feck me it's hard to keep track of all the racists now. Luckily we have plenty of self-righteous experts to point them out.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Was that what the statue was celebrating? Wasn't it for the other stuff he had done for the city of Bristol?Definitely. If anyone wants a definition of white privilege, it’s all the people arguing that it was out of order. Just imagine having to walk past that every day as a black person, knowing that it was put there as a celebration of a slave trader. History can be learnt in museums and booksand maybe if the council had listened earlier, it wouldn’t have come to this.
The rhetoric being taken by the right at the moment is really dangerous. I can fully understand people’s frustrations at the social distancing, however bar London, the vast majority of protests were observed with masks and some kind of distancing (maybe not 2m, but this rule has been ignored by so in parks and beaches). Yet they are all being made out to be some kind of aggressive act, even in London it was a very small part of the overall protest.
There’s long been talk of that Statue being removed. In that area you also have the Colston Hall, Colton Tower and a bit further up you also have Colston Arms Pub, all of which there has been a campaign to rename. It’s very fitting that the stature came down in such a symbolic way though with echoes of Saddam.Definitely. If anyone wants a definition of white privilege, it’s all the people arguing that it was out of order. Just imagine having to walk past that every day as a black person, knowing that it was put there as a celebration of a slave trader. History can be learnt in museums and booksand maybe if the council had listened earlier, it wouldn’t have come to this.
The rhetoric being taken by the right at the moment is really dangerous. I can fully understand people’s frustrations at the social distancing, however bar London, the vast majority of protests were observed with masks and some kind of distancing (maybe not 2m, but this rule has been ignored by so in parks and beaches). Yet they are all being made out to be some kind of aggressive act, even in London it was a very small part of the overall protest.
'He did some bad things' is quite the understatement. Also, how do you suggest his level of blame is debatable in those acts, while also giving him full credit for beatings the Nazis?The original post was suggesting Churchill should be viewed negatively overall in the UK.
He did some bad things (and unlike the Nazis, his level of blame in them is debatable) but we rightly view him as a hero because of the good he did.
feck me it's hard to keep track of all the racists now. Luckily we have plenty of self-righteous experts to point them out.
Candace is to normal, intelligent black people what Trump is to normal, intelligent Americans. An affront.She's also a rent-a-mouth. She will advocate any position as long as you pay her.
Redcafe gonna redcafe.How the hell does a thread about BLM protests become an argument of whether Churchill was as bad as Hitler and Stalin?!?
Time to log off for the night...
I agree mate. Very transactional person.She's also a rent-a-mouth. She will advocate any position as long as you pay her.
I agree with you on this. British white people would look at him as a hero because he was their leader against Hitler. He didn't kill millions of his own white people.You are only looking at this purely through an English and Rule Britannia point of view. Again, assuming your lived experience is superior to the majority on this planet.
How many people did Churchills decisions kill? How many people in the world utterly despise his acts vs the Brits/Euro's that think he is great?
Redcafe gonna redcafe.
I understand not everyone can protest or keep up with everything bad happening in the world. However, the basic and the absolute minimum for any decent human being is to feel sympathy or hurt in their hearts.the point is this - to proclaim that if you don’t challenge every abhorrent view/ comment/ perspective makes you complicit is utterly absurd.
do you think that makes me a racist? A tax evasion sympathiser etc? Because that’s the implication I’m getting from you and @PepsiCola?
No it wasn't quite a jump to make. The poster said churchill was on par with Hitler and Stalin.Well it’s quite a jump to make considering the original conversation was about education. Educating people of the facts.
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.I understand not everyone can protest or keep up with everything bad happening in the world. However, the basic and the absolute minimum for any decent human being is to feel sympathy or hurt in their hearts.
Exactly. I live near Bristol, so well aware of the history. Getting rid of the statue should have been the first, obvious, thing to do. I’m glad that people have decided to act when politicians have ignored them for years on this issue.There’s long been talk of that Statue being removed. In that area you also have the Colston Hall, Colton Tower and a bit further up you also have Colston Arms Pub, all of which there has been a campaign to rename. It’s very fitting that the stature came down in such a symbolic way though with echoes of Saddam.
As a brown person myself, I'm not defending Churchill but does that mean we bring down Queen Victoria's statues too? I'm sure she was far worse in her half decade of looting and pillaging. And all the other kings and queens and prime ministers? All that achieves is diluting the real cause which is the message that BLM.I agree with you on this. British white people would look at him as a hero because he was their leader against Hitler. He didn't kill millions of his own white people.
His decisions led to the starvation of millions of brown people though they were part of the British Empire and was already fighting for the Empire against Nazi Germany.
What made it worse is that there were British Colonial officials who warned Churchill and wrote to him about the starvation and begged him to divert some grain ships from Australia but he refused. He wanted to feed the Greeks after the future invasion of Greece which never came out at that time.
The worst part is that he wrote on the letter sent by the Colonial official, " if so many millions are dying why hasn't Gandhi died yet"?
He also wanted to gas the Iraqis during his time when they rebelled. Man maybe a hero to the British but to many others he was a racist who let so many millions of brown people starve to death.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You really want to contest how to be anti-racist?
You're really showing yourselves here.
First parts of Churchill's life are far from good but he was never as bad as Hitler. There isn't even an argument to be had.That's only because Churchills racist acts have been whitewashed out of officially taught British history. They are arguably as heinous as Hitler's.
People often use this as a justification for the acts of the past, but is that really the case? It’s not difficult to imagine that you would still feel empathy for your fellow human and view their oppression as wrong, even if you were born 100 years ago.Was Churchill racist, yes, but he was also a product of his time, environment and Britain's role in the world as a empire. People can be righteous about it now but would you have be as so if born 100 years ago in Britain, doubtful....
Einstein was relatively racist as well.feck me it's hard to keep track of all the racists now. Luckily we have plenty of self-righteous experts to point them out.
please read below @fergies coat . Maybe you can get some context for what he stated, or sentiment rather.No it wasn't quite a jump to make. The poster said churchill was on par with Hitler and Stalin.
I agree with you on this. British white people would look at him as a hero because he was their leader against Hitler. He didn't kill millions of his own white people.
His decisions led to the starvation of millions of brown people though they were part of the British Empire and was already fighting for the Empire against Nazi Germany.
What made it worse is that there were British Colonial officials who warned Churchill and wrote to him about the starvation and begged him to divert some grain ships from Australia but he refused. He wanted to feed the Greeks after the future invasion of Greece which never came out at that time.
The worst part is that he wrote on the letter sent by the Colonial official, " if so many millions are dying why hasn't Gandhi died yet"?
He also wanted to gas the Iraqis during his time when they rebelled. Man maybe a hero to the British but to many others he was a racist who let so many millions of brown people starve to death.
Einstein was relatively racist as well.
That's just a theory.Einstein was relatively racist.
Thats only your opinion, informed by your education and exposure to historic incidents.First parts of Churchill's life are far from good but he was never as bad as Hitler. There isn't even an argument to be had.
Churchill also has little to nothing to do with the current situation. If the movement becomes stuck on nonsense like this they may as well disband because it won't achieve anything.
I have to arrest you one one element here. The gas in question was tear gas. Not gas chambers, which you make it sound like. Also, in all these sudden attacks on everyone, where do we stop? Do we go back 200 years? 1000? 2000? Should Nelson Mandelas statue in London be teared down due to the bad things Mandela did also? Should we burn down the Colosseum because slaves were made to fight there for the entertainment of the Romans?I agree with you on this. British white people would look at him as a hero because he was their leader against Hitler. He didn't kill millions of his own white people.
His decisions led to the starvation of millions of brown people though they were part of the British Empire and was already fighting for the Empire against Nazi Germany.
What made it worse is that there were British Colonial officials who warned Churchill and wrote to him about the starvation and begged him to divert some grain ships from Australia but he refused. He wanted to feed the Greeks after the future invasion of Greece which never came out at that time.
The worst part is that he wrote on the letter sent by the Colonial official, " if so many millions are dying why hasn't Gandhi died yet"?
He also wanted to gas the Iraqis during his time when they rebelled. Man maybe a hero to the British but to many others he was a racist who let so many millions of brown people starve to death.
Well there were active dissenters from the type of racial thinking which characterized the worldview of the officials who ran the British Empire. And many more who simply didn’t emphasize it. That said, a racial approach to the question of relations between the various subject peoples of the empire was the prevailing orthodoxy. What I’ve found reading some of Churchill’s writings of the late 19th/early 20th centuries is that he often expressed this approach with more bluntness and regularity than some of his contemporaries that I’m familiar with. It didn’t prevent him from (at times) writing with genuine empathy and even admiration for non-European peoples (to some degree anyway). But my impression is that the significance of race played a relatively greater role in his worldview than it did for many others of his time and place.Was Churchill racist, yes, but he was also a product of his time, environment and Britain's role in the world as a empire. People can be righteous about it now but would you have be as so if born 100 years ago in Britain, doubtful....
Again, no ones talking about bringing down statues in this particular discussion.As a brown person myself, I'm not defending Churchill but does that mean we bring down Queen Victoria's statues too? I'm sure she was far worse in her half decade of looting and pillaging. And all the other kings and queens and prime ministers? All that achieves is diluting the real cause which is the message that BLM.
You have no idea how people centuries from now will view us. We eat meat. We kill animals for fun. We lock people away for life sentences. We drive around in polluting cars and happily buy TVs brought across the world on oil burning container ships.People often use this as a justification for the acts of the past, but is that really the case? It’s not difficult to imagine that you would still feel empathy for your fellow human and view their oppression as wrong, even if you were born 100 years ago.
I mean, even in those times there were people that viewed slavery etc as wrong. Even if it wasn’t the dominant mindset, it does show that it was not impossible, people simply didn’t want to.
Having a conscience and empathy is universal and timeless, regardless of what era you’re born in or what the dominant mindset is at the time.
It's about more than police brutality.How exactly does defacing the cenotaph in London and attempting to set the flags on top of it on fire bring justice for someone killed by a cop in America?
What exactly do Britain's war dead have to do with it?
And in what way does disrespecting our war dead solve these issues?It's about more than police brutality.