[Brillopad]

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv...l-tv-GMB-clash

With Morgan on this. No-one is perfect, including her, but Churchill did a great service to this country. Petty PC gripes about a man no longer here to defend himself from those wanting to make a big deal about them can bu**er off. She is just trying to undermine traditional British history and its legends to fit her own PC agenda. Transparent as glass!

[Nicky91]

Churchill was a great PM (during some tough times in WW2)

[Mystic Mock]

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

i didn't know this, i only have respect for him cause of his achievements during WWII

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i didn't know this, i only have respect for him cause of his achievements during WWII

Tbf he had his views of his time, he wasn't the only one to have his racist views and he certainly won't be the last.

I actually agree with Afua that the good and the bad points of Winston Churchill are more interesting to talk about than trying to make him a holy figure that can't be debated about on his negative sides.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf he had his views of his time, he wasn't the only one to have his racist views and he certainly won't be the last.

I actually agree with Afua that the good and the bad points of Winston Churchill are more interesting to talk about than trying to make him a holy figure that can't be debated about on his negative sides.

of course, negative things are usually most interesting to talk about, criticizing people, alive or dead


Geert Wilders also has his racist views, towards any non-dutch person living in my country (even though his own wife is Hungarian )

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

Times were different then and this woman is using it to try to undermine traditional ‘white’ Britain for PC gain. It’s weak and it’s cheap - rather like her.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Times were different then and this woman is using it to try to undermine traditional ‘white’ Britain for PC gain. It’s weak and it’s cheap - rather like her.

Just another MONEY GRUBBING fake seizing an opportunity to promote her book.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Just another MONEY GRUBBING fake seizing an opportunity to promote her book.

Youtube video

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

I don't know Mock,was he? even so I think it was more likely to be racist back in the day , back then Britain was a very proud nation and weren't we predominantly English ,I don't know much about it all so am probably wrong but from what I have seen and heard times have changed a lot regarding peoples views from the Churchill days.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

He was around in the first half of the 20th century. Of course he was a racist.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Redway

He was around in the first half of the 20th century. Of course he was a racist.

It's true that, Nelson Mandela was a massive one.

[arista]

Yes writer Afua Hirsch
has been on about the Bad sides of Churchill
for a long time.
the problem is way back then was nothing like today.

[jaxie]

I think it's difficult to judge historical figures by the standards of today because living in those times were different, beliefs and upbringing was different. If you are raised to see the world a certain way then that is what you will do. People were men and women of their times. What we can do is compare Churchill most favourably when you look at Hitler.

[user104658]

He was a white supremacist but not a hostile one; basically he believed that white people were literally intellectually superior genetically and should therefore be in charge... but he wasn't hateful of other races. It's a complicated one, like people say, very much a product of his time and this is what he was educated to believe .

People will say it doesn't matter what "the times" were but it sort of does... it's a totally different situation today where everyone KNOWS that there are no significant biological differences between races other than skin colour and other physical features, and to believe that one is "superior" one has to be actively ignoring the abundant available evidence and choosing to be a supremacist.

There was a thread about this recently though I think.

My stance hasn't really changed; measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

Correct. Times change, the world moves on. What people seem to forget is that without Churchill, people wouldn't be able hold and express the views they do so freely today.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He was a white supremacist but not a hostile one; basically he believed that white people were literally intellectually superior genetically and should therefore be in charge... but he wasn't hateful of other races. It's a complicated one, like people say, very much a product of his time and this is what he was educated to believe .

People will say it doesn't matter what "the times" were but it sort of does... it's a totally different situation today where everyone KNOWS that there are no significant biological differences between races other than skin colour and other physical features, and to believe that one is "superior" one has to be actively ignoring the abundant available evidence and choosing to be a supremacist.

There was a thread about this recently though I think.

My stance hasn't really changed; measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

TS read my mind and expressed it better than I could so
This^^

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He was a white supremacist but not a hostile one; basically he believed that white people were literally intellectually superior genetically and should therefore be in charge... but he wasn't hateful of other races. It's a complicated one, like people say, very much a product of his time and this is what he was educated to believe .

People will say it doesn't matter what "the times" were but it sort of does... it's a totally different situation today where everyone KNOWS that there are no significant biological differences between races other than skin colour and other physical features, and to believe that one is "superior" one has to be actively ignoring the abundant available evidence and choosing to be a supremacist.

There was a thread about this recently though I think.

My stance hasn't really changed; measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

Couldn’t put it better.
Agree with everything in this post.

[Oliver_W]

Discrediting his achievements because he had dodgy views is just stupid. I think nearly everyone acknowledges he held those views, but it's pointless to trash his legacy because of them. Why was that woman even given airtime?

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Why was that woman even given airtime?

Because believe it or not, this is an impartial news programme where all views are heard.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Underscore

Because believe it or not, this is an impartial news programme where all views are heard.

I have the view that we shouldn't keep building over the countryside, but that wouldn't get me on GMB. But the random and pointless views of that woman need to be heard?

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I have the view that we shouldn't keep building over the countryside, but that wouldn't get me on GMB. But the random and pointless views of that woman need to be heard?

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Underscore

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

She shouldn't be censored, but she should be ridiculed and insulted. That's free speech.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Underscore

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

Churchill existed, and did good and bad things, mostly good. He deserves his place in history, despite the bad. Does she want History lessons to include "and let's not forget, Churchill was a naaaaasty racist!!1" or something? It's pointless because there's nothing worth changing. Like I said upthread, most people acknowledge Churchill had views of his time.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Underscore

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

SHe would be getting a taste of her own medicine then wouldn’t she! Karma - isn’t’ it great!