[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

This does nothing to detract from Toy Soldier's post. If I'd spent extended time in muslim lands, I'd probably have high praises for the UK as well!

It does everything to detract from it as it specifically contradicts it. Have you any plans to visit a Muslim land?

[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.

[Alf]

Why is White supremacy so diverse?

All these so called White supremecist countries are the most diverse countries on Earth, why is that?

[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.

[Scarlett.]

They can feel free to protest him, but they should also remember that if it wasn't for Churchill, we'd have probably been under Nazi rule now, its thanks to people like Churchill that we have the right to express our selves the way we do.

[Kizzy]

Doubtful, we were saved by allied forces. He could talk the talk is all.
Following the war he was straight out on his ear again.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Doubtful, we were saved by allied forces. He could talk the talk is all.
Following the war he was straight out on his ear again.

The Allied Forces only gained a foothold because the UK was still standing, can hardly mount a meaningful offensive from across the Atlantic.

[user104658]

The end of WWII sparked the decline of colonial Britain, a lot of changes in society, and people's worldview though... And Churchill was 70 years old in 1945. I know it might be "ageist" to say this but... People that sort of age have entrenched views and very, very rarely change them. You can't point out postwar societal attitudes and expect that Churchill should have shared them, he grew up pre-war, pre 1st World War even, when British colonialism was still swinging away. He had the attitudes of an 1800's British colonialist, because that's what he was.

You can't plonk any historical figure into another timeline and expect to come out with anything other than utter nonsense to be honest. Trying to use modern day values to assess someone born 150 years ago is meaningless.

[Maru]

I don't think most people have enough appreciation for public figures and what public office actually entails. I've been thinking about this topic recently. Folk such as Prime Ministers, Presidents, etc... as swampy as politicians are, it's not like we don't help to create that very same swamp. We treat them like celebrities on the cover of tabloids now more-so than generations passed. It's like we want them to fail. Yes, this sort of vulturous culture has always been there, but it seems to have really kicked up in the past 10 or so years.

So it's not surprising that the types who could very easily manipulate the public (Donald Trump and his Twitter feed) and abuse this type of mania would of course come to power. We've turned politics into a circus, complete with a throne made of excrement. I wonder how many brilliant minds have passed on public office because of the spectacle it's become. I wouldn't want to go anywhere near public office seeing how things are done...

Truthfully, it's not easy to be in public office and we couldn't pick just anyone off the street to try to run a country, much less to make a speech... Too many say they can do them better, that they know just how to solve all the issues of the world. That's obviously not true. Once they found out how much sh*t it actually takes to run things and how much work is involved, how much actual headache it is to run such large and complex systems (much less getting people to work with them to run things their way), they wouldn't even bother.

We were very fortunate that the right mix of people, Churchill included, were around when we needed them the most. They weren't perfect human beings and none of us are. However,it's not like the human race has stopped evolving and hasn't tried to move beyond it's flaws. I don't think anyone past or present would argue what we had was enough and we could stop progressing now. We're always in danger of stepping backwards, and I think real leaders know that more than average folk. The situation was not ideal then, and it's not necessarily any more ideal now, but it's certainly progress...

[user104658]

Everybody just gets so indigenous about these things.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i think we should kill him just to be on the safe side

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i think we should kill him just to be on the safe side

That's a bit much, closing his Café should be enough. Hit him in the pocket where it hurts.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The end of WWII sparked the decline of colonial Britain, a lot of changes in society, and people's worldview though... And Churchill was 70 years old in 1945. I know it might be "ageist" to say this but... People that sort of age have entrenched views and very, very rarely change them. You can't point out postwar societal attitudes and expect that Churchill should have shared them, he grew up pre-war, pre 1st World War even, when British colonialism was still swinging away. He had the attitudes of an 1800's British colonialist, because that's what he was.

You can't plonk any historical figure into another timeline and expect to come out with anything other than utter nonsense to be honest. Trying to use modern day values to assess someone born 150 years ago is meaningless.

I'm not even going to mention today's Mr C's age

[James]

One of the greatest Britons, no doubt about it. Just for leading the country, when it was on its own in standing up to probably the worst regime that's ever existed - when they were controlling almost all of western Europe in 1940-41.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I'm not even going to mention today's Mr C's age

Well it is relevant, it's not even really a criticism in itself, just is what it is. Corbyn (and May, to be fair, and most of government, none of them are exactly spring chickens) hold the beliefs that they do and whether they're right / agreed with or not... The point is, it's very unlikely that they're going to significantly CHANGE at this point.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The end of WWII sparked the decline of colonial Britain, a lot of changes in society, and people's worldview though... And Churchill was 70 years old in 1945. I know it might be "ageist" to say this but... People that sort of age have entrenched views and very, very rarely change them. You can't point out postwar societal attitudes and expect that Churchill should have shared them, he grew up pre-war, pre 1st World War even, when British colonialism was still swinging away. He had the attitudes of an 1800's British colonialist, because that's what he was.

You can't plonk any historical figure into another timeline and expect to come out with anything other than utter nonsense to be honest. Trying to use modern day values to assess someone born 150 years ago is meaningless.

The quote in my post he made when he was 25, the mid 1800s were the time of the great reformists and the chartists... the progressives, then there were the colonialists and imperialists.

It is ridiculous to lump all of society into one box, high society or the public they were diverse in their values.

Yes he was a colonialist, he chose to have those beliefs others did not hold those views from the same era, although to suggest that he may have been in any way less than golden is met with cries of derision due to his inflated status specifically in relation to the war.
In all other aspects of governance he garnered no public confidence due to his sociopolitical stance.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by James

One of the greatest Britons, no doubt about it. Just for leading the country, when it was on its own in standing up to probably the worst regime that's ever existed - when they were controlling almost all of western Europe in 1940-41.

During that time he was in an allied strategy with Roosevelt ...and Stalin.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

to suggest that he may have been in any way less than golden is met with cries of derision due to his inflated status

Where, exactly, do you imagine this to be happening? It certainly hadn't happened in this thread, nor would it happen when discussing the history of WW2 in an academic setting... Maybe in the mainstream media? Though I can't imagine he's mentioned much in this day and age. Social media, then? I can't picture many historical discussions of Churchill on there either .

Gosh darnit, IIRC even Doctor Who, which has on a few occasions depicted Churchills achievements in WW2, has featured scenes of the Doctor arguing with him / telling him off for some of his views.

Honestly? I don't think that these "cries of derision if he's painting d as less than golden" actually happen, other than in the imaginations of those who want to be black-and-white in the other direction. Most of the discussion I've seen - both here and in general - is quite accepting of the nuanced facts; that people with some distasteful opinions and behaviours can nonetheless still do great things, and likewise, people who are generally fair and morally upstanding are capable of doing bad things.

The unfortunate and complicated truth is that "good and evil" just do not exist. He had some abhorrent beliefs. Yet he had many great achievements. He WAS instrumental in turning the tide of the war. He can be applauded for his achievements whilst still criticising other aspects of his politics. I feel like that's something you struggle with on general, Kizzy... You do maybe have a tendency to make politics (both current and historical) into a "good guys versus bad guys" thing, when the reality is always murky.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

During that time he was in an allied strategy with Roosevelt ...and Stalin.

This would be a prime example I suppose. Without the western Allied Forces alliance with Stalin, Hitler would have conquered Europe. No way around that. Allying with an individual like Stalin, who was guilty of unspeakable things, was entirely necessary at the time.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Where, exactly, do you imagine this to be happening? It certainly hadn't happened in this thread, nor would it happen when discussing the history of WW2 in an academic setting... Maybe in the mainstream media? Though I can't imagine he's mentioned much in this day and age. Social media, then? I can't picture many historical discussions of Churchill on there either .

Gosh darnit, IIRC even Doctor Who, which has on a few occasions depicted Churchills achievements in WW2, has featured scenes of the Doctor arguing with him / telling him off for some of his views.

Honestly? I don't think that these "cries of derision if he's painting d as less than golden" actually happen, other than in the imaginations of those who want to be black-and-white in the other direction. Most of the discussion I've seen - both here and in general - is quite accepting of the nuanced facts; that people with some distasteful opinions and behaviours can nonetheless still do great things, and likewise, people who are generally fair and morally upstanding are capable of doing bad things.

The unfortunate and complicated truth is that "good and evil" just do not exist. He had some abhorrent beliefs. Yet he had many great achievements. He WAS instrumental in turning the tide of the war. He can be applauded for his achievements whilst still criticising other aspects of his politics. I feel like that's something you struggle with on general, Kizzy... You do maybe have a tendency to make politics (both current and historical) into a "good guys versus bad guys" thing, when the reality is always murky.

Wasn't there recently a hollywood blockbuster movie made about the man?...That aside from his 'British bulldog' assimilation.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis TS, it's always a pleasure being patronised for my views in SD

Out of interest with regard to the allied strategy who would you say were the 'good guys and bad guys' Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin?
Because as we know the decisions he made he did not make alone did he.. in a world war that would be silly talk to suggest that one man was responsible for the overall outcome wouldn't it?

[James]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

During that time he was in an allied strategy with Roosevelt ...and Stalin.

That wasn't until December and June 1941 when the US and Soviet Union joined the Allied side?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by James

That wasn't until December and June 1941 when the US and Soviet Union joined the Allied side?

So in 41 he was allied with them, and I suspect diplomatic talks began in the months prior to that. I wouldn't have thought Churchill rocked up one day with a cunning plan :/

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Thanks for the psychoanalysis TS, it's always a pleasure being patronised for my views in SD

To address this part quickly - this is just your usual attempt to shut down anything I have to say that is in disagreement with you. It's boring and from this point I'm ignoring this and similar.

Out of interest with regard to the allied strategy who would you say were the 'good guys and bad guys' Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin?
Because as we know the decisions he made he did not make alone did he.. in a world war that would be silly talk to suggest that one man was responsible for the overall outcome wouldn't it?

I feel like you've missed the point. There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.

As for if one man was responsible for the outcome? That's a tough one to answer really. WW2 could very well have gone either way at certain points. Germany was defeated by a combination of efforts. Despite the popular American perception that they "stepped in to save everyone", the fact is that America couldn't even have gained a foothold in Europe without the allied forces, and Britain would have eventually folded without the US, AND neither of them could have completed the final push without Russian forces from the east dividing the German front.

Churchill was instrumental in gaining early US logistical support. Would it have come without him? Possibly, possibly not, possibly too late. It's guesswork because it didn't happen. But yes there is a distinct possibility that without Churchill, specifically, the war would have gone the other way.

[edit] To be more specific, it's very possible that without Churchill gaining logistical support from the US - which came long before their physical involvement - British military resources would have run dry fairly quickly and Germany would have taken control of all of Western Europe. The US would then have had no staging ground for landing ground forces in mainland Europe and would most likely have stuck to their, at the time, isolationist politics and focused on mainland defence of the US.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To address this part quickly - this is just your usual attempt to shut down anything I have to say that is in disagreement with you. It's boring and from this point I'm ignoring this and similar.




I feel like you've missed the point. There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.

As for if one man was responsible for the outcome? That's a tough one to answer really. WW2 could very well have gone either way at certain points. Germany was defeated by a combination of efforts. Despite the popular American perception that they "stepped in to save everyone", the fact is that America couldn't even have gained a foothold in Europe without the allied forces, and Britain would have eventually folded without the US, AND neither of them could have completed the final push without Russian forces from the east dividing the German front.

Churchill was instrumental in gaining early US logistical support. Would it have come without him? Possibly, possibly not, possibly too late. It's guesswork because it didn't happen. But yes there is a distinct possibility that without Churchill, specifically, the war would have gone the other way.

[edit] To be more specific, it's very possible that without Churchill gaining logistical support from the US - which came long before their physical involvement - British military resources would have run dry fairly quickly and Germany would have taken control of all of Western Europe. The US would then have had no staging ground for landing ground forces in mainland Europe and would most likely have stuck to their, at the time, isolationist politics and focused on mainland defence of the US.

You got personal TS.. You can't blame me for highlighting that :/
You can choose to ignore what you like... you can't dictate what I comment on in relation to my suggested flaws.
It has zero to do with your opinion on the topic in discussion or whether I agree or disagree with you.

'There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.'

And yet I apparently reduce things down to good guys v bad guys... Do I get my history from primary school level books then... or as I mentioned hollywood movies?

Is this your attempt to shut me down...Or have I 'missed the point'?

If you are referring to lend lease then that was in the interest of the US also to enter that, it wasn't a personal favour to Churchill.
They were not isolationist the American peoples wanted to help if only financially initially.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You got personal TS.. You can't blame me for highlighting that :/
You can choose to ignore what you like... you can't dictate what I comment on in relation to my suggested flaws.
It has zero to do with your opinion on the topic in discussion or whether I agree or disagree with you.

'There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.'

And yet I apparently reduce things down to good guys v bad guys... Do I get my history from primary school level books then... or as I mentioned hollywood movies?

Is this your attempt to shut me down...Or have I 'missed the point'?

If you are referring to lend lease then that was in the interest of the US also to enter that, it wasn't a personal favour to Churchill.
They were not isolationist the American peoples wanted to help if only financially initially.

I have no idea where you get your history from Kizzy, I just know that if you do believe in the concept of "good guys and bad guys" - or believe that a historical figure (e.g. Churchill) can't have contributed positive things on the grounds that they had other character flaws, then I don't agree with your view of history. So no, it's not an attempt to shut you down, it's an attempt to illustrate my belief that history (and people, past and present) are nuanced and complicated and that attempts to look at it in a black-and-white manner are misguided. So I suppose, then, yes, you have missed the point.

Also, yes I was referring to lend-lease, which I am aware was in the interests of the US, but Churchill was instrumental in securing it and in negotiating the ways in which it would be beneficial. Like I said - it's possible that the same would have come about without him, it's also possible that it wouldn't have, and it's possible that without his input it would have taken longer to secure and therefore have been too late. WW2 wasn't clear cut at any point and a delay could certainly have affected the outcome. Obviously, no one can say for sure... but if you could go back in time and remove him, would you be willing to risk it?