[Underscore]

he was tho

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Underscore

he was tho

No-one said he wasn't?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Underscore

he was tho

i doubt you have the faintest idea about him

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i doubt you have the faintest idea about him

Seen as I'm a Politics and History student and have studied him and his character and policies indepth as a mandatory part of my course, I think I know enough about him to form at least an opinion.

[Tom4784]

Most people were racist those days, it seems a bit strange to protest that now when the world back then was a different place.

The only thing stunts like this achieve is cheapening protests that can actually affect and improve racial issues that are rampant in today's society.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Most people were racist those days, it seems a bit strange to protest that now when the world back then was a different place.

The only thing stunts like this achieve is cheapening protests that can actually affect and improve racial issues that are rampant in today's society.

I think apologist attitudes do nothing to make a case for excusing people in positions of power and influence. We had been through periods of great reform, as well as been aided during the great war by many nations with the promise of further autonomy, rights and respect...none of which were forthcoming after in fact the attitudinal shift became even more regressive with regard to supremacy.

We have the right to question our history, and how our supposedly 'civilised' establishment was constructed and governed. To simply sigh and say 'oh well, that's how it was' is a cop out .. it was then and it is today.

History is just the same, and so forever will be we are just as accepting of abuses in foreign lands today as we were then as long as they're dressed up as us pilgrims aiding the savages... nothing changes.

He was a supremacist.. He was not for rights or equality or anything remotely progressive in fact he was basically a eugenicist no wonder he is so popular recently.

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

History is not a stunt, those who have scratched beneath foundation GCSE history will be aware he was not how he is marketed in this 'cafe', kindly they choose to educate the clientele and for some reason they are happy to remain ignorant, which as we know is how the establishment prefer the great unwashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...social-history

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I think apologist attitudes do nothing to make a case for excusing people in positions of power and influence. We had been through periods of great reform, as well as been aided during the great war by many nations with the promise of further autonomy, rights and respect...none of which were forthcoming after in fact the attitudinal shift became even more regressive with regard to supremacy.

We have the right to question our history, and how our supposedly 'civilised' establishment was constructed and governed. To simply sigh and say 'oh well, that's how it was' is a cop out .. it was then and it is today.

History is just the same, and so forever will be we are just as accepting of abuses in foreign lands today as we were then as long as they're dressed up as us pilgrims aiding the savages... nothing changes.

He was a supremacist.. He was not for rights or equality or anything remotely progressive in fact he was basically a eugenicist no wonder he is so popular recently.

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

History is not a stunt, those who have scratched beneath foundation GCSE history will be aware he was not how he is marketed in this 'cafe', kindly they choose to educate the clientele and for some reason they are happy to remain ignorant, which as we know is how the establishment prefer the great unwashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...social-history

Not from the increasingly hard-left Guardian and their left-wing slants thanks.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Not from the increasingly hard-left Guardian and their left-wing slants thanks.

see... even when presented with an historical fact the source of the information renders it unprocessable.

I could find that from somewhere else if you'd like? Or you could educate yourself.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

Clement Attlee (Labour Party) became Prime Minister in July 1945, and WWII fully ended in September of that year, so it wasn't Churchill who did those things.

It isn't Churchill's racism which he's admired for, his questionable attitudes are usually overlooked when he's talked about. To invalidate his contributions to winning WWII just because he held contemporary attitudes is just daft.

What were Winston Churchill's contributions to World War II?

1) Not allowing Hitler supremacy over Europe by fighting off the Luftwaffe.
2) Harassing Hitler through North Africa.
3) Helping Russia through the US convoys in the North Atlantic.
4) The most important: bringing in the US on the Allied side.

Spoiler:

There is no doubt that America played a crucial role in the war, and much of that would not have happened had it not been for the vigorous efforts of Churchill, who persuaded Roosevelt to convince the American people to weigh in on Britain's side. At the time, American foreign policy was largely isolationist, and it was persistent prodding from Churchill that helped the US make the decision to announce the historic lend-lease agreement (Lend-Lease), under which the US, while not directly getting involved in the war, would provide arms and food to Britain and the Soviet Union. Most Americans were also captivated by the determination, bravery, and tenacity that Britain, under Churchill unflagging leadership, showed in braving the German assault of 1940. Because of his personal example, Churchill was able to move American public opinion to his cause and get the USA to support Britian and Russia.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Clement Attlee (Labour Party) became Prime Minister in July 1945, and WWII ended in September of that year, so it wasn't Churchill who did those things.

It isn't Churchill's racism which he's admired for, his questionable attitudes are usually overlooked when he's talked about. To invalidate his contributions to winning WWII just because he held contemporary attitudes is just daft.

In the early 1940s, an estimated 20,000 Chinese merchant sailors were recruited into the British Merchant Navy and, almost entirely based in Liverpool, around 300 of these married or cohabitated with local women. Although the Chinese sailors played a vital role in Britain’s warfare, their demands for the same pay and equal treatment as local sailors in 1942, which led to strike action, saw them labelled as troublemakers. Post-war, the government, in collusion with the shipping companies, were keen to rid Liverpool of what they saw as an ‘undesirable element’ and, in October 1945, the Home Office opened a file on ‘the compulsory repatriation of undesirable Chinese seamen at Liverpool’.

The wheels were in motion way before, maybe the new govt could have saved them who knows, it has no baring on the rest of his views as expressed at the time.

He did not 'win the war'... the troops, cabinet office, and allied forces worldwide won the war he was advised and he as you say made contributions to decisions.

His views were rather contemporary weren't they? There was someone else who thought that one race were superior to another, he was also a eugenics advocate... though for some reason he's not half as popular :/


http://www.mix-d.org/museum/timeline...n-in-liverpool

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

His views were rather contemporary weren't they? There was someone else who thought that one race were superior to another, he was also a eugenics advocate... though for some reason he's not half as popular

Yeah you'd almost think one caused millions of deaths, and one led the war against him!

Even if he did believe in selective breeding, as far as is known Churchill never advocated for killing the "inferiors".

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I think apologist attitudes do nothing to make a case for excusing people in positions of power and influence. We had been through periods of great reform, as well as been aided during the great war by many nations with the promise of further autonomy, rights and respect...none of which were forthcoming after in fact the attitudinal shift became even more regressive with regard to supremacy.

We have the right to question our history, and how our supposedly 'civilised' establishment was constructed and governed. To simply sigh and say 'oh well, that's how it was' is a cop out .. it was then and it is today.

History is just the same, and so forever will be we are just as accepting of abuses in foreign lands today as we were then as long as they're dressed up as us pilgrims aiding the savages... nothing changes.

He was a supremacist.. He was not for rights or equality or anything remotely progressive in fact he was basically a eugenicist no wonder he is so popular recently.

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

History is not a stunt, those who have scratched beneath foundation GCSE history will be aware he was not how he is marketed in this 'cafe', kindly they choose to educate the clientele and for some reason they are happy to remain ignorant, which as we know is how the establishment prefer the great unwashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...social-history

Okay, calm down, you aren't a scholar of the subject just because you've done a google search on it after watching the video so don't look down at me or anyone else just because you think that you are.

Who said we don't have the right to question our history? Can you point that out to me? Go no, quote it for me. I'll wait. These entitled white people looking to be offended on anothers' behalf are entitled to their offense and everyone is entitled to question history but this isn't about that, it's about protesting the name of a cafe which is utterly pointless and does nothing to solve racial issues that we phase today.

Nothing will ever change regarding Churchill's legacy, for better or worse, people of all colours and creeds will put more focus on the war side of things than his questionable views, if he was alive today and spouting those views I'd be right there shouting 'Get her, Jade!' but he's either ashes or mulch at this point so what is the point of protesting the name of a cafe? What racial issues does this fix? They are entitled to waste their time, I am entitled to call it a waste of time.

Newsflash Kizzy, marketing and history is not the same thing. Che Guevara was problematic as **** but did that stop people from wearing clothes and bags with his face on it? Did the fact that he executed people without due course or even knowing they were guilty stop Cuba from putting his face on their currency? did the fact that he believed in censorship and ideals that are typically more right leaning stop the worship of him as a Left icon? No, because people bought into the image and not the reality.

When you put all the 'great leaders' of history under a microscope, they never come up clean. History remembers the best about these people but rarely the worst. I'm not defending him or being an 'apologist' I just think this protest is a complete waste of energy by a bunch of people that look for stupid reasons to be offended instead of caring about the important issues.

You can't rewrite history, you can only learn from it, if people in today's world hold the attitude that Churchill had then go ahead, protest them but protesting a time period that, if you were born in, you'd probably be raised sharing that mindset is pointless. These people aren't interested in making a difference, they are only interested in being offended and drawing attention to themselves and not the cause. I have no time for posers like this whose efforts are only skin deep.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Okay, calm down, you aren't a scholar of the subject just because you've done a google search on it after watching the video so don't look down at me or anyone else just because you think that you are.

Who said we don't have the right to question our history? Can you point that out to me? Go no, quote it for me. I'll wait. These entitled white people looking to be offended on anothers' behalf are entitled to their offense and everyone is entitled to question history but this isn't about that, it's about protesting the name of a cafe which is utterly pointless and does nothing to solve racial issues that we phase today.

Nothing will ever change regarding Churchill's legacy, for better or worse, people of all colours and creeds will put more focus on the war side of things than his questionable views, if he was alive today and spouting those views I'd be right there shouting 'Get her, Jade!' but he's either ashes or mulch at this point so what is the point of protesting the name of a cafe? What racial issues does this fix? They are entitled to waste their time, I am entitled to call it a waste of time.

Newsflash Kizzy, marketing and history is not the same thing. Che Guevara was problematic as **** but did that stop people from wearing clothes and bags with his face on it? Did the fact that he executed people without due course or even knowing they were guilty stop Cuba from putting his face on their currency? did the fact that he believed in censorship and ideals that are typically more right leaning stop the worship of him as a Left icon? No, because people bought into the image and not the reality.

When you put all the 'great leaders' of history under a microscope, they never come up clean. History remembers the best about these people but rarely the worst. I'm not defending him or being an 'apologist' I just think this protest is a complete waste of energy by a bunch of people that look for stupid reasons to be offended instead of caring about the important issues.

You can't rewrite history, you can only learn from it, if people in today's world hold the attitude that Churchill had then go ahead, protest them but protesting a time period that, if you were born in, you'd probably be raised sharing that mindset is pointless. These people aren't interested in making a difference, they are only interested in being offended and drawing attention to themselves and not the cause. I have no time for posers like this whose efforts are only skin deep.

I'm not looking down on you... Maybe it was a waste of time, but it is never past a time when someones questionable views are beyond analysis ... even when they are dead, which is what they are doing, in a very amdram way but it got some coverage so

I only used the term apologist as it seemed appropriate with regard to this whitewashing of the views he had which I don't feel were as mainstream as you believe ... if they were wouldn't they be acted on more overtly than they are? Wouldn't those views be more readily acceptable in modern civilised society? They aren't so that suggests to me that the ideology he had of imperialism and colonialism aside from the eugenicist aspect were not what society wanted, as in it was not popular culturally post war.

[Underscore]

But yeah you keep riding roughshod over peoples ideas and opinions when you don't have the faintest idea of that person.

Why did you support Ann Widdecombe again?

[montblanc]

they're protesting because they don't want to have a place named by a racist duh

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by montblanc

they're protesting because they don't want to have a place named by a racist duh

In fairness, if that's the case then very few places would be named after historical figures.

It seems to be a pointless thing to protest over when there are real issues of racism to protest and take a stand.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

In fairness, if that's the case then very few places would be named after historical figures.

It seems to be a pointless thing to protest over when there are real issues of racism to protest and take a stand.

It's reminding me of Randy Marsh in South Park, going through the phone book to call everyone in Columbus, Ohio to tell them that their town is racist

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Underscore

But yeah you keep riding roughshod over peoples ideas and opinions when you don't have the faintest idea of that person.

Why did you support Ann Widdecombe again?

stay on your lane son

[Crimson Dynamo]

also to totally fail to grasp the period and try and judge it by today's standards is embarrassing

once they all get jobs and a mortgage and a partner they will find real things to worry about i guess

[bots]

That bloody Eve and her apple ....

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

That bloody Eve and her apple ....

Don’t blame Eve....wasn’t there a snake involved somewhere

[bots]

it's pretty simple really, we shouldn't look to blame previous generations for our own failings. The fact that we still have racism etc, is our own failing, not generations gone by

[ethanjames]

but,,, he was

[user104658]

Churchill was a cultural white supremacist and a colonialist Kizzy, that much is true, but he was patently not a eugenicist. If you're going to focus on his ... less admirable ... attributes, at least make sure you have the history right. He believed that white people were more civilised and more intelligent than other races, and essentially that Britain was "doing the world a favour" by colonising Africa and the Americas because we were bringing a more civilised lifestyle to a more primitive brand of humanity. He didn't believe that it was a world only for white people, he didn't want to kill off other races (as Hitler did)... in fact he had no malice or hatred for other races at all. He simply and genuinely believed that white people were more advanced. I believe he actually spoke a few times about how white British people actually had a duty to support and protect "disadvantaged" races and countries and, like I said, he believed that colonialism was morally correct in that it actually provided a superior lifestyle. I guess you could say... he was sort of like a white supremacist vegan? He believed that they were inferior but didn't believe that they should be harmed for that.

Was he correct? No. And yes it is unquestionably a racist and small-minded attitude. However, it's not close to the same thing as Hitler's eugenics ideas and genocide. Trying to make out that it is, is just as much butchering true history as it is to suggest that he wasn't racist at all.

Also, it's not so much an excuse as a flat-out fact to say that the VAST majority of people born in the late 1800's - of all classes and positions - would have held, by todays standards, pretty racist and white-supremacist ideas. Not from a place of anger or hatred, people just mistakenly believed that it was cold hard fact... and as others in this thread have said, trying to get on a moral high-horse about historical figures is utterly pointless. All that's really required is a "thankfully things are dramatically improved, let's make sure they keep improving". It doesn't, and can't, over-write the REST of history... or else every examination of every historical figure would just read "YEAH BUT THEY WRR RACIST THO!!" in block capitals.

[Kizzy]

“The improvement of the British breed is my aim in life,” Winston Churchill wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899, shortly after his twenty-fifth birthday. Churchill’s view was reinforced by his experiences as a young British officer serving, and fighting, in Arab and Muslim lands, and in South Africa. Like most of his contemporaries, family and friends, he regarded races as different, racial characteristics as signs of the maturity of a society, and racial purity as endangered not only by other races but by mental weaknesses within a race. As a young politician in Britain entering Parliament in 1901, Churchill saw what were then known as the “feeble-minded” and the “insane” as a threat to the prosperity, vigour and virility of British society.'

https://www.winstonchurchill.org/pub...nd-eugenics-1/