Define neutrality in an age where systemic racism permeates through every facet of society, including but not limited to academia. This is the central issue in debates like this, we're all effectively living in our own separate realities with completely different histories. Not enough people have internalised that fact and it shows.
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Please don't escalate into motives that don't exist, just because you don't like what I wrote.
You made yours as a statement of fact, not opinion. What you said is not fact. Far far far from it.
Well how about studying opinions from a range of professional historians, classified as the best of their era, for a start?
Read cabinet reports and media articles from the time.
Speak to people who family actually suffered and firsthand witness reports?
Hows that for a start?
I know mate, history is one my passions. I was using your post to make a wider point. It wasn't a critique as much as an expansion pack.
The topic can hardly escalate any higher my dear sammsky.
I said
Because that is stated by one historian, not myself.
People can find out themselves whether Churchill caused a famine in Bengal and the deaths of 4 million themselves, not need to take my word for it.
You mentioned Richard Toye before, so I had a look at what appear to be his two main books on Churchill, and as far as I can see he devotes barely a page to the Bengal Famine, in his Churchill’s Empire:
Is there some other work of his that I’ve missed that examines it in greater depth?
The “Nobel-prize winning analysis” referred to is I believe by Amartya Sen, and as indicated above, it has not gone unchallenged. You can read a lengthy response from the historian Mark B Tauger here, and then a fairly tedious back and forth between Tauger and Amartya Sen in The New York Review here and here. I’m in no way qualified to judge who has the right of it, but based on that exchange I’m not really buying the idea that there is a consensus among scholars regarding the causes of the famine. Who are the other historians you have in mind?
I'm not a historian but I have lived with this subject on and off for over 20 years. I wrote it up as my final year thesis in Economic History @ University of Manchester and got awarded a 1st. Since then I read whatever I've gotten my hands on when it cropped up or my interest was reignited.You mentioned Richard Toye before, so I had a look at what appear to be his two main books on Churchill, and as far as I can see he devotes barely a page to the Bengal Famine, in his Churchill’s Empire:
Is there some other work of his that I’ve missed that examines it in greater depth?
The “Nobel-prize winning analysis” referred to is I believe by Amartya Sen, and as indicated above, it has not gone unchallenged. You can read a lengthy response from the historian Mark B Tauger here, and then a fairly tedious back and forth between Tauger and Amartya Sen in The New York Review here and here. I’m in no way qualified to judge who has the right of it, but based on that exchange I’m not really buying the idea that there is a consensus among scholars regarding the causes of the famine. Who are the other historians you have in mind?
Over the years thats included Toye, Sen, Tharoor, Amira Mishra, Mike Davis, many Indian and Bangladeshi historians I cant name remember, UK and India news clippings at the time, people in West Bengal and Bangladesh whose grandparents actually died. Generally speaking all Indian sources blame Churchill as do most western commentators. My opinion in those who claim natural reasons is paid for yellow history.
Last edited:
A murdering racist responsible for the Black and Tans
Last edited:
You said I was attempting to make you out to be a liar. I did not. No where close.
You really need to read my posts dear sammsky if you are going to make pronouncement upon them.
so you never wrote that?You really need to read my posts dear sammsky if you are going to make pronouncement upon them.
And as I wrote on the first page, in general Im delighted Churchills statue had a tiny few scribbles put onto it for one day, because millions have found out today things they never knew about him, because they had been whitewashed out of official British taught history. So your wish has come true.
And Englands most violent, racist and hateful will march into central London this Saturday to save Churchills statue from further scribbles.
Honestly, is it to be so simple in merely quoting my own post back to you to show you your error?
If needs be then.
Millions? Please show me where millions have found out today the things that you say they never knew about him. Do you believe that millions read your posts on her sammsky? Wow, that's some kind of following you have there sir.
Yes, I've seen a post that shows the pathetic plans of a few racists sammsky, so what? Do tell me that I needed to know that in the context of this discussion.
Sincerely, it's almost like being back in the playground of my primary school the level of debate to be enjoyed on here at times.
Just so we’re not talking past each other, can you clarify if these sources blame Churchill for causing the famine or for exacerbating it?
The entire frame of "historic objectivity and political neutrality" in this country and others is structured around supporting an maintaining the supremacy of the ruling class. If you don't interrogate everything you read with that in mind, you're simply lying to yourself. So instead of getting into circular dick measuring contests, consider expanding your horizons innit.
I used to be like a lot of the narrow minded twats in this thread until I wasn't. I'd probably have ended up being a Jordan Peterson/Sam Harris dick riding drone if I was born 10 years later than I was but thankfully I wasn't and was afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistakes.
I used to be like a lot of the narrow minded twats in this thread until I wasn't. I'd probably have ended up being a Jordan Peterson/Sam Harris dick riding drone if I was born 10 years later than I was but thankfully I wasn't and was afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistakes.
Directly causing
I don’t get the first part of this post. Over my head. You claimed I called you a liar. I did not.Honestly, is it to be so simple in merely quoting my own post back to you to show you your error?
If needs be then.
Millions? Please show me where millions have found out today the things that you say they never knew about him. Do you believe that millions read your posts on her sammsky? Wow, that's some kind of following you have there sir.
Yes, I've seen a post that shows the pathetic plans of a few racists sammsky, so what? Do tell me that I needed to know that in the context of this discussion.
Sincerely, it's almost like being back in the playground of my primary school the level of debate to be enjoyed on here at times.
On the point of educating millions of Brits, you obviously have no comprehension on what’s been going on in msm and social media today, and how that those metrics will amplify in coming days. Read up on it and maybe you’ll get some empathy outside your own lived experience.
Lastly, you side on the side of Tommy Robinson. Make of that what you will and own it with pride.
Last edited:
I gave you permission to call my a liar if you read my words sammsky, your posts may edge about what you want to say but you don't have the guts to do it.
I don't follow msm, not a big social media follower, I rely on you dear sammsky to educate me and so far it hasn't been a satisfactory experience.
You know nothing about me if you do not and refuse to understand which side I am on and who I have empathy for. I side with BLM and I keep saying that if you want people to learn and change then you and I need to bring people with us, not make enemies of them. When you understand this dear sammsky you may begin to grow.
Telling me that I side with Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley Fat-Head) it is a poorly aimed jibe and worthy of the schoolyard. Oh it brings such memories back.
Make the effort to learn sammsky, it's well worth the effort.
I do know abit about you as we have shared personal messages in the past.
You denied millions have not learned new things, just because you have no empathy with what is going on in the world. self righteousness if ever I came cross it.
I think Churchill was one of the worst human beings to have ever walked the planet, and is lionised only in a country that had been fundamentally racist, brutally murderous and raping and looting til the point of his death and very racist ever since. You don't. Your choice. Thats our difference.
And sadly you don't posses what it takes to educate me otherwise.
Good night.
Last edited:
Come on mate
that's not a nice thing to say, there's no way in hell that Oates supports Tommy twatface and it's an insult to say he does.If I found out Tommy Robinson ate Rice Crispies, I'd change to Cornflakes. I saw him and his mates wearing Lacoste polo shirts so stopped wearing themCome on mate
@oates is a beautiful person and certainly does not share Tommy Robinson beliefs, which is why he should reconsider his view on Churchill
Last edited:
I'm afraid then that you and I have reached the end of the road. Maybe one day you will make a post worthy of replying to, I hope I don't miss it.
I forgive him, it was poorly aimed.Come on mate
People think that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, no they aren't, the enemy of your enemy is merely that and no more. Tommy isn't my friend just because he is the enemy of BAME people. People who think in straight lines and black and white make terrible mistakes.
Ok. With a bit of digging, I’ve not been able to find any reference to Churchill in Sen’s seminal work on the famine, or in the article by Arima Mishra you’ve linked to. It appears that Davis’ research has concentrated on Victorian-era famines, not WW2. And I think it’s clear enough from the excerpt I’ve posted above that Toye does not blame Churchill for “directly causing” the famine, but certainly faults him for his response. That leaves Tharoor, who appears to depend heavily on a book called Churchill’s Secret War by Madhusree Mukerjee (neither are professional historians or economists). From this review and her response it appears she does attempt to portray Churchill’s actions as “one primary cause” of the famine. It’s interesting to read of her approval of Tauger (linked to above) and dispute with Sen, who writes that “in her single-minded, if understandable, attempt to nail down Churchill, she ends up absolving British imperial policy of confusion and callousness, which had disastrous consequences.”
So yeah, I’m still not seeing any kind of consensus from among the scholars you’ve mentioned. Certainly not enough to automatically associate those who differ from your own take on it with cynical motives. But I’ve certainly learned something about what is an interesting (and seemingly ongoing) debate.
Strangely not now. Although as a nation Australia has a weird relationship with Gallipoli.
https://theconversation.com/how-anzac-day-came-to-occupy-a-sacred-place-in-australians-hearts-76323
Just because you don't support someone directly doesn't mean you're not on the same side as them. I despise Piers Morgan for example but when it comes to criticising our governments response to COVID-19, we're on the same side. It's honestly not that complicated lads, I promise you.Come on mate
You keep telling on yourself without realising it and it's truly amazing to see. Like Sideshow Bob walking through a field of metaphysical rakes. Keep going man.
I suppose if sammsky is a rake then I certainly gave plenty of patience over to stepping on him.
Perhaps I should sing some Gilbert and Sullivan...
Perhaps some more schoolyard play?
I imagine part of what Oates is saying is that many of us already know that Churchill didn't just exist for the war years where he led us to an unlikely victory.
I worked in London after leaving school and before deciding to go to University. I had friends and a couple of girlfriends from the East End and their parents really believed that Churchill belonged to them. I don't think it is unique amongst the working class or the middle class to still believe in what he did during the war years. They know what some of his involvement was in Ireland and see him as someone given a job. We all know there's a lot more to Churchill then just that.
What I am saying is that he's still a hero and I don't feel his memory is worth attacking because at present the protestors mostly have their support, they abhor the brutality of the police in America and most empathise with Black and BAME all together, that the Windrush scandal of sending people back to a country they don't know or feel that they will be safe in is an outrage. That soldiers who served this country from other countries are treated badly, that Black and Asian youths are targeted by police when going about their business. They see all or some of these injustices and want those things to change. But Britons are a fickle people, a lot of them are sheep. When Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail tell them that the protestors are challenging their heroes and beliefs, their way of life they swing in the wind. Currently Public Opinion is with the protestors but give the government a chance, particularly Boris Johnsons puppeteers such as Rees-Mog and the cigar smoking grandees and they'll instruct the police to approach the protests more business-like. No, I don't think the Police will use the same measures as the US Police but they are very effective at kettling protestors and if the protests become violent when frustration sets in the movement will lose public support.
Little Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley Fat-Head) sees the same opportunity and wants to pre-empt that and next Saturday doesn't give all his shits about the statue but wants the violence to start over protecting a national monument so that Public Opinion swings his way. It's so simple it is pathetic. However I still believe that you have to keep people on side and the excuse to lose Public Support is all these people want. But then perhaps the demonstrators don't care.
I'd agree with this strongly. Churchill was a racist cnut that did a lot of harm but that's a conversation a lot of people are not ready to have, and not something that particularly helps anybody - while also providing an incredibly easy target for The Artist Currently Known As Tommy Robinson and any other knuckle-dragger on that side of the fence. There's a time and a place for the iconoclasm, but it's not something that's going to do any good out front to win hearts and minds.
Not surprised to see Tauger here, or his position for that matter. He is an expert on Soviet famines and his book is one of the sources used in the Stalinists vs rest of the world fight about Stalin's intentionality/culpability for the Ukraine famine of the early 30s. I believe that Tauger is on the "he didn't want to starve them but didn't care once it started, and shortages were ehavily due to natural factors" camp, which is used by the Stalinists to claim it is not a genocide.
What the Fash-Adjacement Chuckle Brothers fail to realise is that Tommy and the boys will hate us anyway. If pissing on a giant metal Churchill helps weed racist feckers out of our immediate circles, why would we stop at just pissing? Let's take a massive dump on his legacy too. Honestly, Uncle @V.O. taught me a valuable lesson about offending people today, like apparently it's okay to do so yeah feck Churchill, feck Ghandi and all the other sacred cows of the Empire and Thatcher too. Hope they fling her statute into the Mersey.
P.S.
Good read:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
This is the alternative act? Ben Elton?
Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley Fat-Head) has so little support a regiment of the Womens Institute could drown him and his bully boys with the jam they made last weekend. How many of them will turn up? 100? 200? 500? Flush them out? Flush them down the pan.
There are thousands of demonstrators and simply laughing at him will cause him so much rage he'll puff himself up like the cream puff he is, he'll explode with rage the little pipsqueak. Or perhaps there are people like Mr Pooni who see it his way. Perhaps. His answer, not even to waste his pish on a statue but to take a purposeful feck you dump on whatever he wants, that has made him so angry now he is no different to wee little Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen etc etc). Mr Pooni wants to be a Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley etc etc) tribute act.
Mr Pooni doesn't care about Public Support, I mean when will the opportunity arise again?, He just wants to enjoy his moment in the sun, feck the rest of us, pull the ladder up after him Jack. Tear down all the statues Mr Pooni. while you are in Liverpool just travel up to Morecambe on the Lancashire coast and tear down Eric Morecambe's statue why don't you. Go the whole hog and piss everyone off.
You don't need them, you don't have any long term plans, just a wee bit of revenge to warm your cold little heart.
Last edited:
Not everybody who has a marginally more pragmatic view than "burn everybody who has ever said a bad thing in the fires of moral purity" is a fecking fascist.
Of course the right wing lunatics are going to bleat regardless, that's not the issue - it's just pointless giving those cnuts free ammunition to sway the opinions of the majority of people who are not especially politically conscious. The figure and idea of Churchill still carry a lot of weight with plenty of people who aren't card carrying members of the EDL, and people like that are just going to see "the bloke who beat the nazis" being attacked and disregard the whole wider issue.
And yes, you can offend whoever the feck you like! If you want to join up to piss on Thatcher's grave, I'll be right there with you. I'm just not expecting that we'll be able to effect any actual change by doing so.
Sorry lads, anyone that easily swayed to a path of violent racism with Tommy and the Gang isn't worthy of my time or energy. Naturlly that must suck for you guys because I imagine a lot of your mates fall into that camp, hence why you're so concerned about idiots being radicalised by Churchill slander. Try pretending they're British Jihadi Reverts instead, it will make the pain of cutting them out of your lives a little easier innit. Or don't. The choice is yours
I'm afraid your mask slipped MrPooni, too late now.