What's the point in educating yourself if you're going to argue against removing them? it is pointless. And these things have long served their purpose anyways. Haven't we been brainwashed enough about the war, Churchill, and all that BS?
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
If your protesting and fighting in the street outside a statue that was erected purely for a persons actions during a war, one moment in history, for the direct benefit of an entire country (or In fact world peace It could be argued) then yes, you are part of an ill judged mob.
A mob that is causing more harm than good and only serving to strengthen the resolve of the very racists they are fighting against.
I don’t think he was without a certain type of courage. His first publication concerned a late nineteenth-century Pathan tribal insurrection on British India’s North-West Frontier Province (the modern day Af-Pak border area). Churchill accompanied the largely (I think) Sikh army regiments sent to quash the rebels, reporting on the campaign as a correspondent. His accounts are, of course, replete with outrageous racial comments directed at the enemy. At the same time he appears to have engaged in several acts of valor, and clearly admired the Sikhs fighting on his side.
His next publication was an account of the British reconquest of the Sudan. Again he was a first-hand witness to many of the events. The racial commentary in this is less explicit than in the earlier work, but obviously still there. He also has some praise for the Sudanese Mahdi (who he compares not unfavorably with the hero General Gordon) and the role of Islam in bringing what he believed to be a higher form of civilization to previously pagan savages.
This is literally the same argument made by racists here in the US. Washington had slaves but he was one of the founding fathers so that negates any discussion about the atrocities of slavery and those who benefited from it. If this is your argument, you will never get around to addressing the genocide of native Americans or keep pretending that everything you were taught in school is correct, good enough for everyone.
Honestly you've shown yourself to be completely out of the loop when you say that I argue against removing them when time and again I've stated I've no issue with them being removed if the consensus is there beyond the anonymity of the mob taking things into their own hands.
Still waiting for you to show us where Mandela was brought into Whataboutery and the other points made which aren't answered by a lie about what I argue.
When you talk about Childish behaviour you'd better not show yourself to be thoroughly guilty of it.
Are you serious? can you not see how childish it is to bring Gandhi into this discussion?
Using "he killed the nazi's" to defend people who didn't wants jews, gypsies or gays in their own countries seems kind of offensive tbh. Churhill didn't fight the nazi's to stop the holocaust - no one who rejected jewish immigrants at the time should get that deference.
Well there we have it, complete abdication from yourself with the ultimate playground insult.
I don't really see how anyone can take you seriously when you make claims you cannot and won't back up with evidence.
The ball remains in your court. I'm disappointed because I hadn't expected it to be honest.
Like many leaders of his ilk he was highly likely a psychopath. If you read about his military and journalistic career he thrived on adventure and danger. He was reportedly a very courageous fighter on the battlefield and got into life threatening situations as a journalist. Psychopaths have much higher fear thresholds than regular people which is why they’re perfect for the special forces and so on. A lack of empathy would enable him to make a decision like the one that caused the Bengal Famine and move on from it unconcerned. Psychopaths are more likely to have substance abuse issues than non-psychopaths too.
WTF, are you even talking about? it is beyond childish to bring Gandhi into this discussion. If someone accuses you of being a racist, do you just say, well at least I am not racist as this other person? Can you not see how petty it comes across as?
Hmm.. still no evidence of claims made..
Nope, I'll still wait to answer your point while you prevaricate. No progress here I'm afraid.
TBF, I heard it is hard to find it when you've got blinders on. Keep at it, though.
Ok so I’m a racist because I don’t believe the statues should be taken down for racist views alone?
This is where your argument falls flat because we don’t, and you don’t, have the luxury to erase large chunks of monumentally important history just because those that shaped history were in fact human and a result of their environment and upbringing, they were and almost every white person was, a feckin racist.
I know that, you know that, but it makes no feckin difference.
Washington is likely America’s most influential historical figure, or at least up there, the same way Churchill (to a lesser extent) is a huge piece of British history. You or I can’t expunge history because it offends us. It’s laughable.
Germans keep Auschwits Open to tourists for a reason, so people never forget what happened, it’s our responsibility to look at the past and know that we’ve moved on from an ethical standpoint.
Taking down statues and pretending things in history never happened is counterproductive in more than one way, it serves to hamper education on these matters and only strengthens racists resolve.
And yet nobody is advocating for that
they don't keep auschwitch in the middle of a town centre where jewish people have to see it on the way their job
Its also there to educate people about what happened. Not to pretend it wasn't something bad and celebrate it
Who said anything about erasing history? I’m yet to hear anyone suggest a book burning
Wait around a while.
Laughable how? if anything, I'd be ashamed because it lead to the mass genocide of the natives. Something which is still happening to this day.
Im not sure anyone has to be honest
What a stupid fecking post. Auschwits is fecking chilling to the bone and it's there to remind of that horror so it's not repeated.
The statues are there to commemorate these men not the victims sufferings . No one's walking past Colston thinking about the horror of slavery. You want to elict that then put up a statue that draws on that subject not one that is grandstanding and proud.
Churchill is a mass murderer, if you dont see that you are blinded.
Im sceptical of these ideas. A relatively recent EU report on racism against black people in the EU found the UK to be among the very least racist countries in the EU. Germany was ranked as more racist by every measure and not insignificantly, a country that has supposedly ‘faced its racist history’. As far as I’m aware all the data disproves the idea that the UK is a uniquely racist country and actually shows that it’s one of the most tolerant. On a more anecdotal note the exiled Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei recently fled Germany for the UK because of the racist harassment he faced there.
Don't get me wrong, it might do something but I don’t think its as defining as a lot of people seem to like to imagine. I still feel going after Churchill could be counterproductive to the aims of BLM because of what he means to a lot of people here.
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/being-black-eu-summary
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...-life-in-britain-germany-virtual-reality-film
I dont think anyone is calling the UK uniquely racist. Just racist.
Fair, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say because of those things it's purely celebrating his wartime achievements. To the average viewer of the statue they probably wouldn't know those references in the statue and as you say it was a popular reference of how he was seen during that time and doesn't really suggest the statue is doing that to purely celebrate his achievements but rather making a statue of a person in their most recognisable state. What I mean is a plaque or a notice board which details him as a person reflecting both sides of him.
Well I didn't say that it wasn't educational if you're not on a guided tour. I asked what education you're receiving from a statue if there is no plaque or notice board talking about the person behind the statue. The education you will likely receive if there isn't anything is is what you find on the internet, in books or have been taught - it's not actually the statue itself. Before this debate began I don't think anyone could argue that the top hits on google and education people would receive about Churchill would be his wartime 'achievements' and not the racist side of him. Yes, you can google at the time but it is dependent on the narrative put forward and it's only now that people are taking the racist narrative behind Churchill as serious as the others.
...or it's making people talk about things? The reason people are talking about Churchill and confronting the colonial past and questioning some leaders that are held up in an invincible light is because the statue was spray painted/taken down. As has been said many times before the Colston statue was at the front of many campaigns in Bristol for a number of years and they tried to have it removed peacefully but nobody listened or wanted to have the conversation. People aren't simple either and can care about many things at the same time. Just because they care about racism doesn't mean they've forgotten about coronavirus and vice versa.
I was talking about the idea that ‘facing history’ will somehow make the UK a less racist country as it doesn’t seemed to have worked in Germany. I think a lot of people do think it’s uniquely racist though. I’d wager a lot of Irish people would be surprised that the study found the types of racism they looked more prevalent in Ireland than in the UK, for example.
I'm at the point now where I'm struggling to understand why people care so much about the statue staying up. Why is it offensive to you if it is removed? There is a clear argument as to why many people would find a statue of Churchill offensive which has been given multiple times in this thread but I don't see why it would be offensive from the other angle. If you're in that camp but you wouldn't be part of the group that is running around London today making salutes and other far right gestures then why exactly do you find it offensive?
By all means, a notice board is a great idea but it is hard to imagine how anyone would see him in a military style greatcoat and not appreciate the wartime role but of course, there will be some who cannot make that connection.
Come on. The least one could do is recognize the racism that is embedded in their own history. Why even jump to the conclusion that it won't solve the problem. Recognizing is just the first step of many yet to come.
I don't think anyone is saying facing history will eradicate racism, but it goes some way to help to educate people about it.
I also wouldn't say Germany really faced history about racism as a whole either, but thats another story.
I don't think people think the UK is uniquely racist but rather very hypocritical. As we saw last year when it was pointing the finger at others counties regarding racism in football but not doing enough to tackle it in their own game.
As we see with the current issue pointing its finger at the US when not dealing with the institutional racism in its own police force.
Or with WW2 acting like it fought a war against racism when it was only seeking to protect its own imperial interest and did little as possible to help Jews fleeing persecution actively having policies to stop them entering the UK
Because what he did for Britain and to protect the free world are in fact far more important than his opinions on race.
Im not remotely racist. However I know that if it’s removed it will only serve to strengthen racist people’s views.
We may as well remove every statue of a white man from this era. Almost to a man people were racist in some form back then.
I fail to see why anybody 3 or 4 generations removed from a famous political figure would struggle to walk past this statue on their way to work, because he was a racist in his private life.
I mean ffs, really? It’s 2020
You questioned what information you’re learning if you’re not on a guided tour. I took that as implying you’re not learning unless you’re on a guided tour, apologies.
I still think just being there could be educational as it prompts people to research the person. Not everyone obviously and those who don’t probably wouldn’t care much anyway.
I’m not bothered or fighting for statue or no statue but I do like the history and memorabilia of countries and cities I visit for the first time and it does prompt me to look into those things. If they’re not there, I never would.
I said was sceptical of how important it was. I didn’t say it wouldn’t work at all, nor that it shouldn’t happen in a moral sense. I actually think that people should seek as much knowledge as they can about our history. I originally said that going after Churchill could be counterproductive because of what he still means to the older generations. In 25 years he won’t be relevant.
Look at the demographics of the UK and the electoral system. The biggest threat the Tories will likely face at the next election is a further right nationalist party growing in reaction to this culture war which takes voters from it. This happened with UKIP on the Europe question and the Tories had to appease those voters which resulted in the referendum. There’s a real possibility it will force the Tories further right.
Many people have used the argument that Germany is different, that it has a more enlightened national self-perception because it had to face its racist history. The data in the study shows that it hasn’t translated into a higher degree of real life racial tolerance, however.
No worries, I understand what you mean and it is a good point that people do look things up while they are in museums or at a statue etc. I do it myself. I do agree to some extent, that is why I would argue for the statue to change it's context i.e be removed and put in a museum or be destroyed but have an archive made up of it.
I’m not directly comparing the two, just pointing out that history is history and you can’t just edit and remove what you don’t like.
If there’s not a statue of Churchill, perhaps the most famous PM in British history in the countries capital then that would be a little strange
I think some have lost their grip on reality
Well of course, people who have never seen military personnel but then again, he was an old man so even people who recognised military winter wear couldn't readily believe he was in the military. Obvious is obviousI suppose the people that don't know it is a military style greatcoat.
Disagree with the bolded. WW11 will always be high on the history agenda and a key figure in Churchill will always be studied.
Almost anybody other than Churchill and I’d agree. That said Nelson Column and other statues are still big attractions.