Winston Churchill

sammsky1 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Johnson's Telegraph article on race and statues - Summary and analysis
Andrew Sparrow
In his Daily Telegraph article, which he has now posted on his Facebook page (perhaps to counter claims he was announcing government policy behind the Telegraph paywall), Boris Johnson says that the Black Lives Matter focus on statues is “a total distraction from the matter in hand”. That is a bit rich, given that his own article says much more about statues than it does about racial inequalities (a point that prompted David Lammy to accuse him of trying to provoke a culture war - see 10.22am). But the article also amounts to Johnson’s most extensive comment on an issue that has attracted huge interest in the last week, and so it is worth highlighting what he says.
Here are the main points.
  • Johnson claims that those calling for statues to be removed are trying to distort history. He says:
This seems to fundamentally misunderstand the motives of those, for instance, who celebrated the removal of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol. They would argue that what amounted to “distortion” was a monument celebrating someone as a benefactor with no acknowledgement of the monstrous origins of his wealth.
  • He says he will resist “with every breath in my body” attempts to remove Winston Churchill’s statue from Parliament Square.
But, as David Lammy pointed out on Today, there is no serious campaign to remove the Churchill statute from Parliament Square in the first place and no one is calling for this beyond a small minority of activists (like Imarn Ayton, who was on the Today programme at the weekend). Johnson’s argument seems designed to curry favour with the Mail on Sunday, which yesterday launched a campaign to save the Churchill statue. As the Financial Times’ Robert Wright pointed out, that is about the safest newspaper campaign ever.
 
'The PA Media news agency reports that Banks said he had been on an all-night drinking session in the capital and decided to join fellow football supporters travelling to London to “protect the statues”, but admitted he did not know which statues.'

*facepalm*
 
sammsky1 said:
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:
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I meant in earlier posts. No one from BLM is seriously calling for this statue to be removed, their aims are much bigger and more serious than a statue. This is purely the media and the Tory party trying to undermine a serious attempt to do something about systemic racism - and people say the UK is not a racist country.
 
sun_tzu said:
what happened with the people who chucked a statue in the water for comparison?
Click to expand...
We could put up a statue of them in the act of throwing the Colston statue over the parapet. Using the actual Colston statue as the Colston statue in the new statue to save money. And that way the Colston statue would still be there so no one could complain it had been taken down. Everybody wins, including sculptors who need the work.
 
Synco said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we are going around in circles here. We agree that things can change over time. The difference is I think you need to sway the majority opinion before you can enact real change, and i think various sides' attempts to shortcut that and force their stance on others is why the world is getting so increasingly divided.
 
11101 said:
I think we are going around in circles here. We agree that things can change over time. The difference is I think you need to sway the majority opinion before you can enact real change, and i think various sides' attempts to shortcut that and force their stance on others is why the world is getting so increasingly divided.
Click to expand...
Bit of an empty statement tbh. "These things take time" - How long? You could be waiting indefinitely...
"Don't force it" - So do what then? Some things would never of happened if people didn't force it....

I get that you probably never thought it through when you posted it, but this is the reality. A lot of people aren't happy.... Something's gotta give.
 
11101 said:
I think we are going around in circles here. We agree that things can change over time. The difference is I think you need to sway the majority opinion before you can enact real change, and i think various sides' attempts to shortcut that and force their stance on others is why the world is getting so increasingly divided.
Click to expand...
And I'm very sure it's the other way around. It only appears like this from the standpoint of the majority, which tends not to notice already existing divisions, because it's not negatively affected by them. So when opposition makes these divisions visible, and things heat up, it appears as the initial disturbance of social peace. But that social peace wasn't there in the first place.

I also haven't argued that majorities are swayed by arguments, but that shifts in the social structure result in struggles over once dominant ideology/identity. It's more of a materialistic understanding of these things.
 
afrocentricity said:
Bit if an empty statement tbh. "These things take time" - How long? You could be waiting indefinitely...
"Don't force it" - So do what then? Some things would never happened if people didn't force it....

I get you probably never thought it through, but this is the reality. A lot of people aren't happy.... Something's gotta give.
Click to expand...

So protest. Lobby. Try to change the public opinion. You can't expect people to support your aims just because you say they should. You need to convince them. The Civil Rights Act would never have been passed if it wasn't a massive vote winner for Johnson. If Britain really wants the statues down, and by Britain i mean the whole country, then that is how they will come down. You can't have a few people ripping them down now against the will of everybody else.

The civil rights movement took 20 years to achieve it's aims. Women's rights took 30 years. The protests have been going for 3 weeks.
 
Reading up on the Bengal Famine and it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) it was as much a moral indictment of colonialism and Empire (viewing Indians as second class citizens at best) as it was about the cuntyness of Churchill at the helm of government.
 
11101 said:
The Civil Rights Act would never have been passed if it wasn't a massive vote winner for Johnson.
Click to expand...

Bill Moyers, aide to LBJ:

‘When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said.’
 
11101 said:
So protest. Lobby. Try to change the public opinion. You can't expect people to support your aims just because you say they should. You need to convince them. The Civil Rights Act would never have been passed if it wasn't a massive vote winner for Johnson. If Britain really wants the statues down, and by Britain i mean the whole country, then that is how they will come down. You can't have a few people ripping them down now against the will of everybody else.

The civil rights movement took 20 years to achieve it's aims. Women's rights took 30 years. The protests have been going for 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
You lost me, you said don't force it. Protesting is forcing it... and all this talk of decades... I mean, you gotta understand how that sounds right? Imagine saying that to someone like MLK.... The man would have laughed at you.
 
afrocentricity said:
You lost me, you said don't force it. Protesting is forcing it... and all this talk of decades... I mean, you gotta understand how that sounds right? Imagine saying that to someone like MLK.... The man would have laughed at you.
Click to expand...

He did that already in "Letter from Birmingham Jail".
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Bill Moyers, aide to LBJ:

‘When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said.’
Click to expand...

They kind of did. Pre-1964 all the Southern States that voted against him were Democrat strongholds and have been lost to the Republicans ever since. What he hadn't foreseen is how strong his support would be everywhere else.


afrocentricity said:
You lost me, you said don't force it. Protesting is forcing it... and all this talk of decades... I mean, you gotta understand how that sounds right? Imagine saying that to someone like MLK.... The man would have laughed at you.
Click to expand...

Protests are about convincing. Governments make the changes. Now we have protesters (I dont really think they're BLM people either) trying to enact the change themselves, in this case pulling down statues, when the public are not convinced of their cause. It's dominating the narrative now ahead of the true BLM movement, which is personally what I think those people want, but that's for another discussion.

Of all people i think MLK understood he needed the support of the people to achieve his aims.
 
Last edited:
The Boy said:
This is exactly what I meant in earlier posts. No one from BLM is seriously calling for this statue to be removed, their aims are much bigger and more serious than a statue. This is purely the media and the Tory party trying to undermine a serious attempt to do something about systemic racism - and people say the UK is not a racist country.
Click to expand...
It is bait and folks who are triggered by It are definitely having a crisis of identity. You’d think they would be more accepting of the obvious in the year 2020.
 
It’s a little different comparing the current protests to the civil rights movement though. Black people have equal rights on paper, it’s the fact they aren’t being granted in practice that’s the issue.

Who are they going to convince? And how? When does it end? There’s no tangible end goal like with lobbying for a law, it’s way more abstract than that.
 
11101 said:
They kind of did. Pre-1964 all the Southern States that voted against him were Democrat strongholds and have been lost to the Republicans ever since. What he hadn't foreseen is how strong his support would be everywhere else.
Click to expand...

His support were so strong elsewhere that he declined to run in 68 and his Vice President lost the contest, with riots breaking out all summer.

To paint the Civil Rights Act as some sort of politically opportunistic/vote winner move is straight up rewriting history. There was enough popular sentiment and intraparty support to push it through with the goodwill garnered following the assassination of JFK but it was still hugely divisive and Johnson were well aware that he was actively harming his party electoral prospect by signing the bill.
 
2 man midfield said:
It’s a little different comparing the current protests to the civil rights movement though. Black people have equal rights on paper, it’s the fact they aren’t being granted in practice that’s the issue.

Who are they going to convince? And how? When does it end? There’s no tangible end goal like with lobbying for a law, it’s way more abstract than that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps demonstrate against the Government failing currently to implement recommendations from Racism Inquiries that have already taken place. Meanwhile Johnson is attempting to invent a new inquiry which he's written on the back of a fag packet.
 
2 man midfield said:
It’s a little different comparing the current protests to the civil rights movement though. Black people have equal rights on paper, it’s the fact they aren’t being granted in practice that’s the issue.

Who are they going to convince? And how? When does it end? There’s no tangible end goal like with lobbying for a law, it’s way more abstract than that.
Click to expand...

I'm not really talking about the BLM movement. I fully support them, and they're clearly focused on influencing policy through non-violence. It's the hijacking by other groups looking to achieve their own aims I take issue with.
 
adexkola said:
Reading up on the Bengal Famine and it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) it was as much a moral indictment of colonialism and Empire (viewing Indians as second class citizens at best) as it was about the cuntyness of Churchill at the helm of government.
Click to expand...

There’s always the danger in emphasizing the role of particular individuals in any given issue that we lose sight of the broader picture. I think this is especially true in the case of the British Empire, which ranged so far over such a long span of time and encompassed so many forms of imperial authority, yet maintained a coherent focus on the glory of Britain and the British throughout. The Empire certainly had its heroes, but the nature of the fragmented, decentralized system meant that its fortunes were never dependent on any them. So a singular focus on Churchill in the case of the Bengal famine risks essentially letting the colonial system off the hook.
 
entropy said:
Really? What do you think would be a fitting punishment?
Click to expand...
I think a prison sentence is appropriate, he'll spend 7 days inside and he got a very small fine. A week's not long, which is why he was lucky. I knew he'd get a prison sentence, I thought it would be a couple of months.

I assume the judge took into account the fact that he gave himself up, he was remorseful and didn't actually know what he was doing at the time because he'd been drinking all day. However, if you pee on a memorial to someone who bravely gave his life to protect other people, you won't get much sympathy from anyone.
 
2cents said:
There’s always the danger in emphasizing the role of particular individuals in any given issue that we lose sight of the broader picture. I think this is especially true in the case of the British Empire, which ranged so far over such a long span of time and encompassed so many forms of imperial authority, yet maintained a coherent focus on the glory of Britain and the British throughout. The Empire certainly had its heroes, but the nature of the fragmented, decentralized system meant that its fortunes were never dependent on any them. So a singular focus on Churchill in the case of the Bengal famine risks essentially letting the colonial system off the hook.
Click to expand...

That was my impression as well, thank you.

There's a running theme of some people suggesting colonialism was good, events like this firmly discredit such thoughts.
 
11101 said:
They kind of did. Pre-1964 all the Southern States that voted against him were Democrat strongholds and have been lost to the Republicans ever since. What he hadn't foreseen is how strong his support would be everywhere else.




Protests are about convincing. Governments make the changes. Now we have protesters (I dont really think they're BLM people either) trying to enact the change themselves, in this case pulling down statues, when the public are not convinced of their cause. It's dominating the narrative now ahead of the true BLM movement, which is personally what I think those people want, but that's for another discussion.

Of all people i think MLK understood he needed the support of the people to achieve his aims.
Click to expand...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/protest
Convincing? Hmmm.... No. A protest is forcing it because that's the option you're left with. MLK would not be told to bide his time and not rock the boat, I think you got him wrong.

I wish people would just stop to think before arguing for the sake of it. Engaging the heart as well as the brain....

Edit: Reading your following posts I suspect it's more a blind spot than ignorance or lack of empathy so I'll leave it...
 
2cents said:
There’s always the danger in emphasizing the role of particular individuals in any given issue that we lose sight of the broader picture. I think this is especially true in the case of the British Empire, which ranged so far over such a long span of time and encompassed so many forms of imperial authority, yet maintained a coherent focus on the glory of Britain and the British throughout. The Empire certainly had its heroes, but the nature of the fragmented, decentralized system meant that its fortunes were never dependent on any them. So a singular focus on Churchill in the case of the Bengal famine risks essentially letting the colonial system off the hook.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, that’s a point that is often over-looked. Much of the expansion of the Empire was local adventurism on the ground which, in the pre-telegraph era, was then presented as a fait accompli to London by people like Hastings or Wellesley in India or Frere in Southern Africa. It was the general, permeating racist mindset which was the central issue rather than prime minister A or B. Although, admittedly, it becomes much less of an excuse in the first part of the 20th century when there was reliable communication with London.
 
On the one hand I think Churchill was a man of his times and should be judged by that. On the other hand I think he embodies the dark side of the British empire. The fact is though, his biggest achievements are that he was great wartime leader and visionary. He stood to the Hitler & Stalin and ironically we all are in his debt no matter what your background or political persuasion may be.
 
Penna said:
I think a prison sentence is appropriate, he'll spend 7 days inside and he got a very small fine. A week's not long, which is why he was lucky. I knew he'd get a prison sentence, I thought it would be a couple of months.

I assume the judge took into account the fact that he gave himself up, he was remorseful and didn't actually know what he was doing at the time because he'd been drinking all day. However, if you pee on a memorial to someone who bravely gave his life to protect other people, you won't get much sympathy from anyone.
Click to expand...
I think a heavy fine with some form of community service should do it. Prison seems a bit harsh and pointless.
 
entropy said:
I think a heavy fine with some form of community service should do it. Prison seems a bit harsh and pointless.
Click to expand...
These "outraging public decency" offences always involve the fact that the act is carried out in a place where people can or might see it being carried out. What's considered "outrageous" is based on what the average person in the street would consider to be extremely offensive.

I'd normally agree that short prison sentences are a waste of time, but bearing in mind that PC Cooper's death was recent and that he was awarded a posthumous George Medal for his sacrifice, that monument should be treated with the utmost respect. If we're looking for a hero in the UK, he was definitely one. He was unarmed and yet he put himself between the terrorist and the people he was protecting.

I doubt if you'd find many people who weren't appalled to see that picture of the so-called "protestor" - he went looking for trouble and he found some.
 
adexkola said:
That was my impression as well, thank you.

There's a running theme of some people suggesting colonialism was good, events like this firmly discredit such thoughts.
Click to expand...
Good for whom? Am sure it was good for white British people to enjoy the fruits, labour and income of blacks and Asians. Entire English villages, towns and parts of cities were built from this wealth.

But I can't see how it was good for African and Asian countries and their citizens to have been looted, raped, beaten up, murdered and discriminated against for 100s of years.

I'm absolutely certain that colonialism was a life potential denying experience for the vast majority of people who made up the British empire.
 
Last edited:
Rams said:
On the one hand I think Churchill was a man of his times and should be judged by that. On the other hand I think he embodies the dark side of the British empire. The fact is though, his biggest achievements are that he was great wartime leader and visionary. He stood to the Hitler & Stalin and ironically we all are in his debt no matter what your background or political persuasion may be.
Click to expand...

Whom is 'we'? Can you define please?
 
Rams said:
On the one hand I think Churchill was a man of his times and should be judged by that. On the other hand I think he embodies the dark side of the British empire. The fact is though, his biggest achievements are that he was great wartime leader and visionary. He stood to the Hitler & Stalin and ironically we all are in his debt no matter what your background or political persuasion may be.
Click to expand...
The problem with recognizing him for his vision is that in reality it feels more like an exercise in vanity or state sanctioned propaganda. Especially given the state of Europe and the mess that it has always been(without even taking brexit into consideration). People tend to forget how open, and completely different the world was prior to WW. If anything I’d say, it’s only gotten worse, we have ramped up in terms of military, surveillance and nation state with no end in sight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.