Winston Churchill

berbatrick said:
Overpopulation is clearly not the best predictor of inequality if inequality has been high from 1688-1945 and from 1980-today.




I already posted an article about this which you ignored twice.


Anyway it is clear this is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
I read the article, it said that the generation hoped for a utopian future. There’s a shock, every generation does.

Again it’s not why we went to war. I don’t even know what you think I was implying that rendered the article relevant.

I argued in response to a poster that said he was unhappy about the social divide and that in theory you could argue people were allowed to deface WW11 monuments as a result of that, I said that’s a nonsense because it’s not why we went to war. Then you told me we went to war to create a utopia :wenger:

Anyway let’s move on and watch the football eh
 
RUCK4444 said:
Oh come on... You know I didn't mean it in that sense, it's a bloody common phrase and almost nobody uses it in the form of a crazed Nazi.

I wonder what poor Vera Lynn, RIP, would think about the actions of these people disrespecting a monument designed to remember those that died to protect the very freedom they are benefiting from.

Trying to find any sort of acceptance to that sort of disrespectful behaviour and permitting people to inflict upset to those who lost family to war is in incredibly unusual hill to choose to die on.
Click to expand...


I was reading today that the Cenotaph was vandalized during the riots that followed the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927.
 
SteveJ said:
Have to state that I disagree with this. Any old razzle-dazzle shyster could've pulled off the con, which was likely far more underhand than we'll know for, oh, about a century.
Click to expand...
From all the history I've seen, once it was clear Chamberlin was not up to the task of fighting Hitler ( a bit like we felt when we realised Moyes was a dud), their was almost unanimous agreement that only Churchill was a big enough cnut to face off vs Hitler. He was hired because of his vicious and uncompromising views, and if the Nazi's could be framed as the real racists, that would give him the sharp purpose to exert his character. It was evidently the right choice, and he is rightly heralded as the man that saved Britain (whatever its national traits were) from the Nazi's. Even as his most devout critic, I credit him with that and agree it was a remarkable achievement in its singular context.

I see Boris and Brexit in the same light. I don't think any other Brexiter had the 'razzle-dazzle shyster' skills; the ability to lie, obfuscate, abuse and bully parliament and convert a a minority Government into an 80 seat majority Government through an unscheduled election is an amazing political feat.

Boris is inspired by Churchill as I am a lifelong student and devotee in the ways and methods of Sir Alex Ferguson. Its clear Boris has styled himself in Churchill's doctrine, with finishing indoctrination touches from Trump.

So I'm not sure if another shyster could've pulled off the con as well as Boris. Who else do you have in mind?
 
Last edited:
I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who gets prosecuted for vandalising war memorials. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Statues of famous people are one thing, but the remembrance of ordinary people who died in wars not of their making is quite different. That applies to any war memorial in any country.

My father and his brothers spent years and years fighting in foreign countries in the last war. They didn't want to go, they were all peaceful men, but they were called up. My father came through it unscathed (at least physically), but the fact that he would never talk about his experiences showed the impact it had on him. This is recent history, people are still around who remember first-hand what it was like.
 
sammsky1 said:
So I'm not sure if another shyster could've pulled off the con as well as Boris. Who else do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
Simon Cowell? No, you're probably right, mate.
 
sammsky1 said:
I'm very comfortable with my view and how it's expressed.
There is no other valid or moral point of view aside from Churchill is a racist, Brits have been lied to about him, and he is a major cause for institutional racism. If I'm making anything up, challenge it with irrefutable evidence and prove me wrong.
I agree, it's a tough gig if you can't see that truth yet. This forum is simply a reflection on what is happening in society.
If you go 'against the cause' because of some guy writing on the internet, I'd suggest you examine what it says about you, not me.
Click to expand...

So am i, and you talk just as much nonsense as you do in the Poch&Ole threads...

I learned of the negatives around Churchill before I was 16 from textbooks, that was 14 years so am not sure where you are basing your argument off about people being lied too... Were you actually born in the UK to make such claims?
Since then the internet has exploded to be a easy source of information so its not like anything is being censored for people to find out themselves.
 
Last edited:
Penna said:
I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who gets prosecuted for vandalising war memorials. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Statues of famous people are one thing, but the remembrance of ordinary people who died in wars not of their making is quite different. That applies to any war memorial in any country.

My father and his brothers spent years and years fighting in foreign countries in the last war. They didn't want to go, they were all peaceful men, but they were called up. My father came through it unscathed (at least physically), but the fact that he would never talk about his experiences showed the impact it had on him. This is recent history, people are still around who remember first-hand what it was like.
Click to expand...

I don't think many disagree with you. Objections are about people calling other people sub-human , well we know where that led us.

Don't care about statues, good or bad as long as the whole truth is told of what they represent.

My problem is people only using part of the truth, the myth to further their current agenda. Most don't have a clue that their beliefs are wrong, they believe what's been spoon fed to them. Question is should the myths be shattered once and for all or let them carry on believing the myths because the truth is too painful.

Personally I'm sick of the lies.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I don't think many disagree with you. Objections are about people calling other people sub-human , well we know where that led us.

Don't care about statues, good or bad as long as the whole truth is told of what they represent.

My problem is people only using part of the truth, the myth to further their current agenda. Most don't have a clue that their beliefs are wrong, they believe what's been spoon fed to them. Question is should the myths be shattered once and for all or let them carry on believing the myths because the truth is too painful.

Personally I'm sick of the lies.
Click to expand...
Just curious what myths Being shattered and what people believing them you mean?
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Just curious what myths Being shattered and what people believing them you mean?
Click to expand...


Let's start with Churchill as we're in that thread - I'd credit him with upholding the morale of the British people and being an inspirational leader at the time - did he win the war , did he even want to launch the attack across the channel, did he make ghastly errors of judgement, do we ignore all the rest of his history , some of which has been decribed in this thread, why was it that he so popular that he lost the election soon after the war, do we just ignore everything else and just celebrate him because he raised the morale of the people?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
Click to expand...

Shortly, nothing in the teaching of history will reflect what really happened, the 'airbrushing' brigade seem to be in full flow.
The phrase about "if history teaches us anything its is that we never learn anything from history..."will become gloriously true!
 
sammsky1 said:
There is no other valid or moral point of view aside from Churchill is a racist, Brits have been lied to about him, and he is a major cause for institutional racism.
Click to expand...

You are actually unbelievable :lol: You'd do the cause you're trying to serve a favour by staying silent. But please do go on sowing discord.
 
Maticmaker said:
Shortly, nothing in the teaching of history will reflect what really happened, the 'airbrushing' brigade seem to be in full flow.
The phrase about "if history teaches us anything its is that we never learn anything from history..."will become gloriously true!
Click to expand...

Well said.
Let's face the facts:
Nobody is perfect.
Humans make mistakes.
We hear what we want to hear (hence social media).
Times change as do attitudes.
Politics are mainly about power and personal gain.
The list goes on.

So. Why should we not accept history for what it is. The past. Good or bad is the past.

Far far more relevant and important is to shape the future. And the future holds numerous significant challenges. Both individually and collectively.

That is where we should be focusing our efforts.
Make the future better than the past.
That is the real priority.
 
pierrethesnack said:
You are actually unbelievable :lol: You'd do the cause you're trying to serve a favour by staying silent. But please do go on sowing discord.
Click to expand...
I know its hard to admit what you thought was was not. Else lets see your facts that disprove me.
 
pierrethesnack said:
Do you find it effective to argue facts with fanatical race ideologues on the right? It's equally fruitless with the ones on the left, I assure you.
Click to expand...
So you cant. Thought so. And thanks for admitting your identity too.
And if you think I'm 'leftist', then you have real issues of empathy and comprehension about political ideology.
 
Maticmaker said:
Shortly, nothing in the teaching of history will reflect what really happened, the 'airbrushing' brigade seem to be in full flow.
The phrase about "if history teaches us anything its is that we never learn anything from history..."will become gloriously true!
Click to expand...
Buster15 said:
Well said.
Let's face the facts:
Nobody is perfect.
Humans make mistakes.
We hear what we want to hear (hence social media).
Times change as do attitudes.
Politics are mainly about power and personal gain.
The list goes on.

So. Why should we not accept history for what it is. The past. Good or bad is the past.

Far far more relevant and important is to shape the future. And the future holds numerous significant challenges. Both individually and collectively.

That is where we should be focusing our efforts.
Make the future better than the past.
That is the real priority.
Click to expand...


Agree with both of you.

The truth is out there though (sounds like the X Files).

The future though is shaped by the past and if the past is in denial and no lessons are learnt then the errors of the past continue into the future.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Agree with both of you.

The truth is out there though (sounds like the X Files).

The future though is shaped by the past and if the past is in denial and no lessons are learnt then the errors of the past continue into the future.
Click to expand...

You are right.
The problem I have with trying to learn from the past is to not judge it by today's standards.

Every generation will have a different perspective on what is right and what is not.
 
Very little I’d disagree with here:

The history wars
The statues erected at the height of imperial power and prejudice do not belong in 21st-century Britain. But toppling monuments will not help us properly understand our past or resolve our present troubles.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/06/history-wars
 
Penna said:
It's supposed to be a mother offering food to her children. Apparently.
Click to expand...

Couldn’t they have just done her handing out a couple of plates of turkey twizzlers, chips and bean?
 
Pexbo said:
Couldn’t they have just done her handing out a couple of plates of turkey twizzlers, chips and bean?
Click to expand...
You'd think right? But then the Health & Safety get involved, start asking about Use By dates, safe storage, rat droppings. Nah, can't get fresher than the booby food Pexbo, you should know this stuff.
 
Penna said:
I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who gets prosecuted for vandalising war memorials. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Statues of famous people are one thing, but the remembrance of ordinary people who died in wars not of their making is quite different. That applies to any war memorial in any country.
My father and his brothers spent years and years fighting in foreign countries in the last war. They didn't want to go, they were all peaceful men, but they were called up. My father came through it unscathed (at least physically), but the fact that he would never talk about his experiences showed the impact it had on him. This is recent history, people are still around who remember first-hand what it was like.
Click to expand...

Of course I agree with you. But it seems it's selective outrage in UK.

I don't remember the vociferous and sustained outrage when the below happened. There was about 2 days of vague condemnation, but no 'protectors of statues' protest was organised, nor did Government officials try to rush through new laws to punish the scribblers.



2.5million Indians volunteered for service in WW2 (and yet Churchill still wilfully allowed 2-4millions Bengali Indians to starve to death). Many from the West Indies too. All of those families have equally compelling stories to yours, and yet their stories are never celebrated in British culture's memorial of its war that defines its narrative.

Indian Sikhs got one token chap included for a few minutes in the recent movie 1917, despite having Indians contributing 1M soldiers in that war. I haven't seen any mention of Colony soldiers in the various movies on Churchill either. Neither did I hear about British Colony soldiers being mentioned recently by all those who decried that British war history was being insulted because of some scribbles on the Cenotaph.

Why do you think that is?
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
Very little I’d disagree with here:

The history wars
The statues erected at the height of imperial power and prejudice do not belong in 21st-century Britain. But toppling monuments will not help us properly understand our past or resolve our present troubles.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/06/history-wars
Click to expand...
I don't really mind what statues stay or go, they are only statues in the end, provided there's some due process for it. I'm not a massive fan of mobs in general. If crowds are taking it into their own hands, that's probably because of an absent or failing, or unrepresentative due process.
 
2cents said:
Very little I’d disagree with here:

The history wars
The statues erected at the height of imperial power and prejudice do not belong in 21st-century Britain. But toppling monuments will not help us properly understand our past or resolve our present troubles.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/06/history-wars
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting. The bit about Gove demonstrates that historical whitewashing remains an active Tory Government strategy, and must be fought at every step.

He covers so many themes I've tried to express in the thread, albeit with much more eloquence and objectivity.

Am very glad such essays are now circulating amongst the educated and power classes, though am sure right wingers will have selective amnesia or brain freezes when they read.
 
2cents said:
Very little I’d disagree with here:

The history wars
The statues erected at the height of imperial power and prejudice do not belong in 21st-century Britain. But toppling monuments will not help us properly understand our past or resolve our present troubles.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/06/history-wars
Click to expand...
Which part do you disagree with? I feel like getting rid of statues is barely anything if we are to actually address the issue. I also think the latter part of the article is kinda unnecessary. Instead, he should've shed more light on the works of people like Tuhiwai Smith and others who have spent their entire lives developing ways to specifically address this issue.
 
entropy said:
Which part do you disagree with? I feel like getting rid of statues is barely anything if we are to actually address the issue. I also think the latter part of the article is kinda unnecessary. Instead, he should've shed more light on the works of people like Tuhiwai Smith and others who have spent their entire lives developing ways to specifically address this issue.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be sure about labeling Cromwell’s campaign in Ireland “genocide” - but then again, I’m a bit skeptical of the utility of this term in any kind of pre-modern context (a discussion for a different thread maybe), and I’m unsure where exactly Cromwell would fall. I’d also need to think a bit more about the examples he uses in the last part of the article and their relation to each other. But as I implied, these are minor quibbles.

I’m not familiar with Smith, how does her work relate to this issue do you think?
 
2cents said:
I wouldn’t be sure about labeling Cromwell’s campaign in Ireland “genocide” - but then again, I’m a bit skeptical of the utility of this term in any kind of pre-modern context (a discussion for a different thread maybe), and I’m unsure where exactly Cromwell would fall. I’d also need to think a bit more about the examples he uses in the last part of the article and their relation to each other. But as I implied, these are minor quibbles.

I’m not familiar with Smith, how does her work relate to this issue do you think?
Click to expand...
Well..the solution is decolonization, isn’t it? The trap that we keep falling into is expecting historians to offer some sort of solution. But it isn’t their job to do so. The solution lies with black, indigenous researchers like Smith who not just studied but developed techniques to decolonize.

Her work is a lot to take in. But in essence, she strips away the BS of scientific thought that we hold sacred, and links it with europe, colonialism, dehumanizing of natives and other cultures. She tracks multiple disciplines such as biology, medicine, history, anthropology, etc, their long history of scientific racism, and how it remains fundamental to these fields to this day. She cites several methods academics, researchers, can use to get rid of the euro-centric nonsense and how we can get closer to the actual truth.

Honestly, getting rid of statues is nothing. And the usual rhetoric of “well...what is the solution?” is mostly noise and deflection. The solutions have been around for ages and it begins with listening to those you've long oppressed.
 
RUCK4444 said:
Of course there should be a social support structure and welfare system, that’s my point, we have one. It’s so good that it stops many from creating a desire to leave it, it’s more profitable to just keep having children than it is to work and for many you get access to better housing. Can you not see the counterproductive effect that has?
Click to expand...
Is it MC Escher depicting spiteful ignorance, callous stupidity tied into a mobius strip, or a Tory voting Human Centipede gone ouroboros?
 
Penna said:
It's supposed to be a mother offering food to her children. Apparently.
Click to expand...

10531487174267519036.jpg

Hmmm...
 
Last edited:
BobbyManc said:
You said he was ideologically against Fascism (‘end of’) so you post a link where we find Churchill praising Fascism, and you admit he was continually changing his views. How does that square with your claim? It’s baffling. You’re literally denying the history right in front of your eyes. Churchill did not oppose Fascism. It’s that simple. His only problem with it was when he felt it was detrimental to British interests e.g as we see in his support for the military, Church and Falangist forces in the Spanish Civil War, which he turned back on only once he realised Franco would more likely make Spain an ally of Mussolini and Hitler. These are not the actions of an anti-fascist. Nor are his horrific actions in Greece in 1944. But I’m sure massacring anti-Fascists and supporting pro-Nazi forces in the name of anti-Communism is somehow congruous with Churchill being ideologically against fascism ‘end of’ in your mind.
Click to expand...

That’s certainly not how I interpret the article. I think the article perfectly proves how Churchill continuously backs either fascism or communism against each other (as Churchill was also an opportunist), but that he was very much ideologically against both ideologies or any other totalitarian system for that matter. But please let people make up their own minds, I’m sure people are adult enough to make up their own minds without you patronizing and belittling me.
 
RUCK4444 said:
It’s so good that it stops many from creating a desire to leave it, it’s more profitable to just keep having children than it is to work
Click to expand...
My mother received the grand total of £7 per child each week when raising us. £7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.