I dunno, there probably is an element of the media trying to stir something but I think the conversation around the Churchill statue right now is simply due to the wider context of removing statues of various historical figures. Unlike just vandalising it, removing a statue sparks debate about merely sweeping history under the carpet etc. It's not really something we've seen before, and certainly not under this big a spotlight.
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
Definitely because it's an anti-racism protest that's caused it. I imagine 99% of them couldn't care less about the statue or the reason it's there, they don't like lefties, "antifa" or black people, so it's the perfect excuse to try and fight them and cause trouble or go on social media and rant about how awful they are.
I mean, you want your protest to get huge media hype but you don't expect /want vandalism involved in it of important statues, to do so, and seemingly also cry foul over it. Accept the hype, there's been this much hype mostly because a terrible act happened in the US (as opposed to a developing country ) and everything there becomes huge. So the related misdemeanors will also garner more attention. Yes, it's a typical right wing media tactic to go "oh THOSE bad people.." and it happens here too, but this time it's your own tactical move and you've touched a very sensitive topic so let's not whinge about that we well.
Better to say that then. The way it was written originally (that you agreed with) is very dismissive.
Also, who's idea specifically is it to focus on statues? (Symbols etc). Because like you say, its not at the top of the list of things that need to be sorted.
Does it matter? Once you go there, you have to accept that it's going to be made into a big deal especially if the figure involved is a very big deal and your protest is getting 24x7 media coverage anyway. Not to mention that these are anyway nationalistic issues the RW media loves to use to blow their patriotic trumpet.
Yes... yes it does matter. Especially if you're going to suggest it's one of the focuses. Don't you think?
British troops force fed them their own genitalia too. Utterly depraved & disgusting.
I never understand why someone doesnt at least the post that someone replied to before jumping in. It often explains the context of said post
Good chance that some of those troops are still alive too. I know the government paid some compensation a while back but I don't think any troops were ever prosecuted.
jesus christ. If you haven’t studied something much then it’s better to keep quiet in this topic rather than posting a question like that.
Is it though? I know there are calls to get rid of the Cecil Rhodes statue in Oxford but the group behind this is a student group there, not BLM.
The Bristol one of Colston wasn't a demand from BLM it was people taking advantage of the protest to finally get rid of it, as thousands of people (including myself) had been complaining about that for years.
The Baden Powell statue was the decision of the local council, though it didn't get removed as other locals protected it.
The Milligan statue was removed by the local authority.
I haven't seen demands from BLM organisers for any statues to come down, though I might have missed it, I have seen plenty of talk of why they're wrong and backing for protestors in Bristol who did it. But in all the things that BLM are fighting for statues are not a top priority. It seems to me that the media jumped on the Colston statue incident that happened at the same time as the grafitti on Churchill and the Cenotaph and conflated them all and riled everyone up. It's an easy thing for the right wing to jump on as everyone saw what happened in Charlottesville over the removal of the Lee statue there.
The statue argument has changed the discourse around the protests from both the media and politicians, it's an easy headline and an easy way to disrupt a protest that actually had a lot of public support, now suddenly our history, culture etc are under threat in a way they weren't when previous protest [like stop the war or anticapitalism] were not about racial equality.
Last edited:
Just found this as well from the Guardian, again not BLM
It doesn't matter what his history is or my history is, it's about what the history of Britain as a whole is. For the country, Churchill's biggest achievement was WW2, and that's what he is remembered for in this country. Other countries are free to remember him for what he did relative to them.
I disagree on your second point too. Living in a democratic society, you don't have to like what the majority does, but you do have to accept it. You can change the majority if you are capable of doing so, by voting or by other means, but the direction should always be governed by what the majority wants.
Last edited:
I'd be surprised if your average person knows that BLM is an organisation with its own mission statement tbh. Most seem to use it as a catch all term for the recent protests and anti-racist sentiment, so would have no trouble grouping everything under this current wave together.
The compensation is a whole other argument as well, but this isn't the thread for that. Nobody has been prosecuted though, and I doubt they ever will be.
Not really. Our literacy rate in 1947 was 12-13%.
Divide and rule strategy was actually brought in by the British. Add to that, the way Radcliffe line was drawn meant that there were always going to be tensions between India and Pakistan about some part of the land or the other. Maybe, it might have even resulted in India and Pakistan living peacefully and by extension the religion based tensions in India could have been lower.
On the social reform front, I'd maybe give them some credit. While it was brought in by Roy and the likes, one can argue that this shift in mentality might have been inspired by seeing them not practise some insane rituals.
I'm not sure what's controversial about this? Of course the history of the nation matters more to the nation state (insofar as you can call the UK that) than another nation, even if there's a multi ethnic minority in the country.
I think you're absolutely right about this, which is why when someone writes " It's BLM who are focusing on statues " it has to be pointed out as incorrect. It's also damaging to the movement to be conflated with everything that goes on like that. BLM in my mind has important aims and goals around overcoming institutional and systemic racism, to see that all derailed into an argument about statues is unsurprising given our press and politicians but massively disappointing.
So it's ok for the Germans to state that their Jewish minorities history (and by extension feelings) don't matter? You'd get behind that would you?
In all these arguements, nobody wants to be nuanced with the positions they take.
Indeed. Thanks for expanding on the point I was trying to make. Maybe it'll get a few people to think before they speak?
FFS give it a rest pal. I've posted multiple times that I meant no office and if you bother to read the thread it's actually sparked some interesting debate on the matter. I've been shot for asking the question but it's fine for others to then discuss it apparently. Hey ho.
I disagree. How can it be definitely? That’s a stretch.
As 2 man midfield as said, this time a statue has come down and they are actively being targeted to be pulled down, it’s not just some spray paint along with another cause, people actually hate Churchill and Britain and want the statue Down, as we can clearly see in this thread. But of course, if anyone wants to defend that these days they’re racist.
Nobody is stating such a thing. The treatment of the Jewish minority and their own national soul searching is an important part of the foundation of modern Germany, just like the struggle against Nazism embodied by Churchill is important in Britain.
I don't know about all that.... but sometimes you have to ask yourself, why are you defending something? and what are you defending it from? and then evaluate the answers you come to...
With all the things that have been highlighted to you (in this thread and elsewhere) about the figure that you guys are staunchly defending it may be time for you to do a bit of soul searching....
I don't disagree with this but the problem is we have a cockroach government that you just can't stamp out actively meddling in the curriculum to whitewash the bad things Churchill and the empire did. Unless something changes in terms of education then things may well just get worse not better in terms of how he and the empire are viewed by the wider British public.
As has been pointed out before, the history of modern Britain does not belong to the (traditional white) British alone, for very obvious reasons. That's true for every society with a history of expansion through war and colonization, and the British Empire has been the largest in human history.
How do you apply that, just one example, to the treatment of black Americans in the 1950s? From your standpoint, they must have been wrong not to accept what the majority wants.
See my post above.
That’s a fair point mate, and honestly, I’d have you as one of the top posters here with a sound levelled head in this so I will always take what you say Onboard.
I guess I just get irked at white people accusing others of definite racism when it’s clearly mot
I’ve made my points already in this thread as to why I think statues and the like are good to be in cities as a prompt to researching the person and educating yourself briefly. It doesn’t mean you have to sit down and read war and peace to learn.
I also see the other side of wanting statues taken down, whether this is the aim at the moment or not, I dont know the timing is bad.
but to see posters say this is just the same as before with a bit of paint or no one actually thinks the statue will come down is a bit of a stretch tbh if they’ve also seen the hate towards Churchill and British history both in this thread and elsewhere.
No, you don't have to accept it.
If you see injustice or inequality anywhere you should be doing everything you can to highlight and fight it any way you can whether it's through the ballet box, protest/agitation.
The fact the majority have accepted inequality and racist behaviour over the years is the reason why we're still having these conversations in 2020.
I am not British, and I am not defending Churchill in particular right now. I am pointing out that the national myths, true or not, of a nation does indeed matter more than the feelings of a minority. Arguing for a more nuanced view of Churchill or any other historic person or national myth doesn't change that, however true and just it might be.
The protest has highlighted it and that's why we have this thread. Education is key and I'm sure they're loads of people who now know the truth about Churchill when previously they didn't.
It will take time and perseverance before the general public will agree to take action though.
The history of a country is somewhat detached from the history of the people within it.
Black Americans in the 50s and 60s were able to change the majority view. Like i said in the previous post, people are welcome to try to do the same about Churchill. Then and only then will you have consent in pulling down his statues.
Last edited:
That is true, but the Empire is gone, and India alone has a population near twenty times as big as the UK, and with a larger economy. It's not as if the UK is holding India or any other former colony back (as far as I know) from having their own national narratives about Churchill.
Like someone else pointed out, Napoleon has a very different place in the national narratives of the UK and France. Countries don't need to have a uniform view on specific historical figures or events. Several narratives, being true and important in different ways to different nations, can coexist.
I like this.Here's what the Indians did at the Mutiny Memorial in Delhi, which was originally built in 1863 to commemorate those on the British side (both British and their Indian allies) who lost their lives during the siege of Delhi in 1857. Rather than pull it down they basically just flipped the narrative. I doubt this helps to increase our understanding of those events very much, but at least it provides some corrective/balance:
The original:
The amendment:
I hear you. I can't speak for white people being over zealous in condemning other white people. All I will say is, personally, I wouldn't be defending the man (why would I want to? being my prevailing thought), and as far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they want with his statue. The white-washing of history is more of an issue to my mind, as this has more of an effect on people and how minorities can feel about themselves etc.
But, It's okay to say 'I dislike the man, but thing/event/etc was good'. Rather than treat the man like he was a god and worship his idol (like some seem to be doing)....
I'm saying that people should challenge that, and feel okay about doing so.
I was talking about affected people outside of it as well.
I also don't think this supposedly objective character of nations is actually objective, but rather an ideological vehicle for convenient nationalist self-imagery. Usually containing all kinds of holes necessary to make it acceptable. And especially necessary when it comes to (former) global superpowers.
Making the majority uncomfortable in a prolongued & often enough militant struggle was instrumental to this (only partial) change.
Looks to me as if they do.
Last edited:
Fully agree with you. I’ve never defended him as a man or what happened in the past.
I think for a lot of British people Churchill represents ‘winning’ the war. For example, I’m in a group raising money for nhs camping out on the drive in tents/vans, this is a uk wide group raised about 200k so it’s well taken part. for the ve day weekend stickers were made of the camp out logo and Churchill. Imo These people buying that sticker just see it as a victory for the country and Churchill represents that And celebrated. Nothing about his other views, actions. This is purely down to education but these people are not racist for staunchly defending Churchill and his statue, it’s just what they see as their history to be protected.
Pulling statues down without the education first is creating a divide imo, I’ve found myself just rambling now sorry, I don’t usually post this much.
edit: for the record I didn’t buy the sticker because I didn’t want Churchill on my van
Lammy accuses Tories of seeking 'culture war' over fate of Churchill's statue
In his Today interview (see 9.19am and10.02am) David Lammy, the shadow justice secretary, also accused Boris Johnson of making his Telegraph article mostly about Winston Churchill statue because the Tories want a “culture war” as a distraction from their policy failings on race. Lammy said:
In his Today interview (see 9.19am and10.02am) David Lammy, the shadow justice secretary, also accused Boris Johnson of making his Telegraph article mostly about Winston Churchill statue because the Tories want a “culture war” as a distraction from their policy failings on race. Lammy said:
Fully agree with you. I’ve never defended him as a man or what happened in the past.
I think for a lot of British people Churchill represents ‘winning’ the war. For example, I’m in a group raising money for nhs camping out on the drive in tents/vans, this is a uk wide group raised about 200k so it’s well taken part. for the ve day weekend stickers were made of the camp out logo and Churchill. Imo These people buying that sticker just see it as a victory for the country and Churchill represents that And celebrated. Nothing about his other views, actions. This is purely down to education but these people are not racist for staunchly defending Churchill and his statue, it’s just what they see as their history to be protected.
Pulling statues down without the education first is creating a divide imo, I’ve found myself just rambling now sorry, I don’t usually post this much.
edit: for the record I didn’t buy the sticker because I didn’t want Churchill on my van
Gotta say I completely agree with this.
Boris wilfully doesn’t know the true history himself. 300 pages in his own Churchill biography and yet doesn’t mention the word ‘India’ once despite it being an obsession of Churchill’s his entire life.
It won’t happen under Boris. At best he’ll vaguely agree and then just keep kicking the can down the road.
The point is more that the traditional British national narratives seem to have lost their former dominance and are challenged from within. Seems a pretty obvious reason why this ugly "the majority rules, deal with it" attitude has such an appeal.
As above, it doesn't seem like there's this traditional, uniform national narrative anymore. (Not that it went totally unchallenged before, afaik.)
My outside impression is that traditional British nationalism was too reflective of the old makeup of British (English...?) society, and too exclusive towards those who came later. Who also often brought the perspectives from the Empire's (former) colonies or mainland Europe with them. This nationalism is probably also unattractive to the more cosmopolitically oriented members of the majority. So it seems to me that a - maybe the - main cause of these recent struggles about history and identity is a profound change in the demographic and political makeup of British/English society.
Again, an outside view, as I'm neither British nor live there, but that's how it seems to me.
Last edited: