[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 )

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

Youtube video

[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.

[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.

[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^^

[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?

[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.

[Tom4784]

He probably was a racist, it was more acceptable back then. I don't think ignoring that aspect and saying it's 'besmirching' Churchill's legacy is a very healthy attitude to take. Most historical 'heroes' are far from perfect and it's important to remember that.

It's quite a PC attitude to try to protect historical figures from criticism for fear of causing offense. No one is above criticism.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He probably was a racist, it was more acceptable back then. I don't think ignoring that aspect and saying it's 'besmirching' Churchill's legacy is a very healthy attitude to take. Most historical 'heroes' are far from perfect and it's important to remember that.

It's quite a PC attitude to try to protect historical figures from criticism for fear of causing offense. No one is above criticism.

true, but a hero like Churchill has done great unforgettable things in WWII

[Tom4784]

He was a human like anyone else, I don't think the darker aspects of his character should be wiped away for the sake of his achievements because they were a part of who he was. Most figures like Churchill operated in shades of grey and I think it's rewriting history to ignore the parts that might 'besmirch' his legacy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"i think that a fundamental British value is integrity and intellectual curiosity"


what is a British value, who decides on them and who decides what they are?

What is integrity?

What is intellectual curiosity, define intellectual?


"i cant understand why the British nation in 2018 are comfortable with a Propagandist version 0f history"

who is comfortable?

what is a Propagandist version 0f history?

---------------

This awful woman is literally making up here own facts and data to hang her massive shoulder chip on

just vile

[Twosugars]

Don't see a problem telling things as they were, after all, hiding them would be worse and those reading original sources would discover them anyway,
but need to put a disclaimer that his was a prevalent attitude at the time.
No point in trying to whitewash things though.
He overindulged in alcohol, used drugs, suffered from depression etc, that doesn't dimish him, just makes him human.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Lets face it she is doing this to make herself feel important, its more about her than anyone else

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Lets face it she is doing this to make herself feel important, its more about her than anyone else

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

Nicky is dragging LT