality the same goals but a sense from you that you cannot brook any difference in approach.

Please dont tag me in a conversation that has nothing to do with me. Thanks

 

[oates]

Please dont tag me in a conversation that has nothing to do with me. Thanks

Don't be silly, the tactics are the same and I don't write about a person without tagging them. You can choose to ignore just as I have.

 

[sammsky1]

Don't be silly, the tactics are the same and I don't write about a person without tagging them. You can choose to ignore just as I have.

Again, I request you don't tag me in a post that has nothing to do with me.

 

[fergies coat]

Not sure how many times I have to repeat the same point:

Yes you can, but it's not what Britain did after WW2. You may know British history better but your lived experience is not what the vast majority has lived.

Britains 300 year white supremacist colonial empire history and Churchill's 'other' attributes to war time leader are not part of government education or mainstream culture. Even during my 'UK Economic History' classes at University of Manchester, we covered 'The Protestant Work Ethic and 'Industrial Revolution' but the Colonial Empire was never mentioned even once. Ditto, we covered WW2 as part of my politics classes, but Churchills white supremacist beliefs or acts in India were never covered.

I know and this is why i said they have to cover all of this in school education. We never learned any of this in school.

It was only after i left school that i discovered what the British empire was really like, by reading up on it and the invention of the internet. It really isn't good enough.

 

[sammsky1]

I know and this is why i said they have to cover all of this in school education. We never learned any of this in school.

It was only after i left school that i discovered what the British empire was really like, by reading up on it and the invention of the internet. It really isn't good enough.

Glad we agree!

 

[entropy]

Well now we're on a shifting sands argument from you and a suggestion just like @sammsky1 of aligning myself with either Boris and Nigel or with the idiots themselves can't be long in arriving. We have in reality the same goals but a sense from you that you cannot brook any difference in approach.

Can you not see the dichotomy of your own argument? you want these statues for educational purposes(like we haven’t gotten enough of that thanks to our shitty public school system) but also want to distance yourself from right-wing lunatics who adore Churchill. You have the luxury of picking and choosing parts of history you want to highlight, while comfortably turning a blind eye to those who might be offended by it. I am not sure how anyone can do that, while also railing against Trump, or Boris. I am also shocked that you'd discard my point about Islamophobia as whataboutism. When we are witnessing it right before our eyes.

 

[RUCK4444]

It's been raised before in this thread by myself and others, but the idea that anything particular that Churchill did made a massive difference to the outcome of the war is a bit of a British fairytale. In 1940 neither Germany or Britain realistically had the resources to launch a cross-channel invasion and both sides knew it, which is why the bulk of the German army was moved to the Eastern Front, where they lost the war - the Luftwaffe was told to bomb Britain almost as an afterthought in the hopes it might result in a peace settlement. Churchill's reputation as a great hero is built on the idea that he never backed down in the face of overwhelming odds, but the reality is that Britain never seriously faced overwhelming odds outside of our own propaganda. In 1940, Churchill knew there was no serious prospect of invasion and so surrender was never a credible possibility. He himself later said that the government intentionally encouraged the fear of invasion for propaganda purposes. Ultimately, the idea that we were bravely facing off an insurmountable enemy on the doorstep was (and remains) far more satisfying than the reality that we'd been fought to a stalemate and the Germans were comfortable to concentrate their strength elsewhere safe in the knowledge that we posed no threat to their occupation of mainland Western Europe.

So I’m summary the fact he could have signed an agreement with the antichrist that was Hitler and never means nothing to you because he happened to be a racist.

Sorry but that’s a bollox opinion and I’m not even a staunch supporter of Churchill.

The guy was a leader and had balls, that much is fact and your neat little summary in hindsight that is designed to make out we we’re never facing a threat from Germany is a poor generalisation designed to minimise his influence during the war.

Stick to facts, apparently he was racist, I can understand people having an issue with that, let’s not pick apart his involvement in the war, experts who know more than you or I will tell you different.

 

[oates]

Can you not see the dichotomy of your own argument? you want these statues for educational purposes(like we haven’t gotten enough of that thanks to our shitty public school system) but also want to distance yourself from right wing lunatics who adore Churchill. You have the luxury of picking and choosing parts of history you want to highlight, while comfortably turning a blind eye to those who might be offended by it. I am not sure how anyone can do that, while also railing against Trump, or Boris.

Again, more smokescreen.

Today has shown that when BLM choose to leave the idiots to make themselves irrelevant all on their own has been the correct tactic and I applaud it, it shows the British Public what Tommy Robinsons idiots are all about, just as they do when they decide to go on tour during competitions. They embarrass the country and the people all on their own and leave no opportunity for Johnson to show any support.

Someone will set me straight but so far in the last 5 or 6 years no campaign or demonstrations have achieved anything but reviews from Govt. committees and NGOs. No action has yet to be taken following on from recommendations made. BLM needs to be able to laugh at the radical racists and use popular culture and media to support the movement so long as the middle ground can easily identify with the injustice. Then you will be in a position to discuss how and what statues are relevant with the values we need to instil in Britain. Turning no blind eyes whatsoever. It won't serve to be the other side of the radical coin.

 

[devilish]

The Roman empire was an empire that ended thousands of years ago. It started in Rome but spread throughout most of Europe and North Africa. It was a hugely multi ethnic empire. Claudius was from Gaul (France), Trajan and Hadrian were born in Spain, Septimius Severus was from Libya, Macrinus was from Algeria, Elagabalus, Philip II and Severus Alexander were born in Syria, Maximius Thraxe was from today's Bulgaria and the list goes on and on. Also in the end Rome got sacked so many times and it was repopulated by so many people that only some fascist like Mussolini would dare attributing modern Italian origin to the ancient Romans.

Destroying the Colosseum would be the equivalent of destroying Teotihuacán or to shit on the ruins of Carthage because they offered human sacrifices. It serves no purpose. Similarly to the Aztecs, the Romans are gone. No sane person can state that hes a Roman descendent and even if he can do that, there's no way to know if in reality his ancestor was truly a Roman or some slave brought to serve some Roman nobleman. There's a huge chance that he was both as it was common for slaves to be released.

However the UK/US still exists, local people identify with the likes of Churchill as one of their own and they glorify these people through these monuments.Which is why minorities whose ancestors might have suffered under the man might be pissed off about it.

 

[Raoul]

It is possible to respect (edit - and be grateful for) his leadership during the war, his speeches and his never say die attitude whilst at the same time disagreeing with other things that he did and views that he held.

I think most would consider this fair. The US founding fathers are also somewhat in this category - most of them were slaveowners, but yet are revered as having founded the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklyn, Hancock, etc. So there is a way to successfully decouple the good and the bad, and still recognize the existence of both.

 

[RedC]

Given all of the accounts of Churchill's disregard for other races, was he really 'ballsy', or did he just have absolutely no regard for human life in general? I'm sure someone that didn't care about others dying found it quite easy to make these supposed 'brave' decisions.

 

[starman]

Spoiler

Ah, I can see Churchill is going to use the Tardis to go back in time to eradicate his imperfections but will also change the result of the war to make sure the righteous generational superiority cnuts can't be born and complain about him while they view history from the prism and comforts of 2020...

 

[entropy]

Again, more smokescreen.

Today has shown that when BLM choose to leave the idiots to make themselves irrelevant all on their own has been the correct tactic and I applaud it, it shows the British Public what Tommy Robinsons idiots are all about, just as they do when they decide to go on tour during competitions. They embarrass the country and the people all on their own and leave no opportunity for Johnson to show any support.

Someone will set me straight but so far in the last 5 or 6 years no campaign or demonstrations have achieved anything but reviews from Govt. committees and NGOs. No action has yet to be taken following on from recommendations made. BLM needs to be able to laugh at the radical racists and use popular culture and media to support the movement so long as the middle ground can easily identify with the injustice. Then you will be in a position to discuss how and what statues are relevant with the values we need to instil in Britain. Turning no blind eyes whatsoever. It won't serve to be the other side of the radical coin.

Honestly, I am just going to chalk this up as a generation gap thing. Because you seem to think whataboutism is an argument to everything. When in reality, I am giving examples of events that have happened just in the last decade. I suggest you read some post-colonial history. Because I wasn't taught anything different from what you were taught in school. We are all taught the same BS. It is upon you to understand why or how offensive it is to still have these statues in the year 2020. Also, I am sorry but dragging Gandhi or Mandela into an argument about Churchill reeks only of whataboutism and comes across as very childish.

 

[entropy]

So I’m summary the fact he could have signed an agreement with the antichrist that was Hitler and never means nothing to you because he happened to be a racist.

Sorry but that’s a bollox opinion and I’m not even a staunch supporter of Churchill.

The guy was a leader and had balls, that much is fact and your neat little summary in hindsight that is designed to make out we we’re never facing a threat from Germany is a poor generalisation designed to minimise his influence during the war.

Stick to facts, apparently he was racist, I can understand people having an issue with that, let’s not pick apart his involvement in the war, experts who know more than you or I will tell you different.

Ahh, yes. The nuance this argument was lacking.

 

[oates]

Honestly, I am just going to chalk this up as a generation gap thing. Because you seem to think whataboutism is an argument to everything. When in reality, I am giving examples of events that have happened just in the last decade. I suggest you read some post-colonial history. Because I wasn't taught anything different from what you were taught in school. We are all taught the same BS. It is upon you to understand why or how offensive it is to still have these statues in the year 2020. Also, I am sorry but dragging Gandhi or Mandela into an argument about Churchill reeks only of whataboutism and comes across as very childish.

I've already told people of an excellent book that displays what the British Empire was and the injustices and brutality involved and the onus has been for us to educate ourselves up til now. Perhaps it is a generational gap but when you choose to fight statues and then shout about Islamaphobia which has nothing to do with the topic of Gandhi statues that are still being installed it is about Whataboutism when you constantly scream racist at one heritage but not another which was also racist then people notice. I have no idea where Mandela somehow came into this whataboutism of yours but perhaps you'll link that post for me?

In reality we are talking about statues and you can tell me all about those events during the last ten years at another time. What you have to do though at the same time is talk about the Racism displayed by those peoples too if you want to convince another people about Equality.

I find it strange that I bother to address your points and you continue to ignore mine but you don't get to only identify one sort of BS when you do that.

 

[RUCK4444]

Ahh, yes. The nuance this argument was lacking.

True though, you telling me he didn’t?

But by all means, let’s burn his legacy into ashes to appease the mob. I’m sure that will fix everything.
Oh wait look what happened in London today...

Statues aren’t the problem. Racists don’t exactly flock to worship them ffs. But that’s is what is happening today in London, why? Because people wanted to bring statues into the argument and now they will be used for the entirely wrong purpose and viewed through only this racist debate and not what they were erected for.

 

[entropy]

True though, you telling me he didn’t?

But by all means, let’s burn his legacy into ashes to appease the mob. I’m sure that will fix everything.
Oh wait look what happened in London today...

Wanting to remove the statue of someone who clearly was a racist, responsible for the death of millions makes you part of the mob?? weird

 

[The Purley King]

Honestly, I am just going to chalk this up as a generation gap thing. Because you seem to think whataboutism is an argument to everything. When in reality, I am giving examples of events that have happened just in the last decade. I suggest you read some post-colonial history. Because I wasn't taught anything different from what you were taught in school. We are all taught the same BS. It is upon you to understand why or how offensive it is to still have these statues in the year 2020. Also, I am sorry but dragging Gandhi or Mandela into an argument about Churchill reeks only of whataboutism and comes across as very childish.

I’ll be the first to say that the education in the uk is deficient with Churchill. I only found about about all the bad stuff quite recently and I’d imagine most British people are the same. That is one positive thing to come out of all of this and hopefully lessons can be more balanced in the future.
What did Gandhi do that was so bad ? What bad views did he have? If he’s In the doghouse as well now then there is zero hope for anyone born 100+ years ago, may as well call them all racists and be done with it.