That's of course a non-answer.
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
I'm just responding to the question whether Mongolia celebrates Genghis Khan and glosses over the worst elements of his past.
Okay, but what are the implications for the underlying question, historical remembrance culture towards Churchill/the British Empire?
We've got 33 pages of that. I don't think the UK should be held to a different standard than everybody else though, and i don't think it matters much what anybody not from the UK thinks when considering Churchill's legacy to the UK.
I see "others do it too" as a truly bad argument when the question is whether something's right or wrong. Holding oneself to different standards than others who do something wrong isn't the worst idea.
Last edited:
Do you not feel that it would be good for the UK to hold a higher standard regardless of what any other countries hold themselves to?
A percentage of our citizens hold a different legacy for Churchill, whatever I feel about some facts being skewed it needs resolving at some point when it doesn't allow the government to distract from putting into action recommendations to stop the disparities with which these citizens are subject to.
For those citizens Churchill is a figure of some revulsion and fear, the whole country needs to face that.
No I agree, the respect he has from the English who lived through WW2 in leading Britain in a war against the most evil, racist and dangerous regime of all time does not outweigh his own racist views nor the suffering he directly or indirectly inflicted on others, so lets feck up his statue.
You can't agree with something I haven't said.
You also continue to avoid the question. Pretty obvious attempt to distract until it's forgotten what it was.
But when everybody else around you is wrong, have you ever considered that you might not be as right as you thought you were?
We already do. The UK is one of the most diverse and liberal countries on the planet. There will always be some people left unhappy with any decision but the job of the government is to please the majority, and the majority sees Churchill as the saviour in the country's darkest time.
Sure, it has to be part of any consideration. But the answer might still be 'no'. (Plus, I don't think everybody does it. Nationalists do, but they have a habit of speaking for the whole of society.)
In my life, I've pondered quite a bit on the division of humanity into nation states, and the ideologies & identities that go along with it. So in this case, yeah, I have asked myself questions like that for sure.
Which question am i avoiding?
The government perpetuating myths and lies just to keep a section of the population happy is not the right route and can be downright dangerous - truth and education is much more important, not that it would ever be politically possible.
Last edited:
In this thread there have been some good arguments for & against the celebration of historical figures with, perhaps, debatable merits, but how can a person stand against the kind of lived experience described in the quoted post? I find it impossible to dismiss the awful experiences of iluvoursolskjaer and his family, these experiences make me feel ashamed, even while I might acknowledge that controversial figures like Churchill represent far more - or less - than the stark contrast between 'he was a villain/he was a hero'. It's all too comfortably easy for people like myself to write of the various nuances of the subject, because people like me are so rarely in the actual, direct firing line; this is a privilege in itself yet many of us can be so glib and aloof when addressing actual victims. As I mentioned, all of this makes me ashamed.
Winston Churchill was a disgusting racist, I hold that we don't need to cherish that sort of person anymore.
Celebrating racists would not be a legacy that 'Right-Thinking people' would want given as far as we have come in 2020.
Given what I think happened during the Bengal Famine and that however we evaluate the causes no wartime leader has ever chosen to feed non-combatants over feeding fighting personnel. No win war, no citizens living in freedom sort of concept. However whatever part/whole responsibility he held, he did so also as a racist.
If we want Equality for all of the people who live in the UK then we should demand the same of our monuments and this should be a movement that we embrace. It is just a matter of how and when we position that. It's way passed time when the UK should hold themselves to a higher standard of some sort, let it be about this.
You are one of the noticeably more empathic posters in here. Listening to others really drives it home how differently people can perceive the same things. It can feel like a "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" type thing, a million miles apart...
Further to my previous post, I planned to bring up the matter of what Churchill, overall, represents to people like me. This would have argued that he represents a centuries-old establishment - only relatively lately a political establishment - due to his ancestry; the hero-worship of the man, I would have claimed, offends me (because of my personal views on authority). How bloody weak and self-interested, self-indulgent even, my argument looks in the light of iluvyoursolskjaer's experiences let alone other, more fatal ones? My views, heartfelt as they are, are a luxury in comparison; a luxury I can afford to indulge because it wasn't my dad who was bloodied; it wasn't my home being defaced with appalling words? I, and others whose lives have been so different to those who have suffered, have no argument.
Last edited:
Here's the argument again:
To which you answered:
To which I answered:
To which you answered the same as before, and then asked:
Hope that clears it up.
Honestly, mate, my post was really aimed at myself rather than people like you who are able to debate properly, with the requisite knowledge and understanding; my views, in contrast, are very often naive and childish in comparison. My posts on this subject are typical: a failure to appreciate the depth of a debate's subject-matter, and a childish mixture of disgust at myself for indulging such a luxury as sitting in a warm home while airily discussing the plight of those who have been most affected by political/social/martial actions. I am ashamed of any intellect I might possess as, in this matter especially, it allows me to distance myself from the very real suffering of others.
I'm simply agreeing with you. These stories are shaming and they should. What a history to have that there are even now such people passing on their racism to their children and I don't know what the answer is except to win the majority over and then these racists will fear being the minority so much that their only incentive is to listen and learn. We've all been sitting in our warm homes blissfully unaware and living on a legacy that we don't understand should have died on its arse like Jim Davidson etc.
Of course, I have actual experience of your kind empathy with others.
So, again, I'd like to stress that my rants aren't really aimed at participants in this thread (except me, that is).It's depressing to me that my recent views merely come across as a rant - unfortunately, I struggle to express myself well, quite often. In my ignorant way, I tend to see wider pictures rather than specifics; so, really, I was criticising myself, because my lazily-aired views are sadly reminiscent of everything from some disinterested university lecturer discussing the history of thousands of years ago to the casual, uncaring views of a racist pub drunk; all these views, including my own - no matter how passionately expressed - have 'distance' from experience and suffering and are therefore, to a great extent, invalid.
Oh I don't know, I think you put yourself down too much sometimes when we all know how compassionate you are. Despite us both never having any hope of truly understanding what it is to have the experiences it's still going to be important to know the difference between right and wrong. We all know what is wrong, now we have to speak out and have the courage of our convictions.Of course, I have actual experience of your kind empathy with others.
It's depressing to me that my recent views merely come across as a rant - unfortunately, I struggle to express myself well, quite often. In my ignorant way, I tend to see wider pictures rather than specifics; so, really, I was criticising myself, because my lazily-aired views are sadly reminiscent of everything from some disinterested university lecturer discussing the history of thousands of years ago to the casual, uncaring views of a racist pub drunk; all these views, including my own - no matter how passionately expressed - have 'distance' from experience and suffering and are therefore, to a great extent, invalid.
Exactly. We have a duty to be as honest in our opinions as possible - and it isn't 'duty' in the more negative, forced sense.
The Churchill-Genghis comparison doesn’t really work, unless (a) there’s a massive section of Mongolian society and politics which pines for the glory days of the empire Genghis established, and (b) Mongolia is full of minorities drawn from across that empire whose lives have been immediately affected in some way by the type of man Genghis was and the decisions he made.
Otherwise, why would anyone care? The historical Genghis Khan might as well be a fictional character.
Otherwise, why would anyone care? The historical Genghis Khan might as well be a fictional character.
How an individual is remembered by other individuals is entirely dependent on their knowlege, education, maturity, upbringing and origin. Thankfully we live in a world and time where there more literate people than ever and more acess to information than ever before and because of that have an informed opinion.
I am of half british/danish descendt and i am grateful for Britain in their role in WW2 and on the surrender of Nazi Germany they landed paratroopers in denmark 2 hours before the soviet union arrived at the danish border to make it part of the eastern bloc. The british in doing so did us a great favour.
I just had coffee with my english dad who was born in 1941 and his older english friend and asked them whether they agreed that the churchill statue should be removed due to his racist views and other misdeeds and they said no because without his decisions we might now be living in a Nazi/Facist Europe and the course of history might have changed forever.
However my opinion now is that if there are so many indians and pakistanis living in Uk who see Churchills statue as a symbol of racism and oppression of the indians/pakistanis of Old India rather than a symbol of defiance against Nazi Germany and Facist Italy then the statue might be worth taking down.
Last edited:
Racism and prejudice doesn't disappear within a couple of generations. The pace of technological and social change in the 20th century is an anomaly within human history. We've had societal changes to norms that have happened in the span of 2 decades that at any other point of history would have taken a couple of centuries. We as humans can't force change in peoples perceptions without there being some form of push back.
My father used to tell me stories of how groups of men used to walk the streets back in the 60s for "paki bashing", where they'd find a brown ir black guy and just beat them up. Those men are still alive today and only a few of them statistically have changed their perceptions. The best we can do is wait for the Mannings, Davidsons and other old school racists to just die off while educating the youth on the merits of brotherhood.
Eh? That's not how it works. Northern Norway was liberated by the Soviets, and they just... left. It sucked for Eastern Europe, but Denmark was never in any danger.
You're being too harsh on yourself bro; I've always felt your contributions to be measured, articulate and hilarious where intended! Even in such polarising times, empathetic people like yourself and @oates [as well as the many other genuinely good-hearted members of this forum] make me proud to be a Brit and it will be our children that steer the future to a better place.
The USSR occupied part of Denmark until April 1946 and the German occupiers surrendered with almost no resistance but doesn't suit the narrative.
My mind is made up and I'm definitely being consistent. I'm not interested in sweeping statements such as "BML has shifted focus..". Never said that. You have and should know why. The cause is good and it's worth protesting for. However, the point is that if you go after a nation's hugely important figures you have to deal with that becoming an important story rather than whining about the repricussions of your own actions/choices.
Reminded of it everytime I walk/drive past Altab Ali Park
The direction of politics just in the past decade isn't very encouraging though. Too much division and of the 'Identity' brand of politics, which only serves the elite and their established power structures.
Even the way Rashford had to step in to feed our children [FFS] shows the disregard our elected politicians have for the next generation. How can we entrust to them our children's minds when they don't even care for their lives??
I'm certain you know far more than I do about how long it may take but I'm assured by someone else who knows that the change to any true equality will need to be led by white people and that will only arrive by making white people uncomfortable. So it should. Meanwhile there are changes in the right direction already identified, changes that will force us to learn and change but they have so far been ignored by the same Tories whose then Leader David Cameron requested and before that, others. Disparity in how minorities are treated and the steps needed to institute equality have been identified and meanwhile the government intends to start another inquiry in what I think can only be bad faith. The intent is clear to me that nothing is going to change with this Prime Minister. The only thing that has focused their minds to bring about this smokescreen is the whole statues need toppling splinter group if it can even be called that.
I'm told there's no leadership of BLM UK, I might have misunderstood that but it is clear that only one person added 'Was a Racist' to the plinth of Churchill's statue while only a relatively small group took Colston's statue down and rolled it into the harbour. Seems to me that the whole BLM UK movement as such has allowed themselves to lose control of their aims, that or they are scrambling to try and own it after the fact. A small group and one person have directed our intention either intentionally or not.
I would have thought that it must be incredibly frustrating for BAME people to continue waiting for change. I think if they focused on demanding David Lammy's report being acted upon by the Government they would see some small change necessary towards more.
"Lets put the statues in the museum, where visitors can learn an accurate representation of history"
The museums:
The museums:
I don't actually remember where I read it, it was while I was studying WW2 in college 14 years ago, but I can't remember my references tbh. I found this video on it, but it seems it was mostly canadian paratroopers.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Sovie...ey-had-taken-it-before-the-Allies-had-arrived
Re: the Museum for London tweet ~
Funny how 'balance' is only in vogue and encouraged when certain views are naturally appalling and anti-human...
Funny how 'balance' is only in vogue and encouraged when certain views are naturally appalling and anti-human...
Doesn't matter if only one person wrote 'was a racist' and if a 'small group' took down Colston's statues - the message it conveyed was felt by a much larger group of people, it educated a large group of people who were unaware. And it prompted a lot of racists to decide that those actions were deserving of swift retribution.
BLM hasn't lose control of their aims - the protests are still going on, nothing is 'scrambled' either, it's just that mass media would rather report on the negative aspects of the protest in order to control & change the narrative and push divisions. I'm sure I wrote about this in our PM exchange.
There shouldn't be any need for BAME (this is very different to BLM, so be specific) to focus on any one cause, multiple things can be done at once - and ultimately it shouldn't be up to black and ethnic minorities to be the ones spearheading change in society, wrt equality.
It has to be done by white people, the questions need to be asked about why white people are not the ones at the forefront of this movement.
My post:
Your response:
It's been pointed out to you that BLM the movement haven't set this as a focus, other groups and individuals have. It's not clear whether you agree with that.
So my one and only point, is that you should direct your criticism at them specifically instead of lazily or flippantly (imo) directing it at the whole movement (including BLM) as if its one amorphous thing, as this has the adverse effect of leading people to believe that it is in fact one of the focuses for everyone involved... it may not matter to you, but I assure you it does matter.
Last edited:
Again, I bow to your greater knowledge but meanwhile as I keep saying it has allowed Boris and the news rags to fire up the Tory voting middle class in defence of Churchill. They don't spend 30 plus pages debating the subject and haven't learnt sweet fanny adams. I'm sure you know what the aims are, but don't tell me that the attack on the statue was directed by any.
Okay, that's an honest answer, thanks. I actually agree with larger parts, which is a pleasant surprise. (No idea about the Denmark issue, but that's already being discussed.)
My argument was that criticism of national mythology is not about erasing history, but about amending it with the crucial parts that were left out. And refuting the obvious falsehoods, of course. The post I quoted at the end made that point rather well. Since national mythology generally tries to create an untarnished image of the nation, these missing parts usually consist of unpleasant truths and often enough plainly horrible facts. That makes uncomfortable revisions inevitable, and continued hero worship won't be possible in many cases. That's probably true for most if not all countries, but historically powerful ones in particular.
In the end this approach should leave room for all aspects of a country's history, including the massive merits of the British in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and also Churchill's role in it. As I said, amendment and revision, not erasure.
That said, I think the real aim should be the POV of a common human history (as divided as humanity still is) instead of many seperate national ones. But that's a different point & I'll make it elsewhere.
So, interestingly, I looked into this Genghis Khan statue last night and it was built by a private company as part of a museum complex to promote tourism to Mongolia. Rather different from Parliament Square, which is owned and operated by the city of London.
Now, there's every chance that the private company is really a well disguised government initiative but in my limited investigation I couldn't find any details about the ownership.
What your post suggests is that unless BLM acts in a manner that is 100% acceptable by everyone in society, to the point that there are no negative press stories at all, anything they do will fire up the Tory voters. Instead of seeing an issue with the people who expect protests to be convenient and quiet, despite the fact that the people protesting have been waiting for justice for 100's of years now. Emotions are going to be high.
Doesn't really matter if the attack was directed or not - seeing a plinth of someone who got rich off the back of slave labour, while you may be a descendant of slaves everyday is going to cause inner turmoil.
There were people in positions of power who were trying to use the 'right' channels to get the statue taken down democratically - nobody listened.
Ultimately nobody cares about this stuff, which is exactly what we've been saying - and yet people expect us to be nice and tolerant forever.