Winston Churchill

[TheReligion]

To be fair I think it’s more the kind of thing people do when they are so utterly tired of having the same conversations dressed up ever so slightly differently about things that are so opaquely unjust or indeed racist.

I think it’s just fatigue giving way to more extreme, dismissive and salty chat.

Sadly exhibited so well in about 8 threads over the last week.

Perhaps they should log off then if they aren't able to contribute without simply posting tweets and calling people racist?

 

[oates]

Perhaps they should log off then if they aren't able to contribute without simply posting tweets and calling people racist?

Not necessarily, for some the frustration may be finally giving them an impetus and an opportunity to share their opinions.

 

[TheReligion]

Not necessarily, for some the frustration may be finally giving them an impetus and an opportunity to share their opinions.

When you consider the quality of what @africanspur posted in the George Floyd thread with what we have from certain others there's no competition. It their opinions are just "everyone's racist" I'd sooner they fecked off if I'm honest. It's basically done to shut people down.

 

[Conor]

I actually get the point that Mr Pooni is trying to make, I don't necessarily agree that everyone is racist, but lots of people (not all) who wouldn't call themselves racist at all still have deeply ingrained prejudices due to the society they've grown up in that are very difficult to shake. The older people are the more this tends to be the case (again certainly not saying this is true for everyone)

Lots of people will say and truly believe they're not racist in the slightest, but if they're a manager many are likely to find themselves looking more favourably at a CV from Mr Simons compared to one from Mr Abimbola.

Many will happily have friends and colleagues who are people of colour and not think about it at all, but if their daughter came home and announced she was marrying a person of colour, they might not say anything as they know it's wrong, but many will still feel uncomfortable.

Many people walking home late at night would be more uncomfortable walking past a group of young black men standing on a corner than a group of young white men.

This is, I think, if people are prepared to admit it to themselves, quite common and not just in the UK. I've said in previous threads, the perceptions of black men we are bombarded with in media, films etc are terribly damaging. The answer is to recognise it in yourself (you certainly don't have to admit it on a public football forum!) and work to overcome it.

You also don't need to quite as objectionable and confrontational about it as Mr Pooni.

It's a completely valid point, if you've grown up in a country in the West, watching TV and media and learning from those around you and the structures of the system you're a part of, you will have inherent racial bias, 100%. This is a human instinct based on learned patterns, any person of any race will have these. Some people recognise this, can detach themselves from initial, emotional reactions that come from these unconscious biases, and gradually unlearn them. Some people don't recognise it, but are not actively 'racist', i.e. they don't agree with any racist ideologies and don't hold any concretely racist beliefs about race superiority and things like that, but they will find themselves believing stereotypical race tropes, that are based in racism. These are the people that get awfully offended when you suggest that they might in fact be racist to some degree. Then you have the nutters that lean into the whole thing, either looking for someone else to blame for their life, or even scarier, they have a great life and just love hate.

Every person needs to hold the ability to thinking critically, question themselves and their actions at any given moment, and take a step back from initial reactions to criticism, and really consider the points made against them from an empathetic perspective. How do people question that Britain is a racist place, when you have thousands of people marching on the streets for racial equality? That is the most tone deaf thing you could do. How are people taking umbrage with those who want Winston Churchill's legacy to be remembered in full, and for his stature in history to be adjusted accordingly? When a large number of people from oppressed groups are telling you that you need to change, deciding that everything is ok(when you belong to the group representing the oppressors) is not the right response.

 

[oates]

When you consider the quality of what @africanspur posted in the George Floyd thread with what we have from certain others there's no competition. It their opinions are just "everyone's racist" I'd sooner they fecked off if I'm honest. It's basically done to shut people down.

I agree that it isn't very pleasant sometimes but we don't need to shut down all they have to say. Perhaps it is up to us to show them that what we are and for the modmins to get them to temper their language if necessary.

 

[TheReligion]

I agree that it isn't very pleasant sometimes but we don't need to shut down all they have to say. Perhaps it is up to us to show them that what we are and for the modmins to get them to temper their language if necessary.

Yeah you're probably right. It's just tiresome and I know for a fact prevents some good posters from contributing. It's the same in alot of the CE forum where specific little groups like to contribute nothing but pop in and out to shut people down. That's why you end up with the boring echo chamber and old boys club.

 

[Gehrman]

It's a completely valid point, if you've grown up in a country in the West, watching TV and media and learning from those around you and the structures of the system you're a part of, you will have inherent racial bias, 100%. This is a human instinct based on learned patterns, any person of any race will have these. Some people recognise this, can detach themselves from initial, emotional reactions that come from these unconscious biases, and gradually unlearn them. Some people don't recognise it, but are not actively 'racist', i.e. they don't agree with any racist ideologies and don't hold any concretely racist beliefs about race superiority and things like that, but they will find themselves believing stereotypical race tropes, that are based in racism. These are the people that get awfully offended when you suggest that they might in fact be racist to some degree. Then you have the nutters that lean into the whole thing, either looking for someone else to blame for their life, or even scarier, they have a great life and just love hate.

Every person needs to hold the ability to thinking critically, question themselves and their actions at any given moment, and take a step back from initial reactions to criticism, and really consider the points made against them from an empathetic perspective. How do people question that Britain is a racist place, when you have thousands of people marching on the streets for racial equality? That is the most tone deaf thing you could do. How are people taking umbrage with those who want Winston Churchill's legacy to be remembered in full, and for his stature in history to be adjusted accordingly? When a large number of people from oppressed groups are telling you that you need to change, deciding that everything is ok(when you belong to the group representing the oppressors) is not the right response.

What is racial bias in this context? Is it believing that people are inherently inferior due to the colour of your their skin or the fact that we are just not colour blind, so people who are ethinic minorities will tend to stand out more and we will notice they look a bit diffferent than us?

I am just saying this, because I don't consider myself some anti-racist crusader, I was one of the few in my little racist village who prevented people from a different ethnic background from being bullied and assaulted, my best friend since childhood is ethinically an inuit alot of my best friends are asians, my dad was born and raised in china, my sister born in Puerto rico, my brother was born in Bahrain, Ive grown up with the notion that diversity is rich, interesting and good. I don't try to make my racist friends, non-racist, because I don't make friends with racists or keep friends who are racist, because they mostly not ignorant just assholes.

 

[Infra-red]

I don't think you know what you are asking for there. You're essentially asking for the erasure of a celebrated form of art and culture. Look through the statues and sculptures in history and some of the world's most important pieces of art are in there, and some of the world's most famous landmarks.

Whilst this is undoubtedly true, I wasn't advocating destroying the Venus de Milo, Michelangelo's David, The Thinker etc! There is obviously a distinction between artistic sculpture & religious/mythical iconography on the one hand, and statues commissioned to commemorate the life of an actual person on the other. The latter seems a little odd in the 21st century, does it not?

 

[Duafc]

When you consider the quality of what @africanspur posted in the George Floyd thread with what we have from certain others there's no competition. It their opinions are just "everyone's racist" I'd sooner they fecked off if I'm honest. It's basically done to shut people down.

I don’t think you or I should be telling people how to post or to log off.

So many of the recent threads have been really enlightening, educational and progressive however there remains the same camps of people pitching lines and squaring off over the same things ad nauseam.

As far as I can see it’s being completely driven, perhaps on both sides, by an unwillingness of people to actually read what is being said before deciding to feel attacked or affronted.

Case and point - that’s a gross over simplification of what those posters are really saying.

I think it has long since passed productive and entered into the utterly pointless, point scoring that will only serve to entrench people further in their divisions and distract from the positive discussions still happening.

 

[Conor]

What is racial bias in this context? Is it believing that people are inherently inferior due to the colour of your their skin or the fact that we are just not colour blind, so people who are ethinic minorities will tend to stand out more and we will notice they look a bit diffferent than us?

I just saying this, because I don't consider myself some anti-racist crusader, I was one of the few in my little racist village who prevented people from a different ethnic background from being bullied and assaulted, my best friend since childhood is ethinically an inuit alot of best friends are asians, my dad was born and raised in china, my sister born in Puerto rico, my brother was born in Bahrain, Ive grown up with the notion that diversity is rich, interesting and good. I don't try to make my racist friends, non-racist, because I don't make friends with racists or keep friends who are racist, because they mostly not ignorant just assholes.

Not sure what you mean by 'this context'. Unconscious racial bias manifests as minorities not getting jobs when equally or better qualified than their white counterparts, police men stopping and searching minorities proportionally more often than white people, the list goes on, I don't really get what info you're looking for. In this specific thread, you have lots of people who are getting offended when one of their supposed heroes is being questioned, and instead of objectively taking a step back and thinking "wow he did do a lot of awful things, maybe we need to reevaluate how he's remembered in history", they're waffling on about nonsense like "where does it end" and "if you looked back on everyone's history you'd find something", as if those arguments hold a candle to the morally reprehensible actions of Churchill, in the context of any era.

These are the same people who will claim they are not racist in any way, but the very action of belittling the opinions of the minorities that want Churchill, and others like him, to be retrospectively analysed(with the facts known by all today taken into consideration), really says otherwise. It reeks of "our opinions matter more than yours".

 

[Gehrman]

Not sure what you mean by 'this context'. Unconscious racial bias manifests as minorities not getting jobs when equally or better qualified than their white counterparts, police men stopping and searching minorities proportionally more often than white people, the list goes on, I don't really get what info you're looking for. In this specific thread, you have lots of people who are getting offended when one of their supposed heroes is being questioned, and instead of objectively taking a step back and thinking "wow he did do a lot of awful things, maybe we need to reevaluate how he's remembered in history", they're waffling on about nonsense like "where does it end" and "if you looked back on everyone's history you'd find something", as if those arguments hold a candle to the morally reprehensible actions of Churchill, in the context of any era.

These are the same people who will claim they are not racist in any way, but the very action of belittling the opinions of the minorities that want Churchill, and others like him, to be retrospectively analysed(with the facts known by all today taken into consideration), really says otherwise. It reeks of "our opinions matter more than yours".

Well the claim is that we all(I gues that means white western caucasians) have inherent racial bias. But with your examples there, I am not the employer who employs racial bias in their business, I am not the police man stopping and searching minorities proportionally more often than white people, so why are the rest of us not doing these things inherently or unconciously racist?

I agree that Winston Churchill was a racist and did some terrible things, but if we are going to start destroying statues and historical artifacts where do we stop? I don't care about a winston churchill statue, but italians in BLM movement might as well start destroying roman artifacts since the Romans were racist, slavers and comitted genocide. Same goes for the vikings, the greeks, the egyptians, the islamic empires, actually it goes for almost any historical kingdom or empire.

I agree rather than venerate historial heroes who did awul things how about we just tell the whole story about them. The good and the bad. Alexander the great is a hero to the greeks and is claimed both by the greeks and macedonians, but rather than destroying all statues of him, should we not take a deep breath and begin talking about how he was a great warrior and conqueror, but also genocidial maniac.

 

[TwoSheds]

Not sure what you mean by 'this context'. Unconscious racial bias manifests as minorities not getting jobs when equally or better qualified than their white counterparts, police men stopping and searching minorities proportionally more often than white people, the list goes on, I don't really get what info you're looking for. In this specific thread, you have lots of people who are getting offended when one of their supposed heroes is being questioned, and instead of objectively taking a step back and thinking "wow he did do a lot of awful things, maybe we need to reevaluate how he's remembered in history", they're waffling on about nonsense like "where does it end" and "if you looked back on everyone's history you'd find something", as if those arguments hold a candle to the morally reprehensible actions of Churchill, in the context of any era.

These are the same people who will claim they are not racist in any way, but the very action of belittling the opinions of the minorities that want Churchill, and others like him, to be retrospectively analysed(with the facts known by all today taken into consideration), really says otherwise. It reeks of "our opinions matter more than yours".

Police stopping black guys more frequently in the UK isn't unconscious bias, it's fully conscious. It's true that they are more likely to find something incriminating on young black guys so they stop them more frequently to increase their success rate. Problem is it reinforces negative stereotypes about black people and probably makes them self fulfilling in a lot of cases which is why, even though logically it makes sense at an individual policeman's level, profiling based on race is institutional (system level) racism and must stop.

For example, if you say for the sake of argument that young black men are twice as likely as young white men to have something incriminating on them, so as policemen you stop them twice as often, overall that results in 4 times as many (proportionately) young black men in prison as young white men. Those young men in prison are likely to lose legal life opportunities as a result of imprisonment and gain illegal connections and expertise while they're in there. This means that the chances of stopping these guys in the future and finding something incriminating goes up, and the feedback goes on. Not the only mechanism by which the stereotype can be self fulfilling but one of the more tangible ones.

This is why it's important that white people don't get butthurt when someone points out we're doing something racist. It doesn't have to be intentional malice to be racist in its effects. I actually did something racist myself yesterday, there was a tall black guy waiting outside Screwfix with a lanyard and I walked right past him thinking he was security when really he was a customer waiting in the queue. Fully racist, fully unintentional! I'll try not to do it again though now I've picked myself up on it.

 

[Conor]

Well the claim is that we all(I gues that means white western caucasians) have inherent racial bias. But with your examples there, I am not the employer who employs racial bias in their business, I am not the police man stopping and searching minorities proportionally more often than white people, so why are the rest of us not doing these things inherently or unconciously racist?

I agree that Winston Churchill was a racist and did some terrible things, but if we are going to start destroying statues and historical artifacts where do we stop? I don't care about a winston churchill statue, but italians in BLM movement might as well start destroying roman artifacts since the Romans were racist, slavers and comitted genocide. Same goes for the vikings, the greeks, the egyptians, the islamic empires, actually it goes for almost any historical kingdom or empire.

I agree rather than venerate historial heroes who did awul things how about we just tell the whole story about them. The good and the bad. Alexander the great is a hero to the greeks and is claimed both by the greeks and macedonians, but rather than destroying all statues of him, should we not take a deep breath and begin talking about how he was a great warrior and conqueror, but also genocidial maniac.

You're making ridiculous comparisons there, and have literally said one of the things I highlighted as a right wing strawman argument for not enacting societal change for the better. If you can't understand how you can still have unconscious racial biases, while also not be in a position for them to have a direct impact on people, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Police stopping black guys more frequently in the UK isn't unconscious bias, it's fully conscious. It's true that they are more likely to find something incriminating on young black guys so they stop them more frequently to increase their success rate. Problem is it reinforces negative stereotypes about black people and probably makes them self fulfilling in a lot of cases which is why, even though logically it makes sense at an individual policeman's level, profiling based on race is institutional (system level) racism and must stop.

For example, if you say for the sake of argument that young black men are twice as likely as young white men to have something incriminating on them, so as policemen you stop them twice as often, overall that results in 4 times as many (proportionately) young black men in prison as young white men. Those young men in prison are likely to lose legal life opportunities as a result of imprisonment and gain illegal connections and expertise while they're in there. This means that the chances of stopping these guys in the future and finding something incriminating goes up, and the feedback goes on. Not the only mechanism by which the stereotype can be self fulfilling but one of the more tangible ones.

This is why it's important that white people don't get butthurt when someone points out we're doing something racist. It doesn't have to be intentional malice to be racist in its effects. I actually did something racist myself yesterday, there was a tall black guy waiting outside Screwfix with a lanyard and I walked right past him thinking he was security when really he was a customer waiting in the queue. Fully racist, fully unintentional! I'll try not to do it again though now I've picked myself up on it.

Yeah I agree with everything you've said, my examples were not specific to the UK(I'm not from the UK), more trying to make a general point, seeing as the poster in question seems to willfully ignore this issue.

 

[Fortitude]

It's a completely valid point, if you've grown up in a country in the West, watching TV and media and learning from those around you and the structures of the system you're a part of, you will have inherent racial bias, 100%. This is a human instinct based on learned patterns, any person of any race will have these. Some people recognise this, can detach themselves from initial, emotional reactions that come from these unconscious biases, and gradually unlearn them. Some people don't recognise it, but are not actively 'racist', i.e. they don't agree with any racist ideologies and don't hold any concretely racist beliefs about race superiority and things like that, but they will find themselves believing stereotypical race tropes, that are based in racism. These are the people that get awfully offended when you suggest that they might in fact be racist to some degree. Then you have the nutters that lean into the whole thing, either looking for someone else to blame for their life, or even scarier, they have a great life and just love hate.

Every person needs to hold the ability to thinking critically, question themselves and their actions at any given moment, and take a step back from initial reactions to criticism, and really consider the points made against them from an empathetic perspective. How do people question that Britain is a racist place, when you have thousands of people marching on the streets for racial equality? That is the most tone deaf thing you could do. How are people taking umbrage with those who want Winston Churchill's legacy to be remembered in full, and for his stature in history to be adjusted accordingly? When a large number of people from oppressed groups are telling you that you need to change, deciding that everything is ok(when you belong to the group representing the oppressors) is not the right response.

Good post.

 

[Fortitude]

Police stopping black guys more frequently in the UK isn't unconscious bias, it's fully conscious. It's true that they are more likely to find something incriminating on young black guys so they stop them more frequently to increase their success rate. Problem is it reinforces negative stereotypes about black people and probably makes them self fulfilling in a lot of cases which is why, even though logically it makes sense at an individual policeman's level, profiling based on race is institutional (system level) racism and must stop.

For example, if you say for the sake of argument that young black men are twice as likely as young white men to have something incriminating on them, so as policemen you stop them twice as often, overall that results in 4 times as many (proportionately) young black men in prison as young white men. Those young men in prison are likely to lose legal life opportunities as a result of imprisonment and gain illegal connections and expertise while they're in there. This means that the chances of stopping these guys in the future and finding something incriminating goes up, and the feedback goes on. Not the only mechanism by which the stereotype can be self fulfilling but one of the more tangible ones.

This is why it's important that white people don't get butthurt when someone points out we're doing something racist. It doesn't have to be intentional malice to be racist in its effects. I actually did something racist myself yesterday, there was a tall black guy waiting outside Screwfix with a lanyard and I walked right past him thinking he was security when really he was a customer waiting in the queue. Fully racist, fully unintentional! I'll try not to do it again though now I've picked myself up on it.

Do you actually believe this? Track people from any poor estate around the UK, and they'll be up to the exact same thing. Poverty breeds criminality irrespective of race.

Location and postcode wars are not primarily the property of any race - find yourself wherever you're not 'supposed to be' around the country(s) and the outcome won't be dissimilar.

Who is targeted, and why, is another discussion, but the root causes of crime have a blueprint every race follows without distinction (imo).

 

[Penna]

Some statues should come down, others as far as I'm concerned should stay - but if there were controversies or wrongdoings in that person's life, those should be noted at the site with an appropriate plaque (something that can't be torn down, obviously).

Churchill did bad things in his long life, but the only reason his statue is there is because he was a wartime leader on the winning side, and one who was a great orator and figurehead during a long period of immense hardship for British people. That was his moment, and that's why he's portrayed as an old man, carrying the weight of responsibility. If he'd hadn't been wartime PM, he would never have had a statue or a state funeral.

 

[Cardboard elk]

Very interesting post Cardboard Elk. Can you tell me what you feel the statue of Winston Churchill represents in your country?

Well mostly it is positive I think, or at least was for those who remembers or are of older age. Maybe the information now being debated gives the man a more complete and dual nature.

The negative was mostly the failed and flawed help when the brits and french came to help in 40 while we were still fighting the Nazis. He was then a navy minister and had partly resposibility for that badly planned failure where the soldiers lacked equipment to fight efficiently. But almost 1869 british soldiers gave their lives on land and almost 2500 on sea helping us.

But during ww2 and after, he was immensly popular here. You must remember, we were occupied for 5 years, and our king and family fled to England to avoid being killed, also norwegian volunteers was trained by SOE and dropped by planes to help the resistance, and amongst other things sabotaged the heavy water factory in Rjukan. Churchill was the leader under a good cooperation between our nations. Also we were not allowed to listen to radio without repercussions, but many hid them away in concealed compartments and attics and listened to them when no germans could find out, so the speeches Churchill gave inspired many. He became a symbol of liberty from nazi rule and a hero in post-war peace time. Not so much known to the younger generations maybe, except the general knowledge of his position and famous speeches, but the older generation would propably think highly of him.

His words about other nations people and inactions reg. the food crisis in India were never anything people knew about. His actions during ww2, speeches and close cooperation / help was what drove his reputation here. And maybe, without him, we would all live under Nazi rule in Europe. So even with his faults that are being discussed still, he did actually fight and help defeat the nazis who, if they had succeded, would have eradicated and/or enslaved all other than the so-called "aryan" race. I guess that legacy should mean something myself. I think there should be better targets for this discussion and tearing down of statues, I have to say. And I think we should not go back too long in history looking for problems. There is enough living racists and problem elements that should be fought. Churchill, in the end, at least accomplished to help save the world from a foe unlike no other in history. We would not be having this duscussion under Hitlers rule and hence, he made us all be in a position to actually be able to discuss problems such as these, no less fight them.

I, myself, think that if one takes a close look at many, many people, they are a product of their environment and time. To fix our problems, we need to look at the present and future and change the culture we have ourselves to the better, bit by bit until equality and justice is real for all in our societys. I think that going at the "heroes" of the past hurts and divides more than it helps. Discussions and debates, news articles and encyclopedia should of course highlight these problematic sides of known historical persons. And pure evil persons like Hitler should not have statues. But the english should be allowed to have their hero and prime minister from ww2 in the form of a statue and the statue is a piece of history from a time past. Taking offence of that is a bit strange to me. And in Churchills case, he is not black and white, he is controversial but he was the leader of a nation that fought the nazis and I think he deserves credit for that at least. And in the extreme form of historical fingerpointing, we would have to tear down shitloads of statues in all the world. Should it be for racism only, or should we tear down statues of famous people that did wrong to others in a specter of ways? And how far back? For us in Norway, should we tear down Viking monuments? I mean, they pllaged and raped all over the world. What does a statue mean, does it have to be a statue that gives a jesus feeling for everyone to exist? People can take offence over many things today.

These are my thoughts. And I am not saying Churchill did not have flaws. But I think many of us, whatever race we are, as keyboard warriors or realtime humans, have flaws and that we all should focus on fixing ourselves first, then of course affect positive change in society. I do not think the Churchill statue should be the discussion, but rather how to change the systematic racism inside police and other state establishments asides peoples prejudices in general. I think we live in a world where keeping sane and calm is a problem for many due to the interconnected way we live and get information and misinformation. The problems are deep and our world is in real danger in the near and forseeable future. I think we need a lot of time to fix all problems but it is Utopia to think we can erase the past and be better from it. Better to remember and do better ourselves. I would have understood a Churchill statue being torn apart in another nation. But in England and Norway, I would not, not really.

 

[Gehrman]

You're making ridiculous comparisons there, and have literally said one of the things I highlighted as a right wing strawman argument for not enacting societal change for the better. If you can't understand how you can still have unconscious racial biases, while also not be in a position for them to have a direct impact on people, then I'm not sure what to say to you.



Yeah I agree with everything you've said, my examples were not specific to the UK(I'm not from the UK), more trying to make a general point, seeing as the poster in question seems to willfully ignore this issue.

I am all for social change for the better, but what is the social change, that people like me are preventing with my views?

And yes, I know that racism is a actual thing in UK, and in Denmark here by the way.

Well its impossible to prove that I don't have unconsciouss racial bias since it is per definition unconsciouss. I just would rather we just judge individuals by their words and actions.

 

[hobbers]

Unconscious racial bias manifests as minorities not getting jobs when equally or better qualified than their white counterparts, police men stopping and searching minorities proportionally more often than white people

Those are both almost always examples of conscious bias in action, not unconscious.

Implicit/unconscious bias is theory based pretty much exclusively on the hokum implicit bias test. If it exists we certainly don't know how to prove it exists or measure it. Let alone address it.

 

[11101]

Whilst this is undoubtedly true, I wasn't advocating destroying the Venus de Milo, Michelangelo's David, The Thinker etc! There is obviously a distinction between artistic sculpture & religious/mythical iconography on the one hand, and statues commissioned to commemorate the life of an actual person on the other. The latter seems a little odd in the 21st century, does it not?

There is a distinction but where do you draw the line? A blanket approach would still be getting rid of a great many fantastic works of art and monuments to genuinely great people. Turing, Newton, Faraday, Darwin, and a great many other public figures who changed our lives incalculably.

It's also a trait that the greatest scientists and mathematicians are not often very nice people.

 

[oates]

Well mostly it is positive I think, or at least was for those who remembers or are of older age. Maybe the information now being debated gives the man a more complete and dual nature.

The negative was mostly the failed and flawed help when the brits and french came to help in 40 while we were still fighting the Nazis. He was then a navy minister and had partly resposibility for that badly planned failure where the soldiers lacked equipment to fight efficiently. But almost 1869 british soldiers gave their lives on land and almost 2500 on sea helping us.

But during ww2 and after, he was immensly popular here. You must remember, we were occupied for 5 years, and our king and family fled to England to avoid being killed, also norwegian volunteers was trained by SOE and dropped by planes to help the resistance, and amongst other things sabotaged the heavy water factory in Rjukan. Churchill was the leader under a good cooperation between our nations. Also we were not allowed to listen to radio without repercussions, but many hid them away in concealed compartments and attics and listened to them when no germans could find out, so the speeches Churchill gave inspired many. He became a symbol of liberty from nazi rule and a hero in post-war peace time. Not so much known to the younger generations maybe, except the general knowledge of his position and famous speeches, but the older generation would propably think highly of him.

His words about other nations people and inactions reg. the food crisis in India were never anything people knew about. His actions during ww2, speeches and close cooperation / help was what drove his reputation here. And maybe, without him, we would all live under Nazi rule in Europe. So even with his faults that are being discussed still, he did actually fight and help defeat the nazis who, if they had succeded, would have eradicated and/or enslaved all other than the so-called "aryan" race. I guess that legacy should mean something myself. I think there should be better targets for this discussion and tearing down of statues, I have to say. And I think we should not go back too long in history looking for problems. There is enough living racists and problem elements that should be fought. Churchill, in the end, at least accomplished to help save the world from a foe unlike no other in history. We would not be having this duscussion under Hitlers rule and hence, he made us all be in a position to actually be able to discuss problems such as these, no less fight them.

I, myself, think that if one takes a close look at many, many people, they are a product of their environment and time. To fix our problems, we need to look at the present and future and change the culture we have ourselves to the better, bit by bit until equality and justice is real for all in our societys. I think that going at the "heroes" of the past hurts and divides more than it helps. Discussions and debates, news articles and encyclopedia should of course highlight these problematic sides of known historical persons. And pure evil persons like Hitler should not have statues. But the english should be allowed to have their hero and prime minister from ww2 in the form of a statue and the statue is a piece of history from a time past. Taking offence of that is a bit strange to me. And in Churchills case, he is not black and white, he is controversial but he was the leader of a nation that fought the nazis and I think he deserves credit for that at least. And in the extreme form of historical fingerpointing, we would have to tear down shitloads of statues in all the world. Should it be for racism only, or should we tear down statues of famous people that did wrong to others in a specter of ways? And how far back? For us in Norway, should we tear down Viking monuments? I mean, they pllaged and raped all over the world. What does a statue mean, does it have to be a statue that gives a jesus feeling for everyone to exist? People can take offence over many things today.

These are my thoughts. And I am not saying Churchill did not have flaws. But I think many of us, whatever race we are, as keyboard warriors or realtime humans, have flaws and that we all should focus on fixing ourselves first, then of course affect positive change in society. I do not think the Churchill statue should be the discussion, but rather how to change the systematic racism inside police and other state establishments asides peoples prejudices in general. I think we live in a world where keeping sane and calm is a problem for many due to the interconnected way we live and get information and misinformation. The problems are deep and our world is in real danger in the near and forseeable future. I think we need a lot of time to fix all problems but it is Utopia to think we can erase the past and be better from it. Better to remember and do better ourselves. I would have understood a Churchill statue being torn apart in another nation. But in England and Norway, I would not, not really.

Thank you for a very comprehensive post. It is quite thought provoking. Maybe like the statue of Winston Churchill in London, for the older generations the statues represent his activities during WWII.

Now, if the people of the UK wanted to get rid of a statue that very definitely celebrates his life then they might need to go to Westerham in Kent where there's a very big sculpture of Churchill on the Green in the middle of the small town. Chartwell next to Westerham was Churchill's home when he retired from public life and I used to pass the statue twice nearly every day when I went to school there. I've got a feeling that the statue belongs to the town.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Thank you for a very comprehensive post. It is quite thought provoking. Maybe like the statue of Winston Churchill in London, for the older generations the statues represent his activities during WWII.

Now, if the people of the UK wanted to get rid of a statue that very definitely celebrates his life then they might need to go to Westerham in Kent where there's a very big sculpture of Churchill on the Green in the middle of the small town. Chartwell next to Westerham was Churchill's home when he retired from public life and I used to pass the statue twice nearly every day when I went to school there. I've got a feeling that the statue belongs to the town.

There’s a huge one in my old home town of Woodford Green. It used to be regularly defaced long before the current stuff.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I am all for social change for the better, but what is the social change, that people like me are preventing with my views?

And yes, I know that racism is a actual thing in UK, and in Denmark here by the way.

Well its impossible to prove that I don't have unconsciouss racial bias since it is per definition unconsciouss. I just would rather we just judge individuals by their words and actions.

You make it sound like an abstract movement like Dadaism

 

[Gehrman]

You make it sound like an abstract movement like Dadaism

Okay I just meant to say I know that racism is an actual problem in the UK. Thank you for mentioning Dadaism. Never heard about it before.

 

[oates]

There’s a huge one in my old home town of Woodford Green. It used to be regularly defaced long before the current stuff.

Yes, I think there are statues in Dover and St. Margarets Bay as well as busts all over the UK.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Okay I just meant to say I know that racism is an actual problem in the UK. Thank you for mentioning Dadaism. Never heard about it before.

Look up Duchamp, Man Ray...interesting stuff

 

[Grinner]

Yes, I think there are statues in Dover and St. Margarets Bay as well as busts all over the UK.

There's one in the White House. I reckon that one's safe though.

 

[oates]

There's one in the White House. I reckon that one's safe though.

Well I'd have thought that was up to Americans to deal with how they see fit.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

There's one in the White House. I reckon that one's safe though.

Well I'd have thought that was up to Americans to deal with how they see fit.

If they statues and paintings of racist presidents I hardly think Churchill is going to be an issue

 

[TwoSheds]

Do you actually believe this? Track people from any poor estate around the UK, and they'll be up to the exact same thing. Poverty breeds criminality irrespective of race.

Location and postcode wars are not primarily the property of any race - find yourself wherever you're not 'supposed to be' around the country(s) and the outcome won't be dissimilar.

Who is targeted, and why, is another discussion, but the root causes of crime have a blueprint every race follows without distinction (imo).

Yes I believe that, I have 2 cousins in GMP and they've both told me they've done that and the stats back up their approach. You can argue about the causes e.g. black kids have fewer career opportunities or whatever, but it's seemingly a fact that the police are more likely to find something incriminating on young black men than young white men. And of course they're more likely to find something on men than women in general etc etc.

 

[Fortitude]

Yes I believe that, I have 2 cousins in GMP and they've both told me they've done that and the stats back up their approach. You can argue about the causes e.g. black kids have fewer career opportunities or whatever, but it's seemingly a fact that the police are more likely to find something incriminating on young black men than young white men. And of course they're more likely to find something on men than women in general etc etc.

So you believe if you go to two equally impoverished neighbourhoods, one majority white, and the other, majority black, you'll find more crime and incriminating material in the black neighbourhood as opposed to the white?

I'm not trying to catch you out here, by the way, genuinely curious.

 

[Penna]

There's one in the White House. I reckon that one's safe though.

It was moved out of the Oval Office in Obama's time, but he said he admired Churchill. The Donald brought it back.

 

[11101]

So you believe if you go to two equally impoverished neighbourhoods, one majority white, and the other, majority black, you'll find more crime and incriminating material in the black neighbourhood as opposed to the white?

I'm not trying to catch you out here, by the way, genuinely curious.

It does make some sense that black kids may feel more ostracised from society and therefore more likely to get involved with gangs etc. I don't think it's the job of the police to look into the how or why though, they exist to prevent as much crime as possible, addressing the reasons is somebody else's job.

This is also where i don't think it helps when people are too vocal about what a racist society the UK is, it's far better than it was and far better than many other countries, but how does it help young black kids when they're constantly reminded they're different from day 1. I am not black but i have lived as a minority and i used to hate when it was in your face that you weren't the same as everybody else.

 

[TwoSheds]

So you believe if you go to two equally impoverished neighbourhoods, one majority white, and the other, majority black, you'll find more crime and incriminating material in the black neighbourhood as opposed to the white?

I'm not trying to catch you out here, by the way, genuinely curious.

I don't know, I'm not in the police. They base that approach off real stats. Maybe it's harder for the police to pick out a white roadman in a flash car from a white spiv in a flash car I don't know.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

There is another argument regarding the statues - upon removal, instead of putting them into museums where they are going to need to be upkept which costs a lot of money and they are quite large which means that there will be spacing issues (I think this can be resolved with the removal and repatriation of goods which are not 'ours' but that is another argument) we can put them into museums in a different way.

Since the physical embodiment of the statue can still be glorified in a museum, what we can do instead is create a digital archive of the movement taking place currently and the past history behind the statues - this can be through photos/videos/stories etc. Erasing the statue isn't erasing history - we still have textbooks/online resources which detail the histories behind the people in the statues, but there are ways of changing how we can look at history and display it in the future without glorifying things.

I think you take all these political statues and turn them into art history. That way people can still study the form and techniques and see these examples, while the accompanying description can touch on how so and so was at one time thought very highly of but actually was a horrible person who never should have had a monument built to their memory.

 

[Fortitude]

It does make some sense that black kids may feel more ostracised from society and therefore more likely to get involved with gangs etc. I don't think it's the job of the police to look into the how or why though, they exist to prevent as much crime as possible, addressing the reasons is somebody else's job.

This is also where i don't think it helps when people are too vocal about what a racist society the UK is, it's far better than it was and far better than many other countries, but how does it help young black kids when they're constantly reminded they're different from day 1. I am not black but i have lived as a minority and i used to hate when it was in your face that you weren't the same as everybody else.

Poverty, over race, is the real driver for the type of offences generally appropriated to black youth and neighbourhoods. There are white gangs all over the UK who partake in the same kind of idiocy as seen with black youths in gangs, also.

Territorial beefs were the domain of the white underclass well before the influx of ethnic minorities in the 60's and perpetuated to this day - the lick of paint may change, but the underlying issues never have for as long as I've been alive - it's common knowledge for most to not go to X,Y or Z if you're not from round there, and that's an affliction suffered in poor areas that lead to physical confrontations for the most stupid and innocuous things imaginable. That tends to dissolve once a person is outside the target age range, but between teenage years and at least mid-20's, this same ridiculous unwritten law is applicable across impoverished areas very probably the world over.

You could get life-altering injuries from a tooled up white lad on any given match day or for wearing the wrong colours in a rival area even now, but the likelihood of those same lads being stop and searched is remote when compared to the systematic methodology applied to black youths in impoverished areas.

If you target one group, the stats will obviously be tilted, but if the stop and search policies are not equally meted out, you are not getting an accurate picture of the true levels of criminality in one group whilst a bias is painted against whichever other is being targeted.

Black youths are far, far more likely to be stop and searched or pulled over for fitting 'the description' of a perpetrator than a white youth is. Whilst that black youth may have incriminating items upon his person, the white male/car is overlooked and less likely to face the same scrutiny - as things stand, we never get a clear picture of what is going on across the board.

I've had the (mis)fortune to have passed through numerous impoverished areas across England that run the entire gamut of races and ethnicities and I got a small sample of it in Wales and Scotland, too. I can say the same for a few countries across Europe, also - and the one constant, no matter the race, is a wrong 'un is a wrong 'un who will do you the same harm if they believe there is reason to or an opportunity to be had. It's just that, apart from Glasgow, when it was really bad, or Liverpool (where white gang crime and gun culture is rife) with the Rhys Jones shooting incident, we barely hear a word about it, whereas black crime and gangs are given a disproportionate amount of column inches and a level of stigma that lends itself to cliches like black-on-black crime, a term you'll never in your life here for white-on-white violence or turf war that is being waged all the same.

I agree with what you're saying about ostracisation, but I think, again, that's about poverty, but with black youth, perhaps also the self-fulfilling prophecy of victimisation leading to villainisation.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Leave the Churchill statues (unless you want Boris to push his majority to >150 next time). But do widen the school curriculum to teach more about the British Empire and its leaders so people can get beyond the cliche of the cigar-chomping, maverick hero of 1940 who “sent the English language into battle”.

 

[Mogget]

It does make some sense that black kids may feel more ostracised from society and therefore more likely to get involved with gangs etc. I don't think it's the job of the police to look into the how or why though, they exist to prevent as much crime as possible, addressing the reasons is somebody else's job.

This is also where i don't think it helps when people are too vocal about what a racist society the UK is, it's far better than it was and far better than many other countries, but how does it help young black kids when they're constantly reminded they're different from day 1. I am not black but i have lived as a minority and i used to hate when it was in your face that you weren't the same as everybody else.

You genuinely can't be serious?

You think that people calling the UK a racist society is bad because it reminds young black kids they're different?

 

[Cascarino]

Muhammed enslaved people, held slaves and traded slaves. He was a slaver. The middle eastern slave trade was every bit a bad as the european and american one. They cut the balls of their slaves for some reason. Talking about the islamic caliphates here after Muhammed, not Muhammed.

Right, and as I pointed out

That doesn’t make any sense. I know the history of Islam, but if you take that angle then you’ll have t take down every church because the bible was used to justify the Atlantic slave trade. It’s barefaced Islamophobia because Nina and her gang (the ‘I put a flag in my Twitter username to let everyone know I’m a moron’ group) are having a hissy fit and lashed out at a demographic they don’t like.

That petition is moronic and I don’t see how anyone in good faith could disagree

 

[berbatrick]

Why do we need statues to begin with?

They are iconography that were originally intended for religious worship, you’d think deifying people by erecting statues of them would be seen for the farce it is by the year 2020 (and yes, that includes the Trinity statue and Fergie’s, too).

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date