[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Not President Churchill!


No he didn't. Just because those views were practically a consensus, it doesn't mean they were the truth.

[Marsh.]

More fool her and any others for thinking heroes or historical figures need to be 100% perfect anyway.

They're remembered for the good they did/the things they achieved. To suggest his character flaws should somehow take those away from him is quite pathetic.

Maybe focus on modern day racism and those that are... you know, still alive and, in some cases, still ruling countries.

[montblanc]

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

[bots]

Originally Posted by montblanc

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

if someone wants to make a point, it's never a smart move to target someone who is universally respected for what he achieved.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if someone wants to make a point, it's never a smart move to target someone who is universally respected for what he achieved.

can you explain this please?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by montblanc

can you explain this please?

Isn't it kind of obvious? Another way to put it would be even if she had a good point, it would be better made if she didn't aim it at someone with as much respect as Churchill.
Criticizing Churchill will make some just automatically dismiss whatever's being said. If she wanted to be listened to, she should have spoke about some more neutrally regarded.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by montblanc

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

He is not anything as he is no longer here. But he left his mark and played a considerable part in giving us all the freedoms we have today. At the time he and most people believed their views to be right.

On the same note none of us have any reason to respect her.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

He is not anything as he is no longer here. But he left his mark and played a considerable part in giving us all the freedoms we have today. At the time he and most people believed their views to be right.

On the same note none of us have any reason to respect her.

*he WAS a racist, then

[bots]

Originally Posted by montblanc

*he WAS a racist, then

he wasn't when measured against the time he lived in.

If a law is introduced in the year 2000 and someone lived in the 1800's they are not subject to the law introduced in 2000 and can't be measured against it. If that law was in place during his lifetime he may have been a completely different person.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

he wasn't when measured against the time he lived in.

If a law is introduced in the year 2000 and someone lived in the 1800's they are not subject to the law introduced in 2000 and can't be measured against it. If that law was in place during his lifetime he may have been a completely different person.

racism and law are two separate things so i don't think that's the best comparison?

it doesn't matter what time it was, he was still a racist

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by montblanc

*he WAS a racist, then

Where did I say that - he was not.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Where did I say that - he was not.

"he is not anything as he is no longer here"

?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by montblanc

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

He was also homophobic, but I respect him and his achievements.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

He was also homophobic, but I respect him and his achievements.

understandable but you can't expect her to

[Crimson Dynamo]

nawt people trying to defend this to be contrary

[RileyH]

what is this