Winston Churchill

[King7Eric]

I don't really like the product of his time argument. This is still that time. Racial opression still exists. If anything these people were responsible for ensuring that that time began or extended it through their racist views. Those systems that they helped to create/instill/continue still remain today. Racism, racial inequality and opression still remains today. Also, not everyone was racist at the time as said above or believed in these types of things. The people with the power did which is why slavery and racism existed to the extent that it did but did that make it okay to be racist? Of course not. Racism has never been okay. By throwing out buzz phrases like product of his time it's almost as if you're putting a wall between now and then and acting like we are far far away from that time of thinking which is far from the truth and is shown in the inequalities that remain.

Of course inequalities remain, always have and always will. As long as their limited resources how do propose that everyone gets the same?

Discrimination comes in many form that so many people aren't aware of. As I said, I'm an Indian who did my PhD in Barcelona. I never faced any racism or discrimination during my my time there but once my PhD finished and I started looking for jobs in Europe, I found I'm not eligible to apply for so many jobs because those companies can't hire a non-EU citizen. I've had 3 interviews in the last couple of months where they told me that although I was among their top rated candidates the administrative procedures for employing a non-EU citizen are too time consuming or the salary requirements for that are beyond their means. Now is this not a form of discrimination?? Had I been a European I would have got those jobs. I'm essentially being punished for where I was born, something I have no control over it.

But I realize that it's not possible for everyone to be able to freely work or live everywhere. There are limited resources and all governments or leaders will naturally look after their own first. This same behaviour trickles down to society, that when a crisis approaches, people naturally fear another tribe taking over their resources and do everything in their power to prevent that.

We live in an age where resources are far plentiful than ever before, so there is less open strife and more scope for harmony. Churchill and his ilk were leaders at a time when resources were limited and their existence was threatened, they did what they believed was right to ensure the survival of their tribe. Was their behaviour terrible for others? Undoubtedly. But their priorities at that time were just their own tribe and not the others.

 

[pierrethesnack]

I don't really like the product of his time argument. This is still that time. Racial opression still exists. If anything these people were responsible for ensuring that that time began or extended it through their racist views. Those systems that they helped to create/instill/continue still remain today. Racism, racial inequality and opression still remains today. Also, not everyone was racist at the time as said above or believed in these types of things. The people with the power did which is why slavery and racism existed to the extent that it did but did that make it okay to be racist? Of course not. Racism has never been okay. By throwing out buzz phrases like product of his time it's almost as if you're putting a wall between now and then and acting like we are far far away from that time of thinking which is far from the truth and is shown in the inequalities that remain.

It seems to me what you're doing is taking a moral norm and applying it retrospectively to all of human history. Surely you must realize there will be nothing left to celebrate or cherish if we're supposed to be consistent in this utopian view of human nature.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't really like the product of his time argument. This is still that time. Racial opression still exists. If anything these people were responsible for ensuring that that time began or extended it through their racist views. Those systems that they helped to create/instill/continue still remain today. Racism, racial inequality and opression still remains today. Also, not everyone was racist at the time as said above or believed in these types of things. The people with the power did which is why slavery and racism existed to the extent that it did but did that make it okay to be racist? Of course not. Racism has never been okay. By throwing out buzz phrases like product of his time it's almost as if you're putting a wall between now and then and acting like we are far far away from that time of thinking which is far from the truth and is shown in the inequalities that remain.

Its a bit like saying racist redneck trump voters are just a product of their time and enviroment.

 

[SilentWitness]

It seems to me what you're doing is taking a moral norm and applying it retrospectively to all of human history. Surely you must realize there will be nothing left to celebrate or cherish if we're supposed to be consistent in this utopian view of human nature.

You can celebrate something which someone has done without celebrating and championing that person overall. We can and should change how we celebrate, perceive and understand things or people.

 

[pierrethesnack]

You can celebrate something which someone has done without celebrating and championing that person overall. We can and should change how we celebrate, perceive and understand things or people.

Exactly, and that is what most people are already doing. I've never heard anybody celebrate Churchill because of his great achievements on race thinking. I would imagine the statues are there precicely because of his achievement during the war. Everything else, whether he saw Indians as inferior or did some nice paintings, is just trivia.

 

[sammsky1]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Boris not taking it too well and has now become a tweeter in charge.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

He is fuming

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

But not enough time to do any other work today

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[King7Eric]

Exactly, and that is what most people are already doing. I've never heard anybody celebrate Churchill because of his great achievements on race thinking. I would imagine the statues are there precicely because of his achievement during the war. Everything else, whether he saw Indians as inferior or did some nice paintings, is just trivia.

Exactly this. We celebrate all great figures of the past for their great deeds, not for their mindsets.

 

[SilentWitness]

Exactly, and that is what most people are already doing. I've never heard anybody celebrate Churchill because of his great achievements on race thinking. I would imagine the statues are there precicely because of his achievement during the war. Everything else, whether he saw Indians as inferior or did some nice paintings, is just trivia.

If you aren't on a guided tour and you see the statue of Churchill then what education are you receiving? There is no plaque which states what he did so the education you gain from viewing the statue is only seeing the person that you have read about or heard about before and you'll think about the narrative that has been put forward about Churchill, which before these protests the large majority of people will have the narrative of him being a war hero. Even if you decide to go on a tour and see the statue I highly doubt that any of them will talk about his racist views. If they do then I will stand to be corrected but I really doubt that they would and I would think that the narrative of him being a war hero extends. Due to all of this the statue is a symbol of Churchill and glorifying his war heroics without looking at all of the bad things which he did and that's most likely why many people would like it to be removed and shows the benefit of removing it. It's not a simple case of adding a plaque to the existing statue and everything will be fine because the original statue still stands as the image of glorification of one thing and ignorance of his racism. There is no benefit to the statue being there over being taken down and replaced with a plaque stating "This is where the statue stood etc..." with more dialogue which gives a more extensive overview of the man and being more honest about history. This can also be extended by placing the statues in museums and how that is narrated (Or destruction of the statues and creating a material/digital archive instead for a museum). Context is key.

It is not in anyway shape or form erasing history to remove a statue. The history of what Churchill did is remembered in books, people, the internet, pictures etc. The history of the statue being erected and being in place in London and many other places in the UK is remembered in books, people, the internet, pictures etc. It's not about erasing history. It is about being more honest about history and changing the way that we review it, teach it and study it in the present and the future.

I’ll use my response to another person to show my feelings on that matter. The statue of Churchill isn’t just championing his achievement, it’s championing him overall as there is no reference in the statue to anything and there’s ignorance of what he did wrong.

 

[entropy]

Exactly, and that is what most people are already doing. I've never heard anybody celebrate Churchill because of his great achievements on race thinking. I would imagine the statues are there precicely because of his achievement during the war. Everything else, whether he saw Indians as inferior or did some nice paintings, is just trivia.

Come on

 

[Posh Red]

Exactly this. We celebrate all great figures of the past for their great deeds, not for their mindsets.

But surely you can see that having a large statue of someone could give the impression that the individual is being celebrated, rather than their achievements? I can see why someone may feel that way.

 

[Grinner]

What would have happened to India if Churchill hadn't been around in 1940 and Britain had fallen?

 

[oates]

I’ll use my response to another person to show my feelings on that matter. The statue of Churchill isn’t just championing his achievement, it’s championing him overall as there is no reference in the statue to anything and there’s ignorance of what he did wrong.

There are references in the statue itself, just for the record. He's wearing a military greatcoat and the pose is based on a photograph taken of him inspecting the bombing of the Houses of Parliament. It shows Churchill as how he was seen during that wartime period.

 

[RedTiger]

What would have happened to India if Churchill hadn't been around in 1940 and Britain had fallen?

They would have been under the influence of an east Asian nation rather than a European one.

The Japanese pushed a lot of propaganda on the Bengal trying to get them to accept the Japanese over the British, have you ever seen those propaganda leaflets that were dropped over Bengal?

 

[entropy]

Not sure how anyone can be shocked at the rise of right-wing personalities like Trump or Boris Johnson while also making the case for Churchill as a "leader of his time"

 

[entropy]

What would have happened to India if Churchill hadn't been around in 1940 and Britain had fallen?

It doesn't matter. Especially when you're reaping the rewards of colonization for decades.

 

[Grinner]

They would have been under the influence of an east Asian nation rather than a European one.

The Japanese pushed a lot of propaganda on the Bengal trying to get them to accept the Japanese over the British, have you ever seen those propaganda leaflets that were dropped over Bengal?

No, I just had a look at the Wiki page to try and get a sense of what was happening but obviously there's a lot to research. The Indian army was huge but I wonder if it would have been as effective without the British component. If England had fallen in 1940 then the Japanese would have been pretty much unopposed in SE Asia. Did they have designs on India?

 

[RedTiger]

No, I just had a look at the Wiki page to try and get a sense of what was happening but obviously there's a lot to research. The Indian army was huge but I wonder if it would have been as effective without the British component. If England had fallen in 1940 then the Japanese would have been pretty much unopposed in SE Asia. Did they have designs on India?

I don't know about their designs over the sub continent but I know they very much coveted the Bengal which is only natural.

 

[King7Eric]

No, I just had a look at the Wiki page to try and get a sense of what was happening but obviously there's a lot to research. The Indian army was huge but I wonder if it would have been as effective without the British component. If England had fallen in 1940 then the Japanese would have been pretty much unopposed in SE Asia. Did they have designs on India?

The situation at that time was far more complex to be explained in a single post here. But essentially, had the British totally withdrawn from India in 1940, a massive power vacuum would have been created. Because the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Nehru and Gandhi was nowhere near powerful enough to reign in rogue elements like Bose or Jinnah and numerous others who might have risen up. Not to mention, it's a possibility that the vast number of princely states at that time, freed from the British yolk might have formed some sort of coalition to maintain their power and delay the formation of an Indian republic.

Such a power vaccum would have been ideal for a foreign power such as Imperial Japan to step in and exert influence. The Indian subcontinent was far too big a prize to be left unclaimed.

 

[King7Eric]

But surely you can see that having a large statue of someone could give the impression that the individual is being celebrated, rather than their achievements? I can see why someone may feel that way.

How would a statue celebrate Churchill's achievements? Have his foot trampling over Hitler's head or something like that?

If people are ignorant enough to not know history and vandalise statues, then that's their stupidity, not the statue's.

 

[berbatrick]

What would have happened to India if Churchill hadn't been around in 1940 and Britain had fallen?

(This is predicated on the assumption that with anybody other than him, Britain would have fallen)

The mainstream Indian freedom movement (Nehru/Congress) wanted to join the allies as an independent country or cooperate during the war with an assurance of independence after the war. FDR also pushed for this but Churchill, being the racist piece of shit he was, of course refused. The communists were collaborating with the British after the USSR joined the war, while a smaller but popular faction led by Bose was collaborating with the Japanese to get rid of the British (having gone to Moscow earlier and been turned away). Those were the major political factions in India except the Muslim league, their leader Jinnah was an anglophile though I'm not sure what position he would taken. The other thing that's hard to contemplate is Gandhi agreeing with Nehru to actually go ahead and join the war.

The British Indian army was pretty massive, dwarfing Bose's army by many orders of magnitude. They were mobilised to defend India's east and fought in South East Asia including against Bose. Hard to say for sure but I'd guess a good part of the Indian army would have remained at war against the axis if the Congress leadership demanded it.

 

[Grinner]

The situation at that time was far more complex to be explained in a single post here. But essentially, had the British totally withdrawn from India in 1940, a massive power vacuum would have been created. Because the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Nehru and Gandhi was nowhere near powerful enough to reign in rogue elements like Bose or Jinnah and numerous others who might have risen up. Not to mention, it's a possibility that the vast number of princely states at that time, freed from the British yolk might have formed some sort of coalition to maintain their power and delay the formation of an Indian republic.

Such a power vaccum would have been ideal for a foreign power such as Imperial Japan to step in and exert influence. The Indian subcontinent was far too big a prize to be left unclaimed.

That is interesting. I read that independence fighters took the side of Japan in the hope that they would either get a good deal were Japan victorious, or be in a good position to take over were the Allies victorious because they were weakened.

 

[sammsky1]

It doesn't matter. Especially when you're reaping the rewards of colonization for decades centuries.

 

[sammsky1]

I don't know about their designs over the sub continent but I know they very much coveted the Bengal which is only natural.

Bengal under Japenese influence for a few decades is a very interesting concept

 

[Posh Red]

How would a statue celebrate Churchill's achievements? Have his foot trampling over Hitler's head or something like that?

If people are ignorant enough to not know history and vandalise statues, then that's their stupidity, not the statue's.

I would ask if we actually need a statue full stop.

 

[Grinner]

(This is predicated on the assumption that with anybody other than him, Britain would have fallen)

The mainstream Indian freedom movement (Nehru/Congress) wanted to join the allies as an independent country or cooperate during the war with an assurance of independence after the war. FDR also pushed for this but Churchill, being the racist piece of shit he was, of course refused. The communists were collaborating with the British after the USSR joined the war, while a smaller but popular faction led by Bose was collaborating with the Japanese to get rid of the British (having gone to Moscow earlier and been turned away). Those were the major political factions in India except the Muslim league, their leader Jinnah was an anglophile though I'm not sure what position he would taken. The other thing that's hard to contemplate is Gandhi agreeing with Nehru to actually go ahead and join the war.

The British Indian army was pretty massive, dwarfing Bose's army by many orders of magnitude. They were mobilised to defend India's east and fought in South East Asia including against Bose. Hard to say for sure but I'd guess a good part of the Indian army would have remained at war against the axis if the Congress leadership demanded it.

Thanks. Do you know the makeup of the BIA? It looks like it wasn't much of a fighting force in 1940/41 compared to the Japanese.

 

[King7Eric]

That is interesting. I read that independence fighters took the side of Japan in the hope that they would either get a good deal were Japan victorious, or be in a good position to take over were the Allies victorious because they were weakened.

As @berbatrick says above, the faction under Bose was in touch with Japan and may well have joined the war on Axis side. But you need to understand the Indian independence movement was far from a united front under Gandhi as is the popular perception. There were pacifist and aggressive factions and I struggle to see how India would have entered the war as a single entity. This is not even into taking account how the Muslim league under Jinnah would have reacted.
One thing I would also like to point out that although the army was huge in size, it was not technologically on par with the European and Japanese at the time.

 

[King7Eric]

I would ask if we actually need a statue full stop.

So don't commission new ones. But why vandalise the existing ones??

 

[Posh Red]

So don't commission new ones. But why vandalise the existing ones??

To be honest I wasn’t advocating vandalism. I just said I could understand Why some people may have a problem with the statue to begin with. It’s such a sensitive topic for some though.

 

[Grinner]

As @berbatrick says above, the faction under Bose was in touch with Japan and may well have joined the war on Axis side. But you need to understand the Indian independence movement was far from a united front under Gandhi as is the popular perception. There were pacifist and aggressive factions and I struggle to see how India would have entered the war as a single entity. This is not even into taking account how the Muslim league under Jinnah would have reacted.
One thing I would also like to point out that although the army was huge in size, it was not technologically on par with the European and Japanese at the time.

I'm assuming (not sure) that the army was commanded by British officers and that maybe the highest ranks given to Indians would be NCO.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Come on

Come on, what? Gandhi was quite racist against Africans, believing them to be inferior to both Indians and Whites. Should I assume this is what's being celebrated when I see a Gandhi statue? Obviously not, and the same goes for Churchill.

 

[Zlatan 7]

@SilentWitness
I disagree that having a statue is not educational if you’re not on a guided tour.
I love old architecture and statues in cities I visit and have often googled statues to see who the people are. If those statues were not there I’d have no idea of this person and what why had done good or bad

 

[King7Eric]

I'm assuming (not sure) that the army was commanded by British officers and that maybe the highest ranks given to Indians would be NCO.

As far as I'm aware after the Kitchener reforms Indians could hold commissioned ranks as well. But of course the high command was all British. The army was known as The British Indian Army after all.

 

[entropy]

Come on, what? Gandhi was quite racist against Africans, believing them to be inferior to both Indians and Whites. Should I assume this is what's being celebrated when I see a Gandhi statue? Obviously not, and the same goes for Churchill.

Wtf are you on about? that’s the dumbest comparison I’ve seen yet. It’s akin to Trump saying, well Washington had slaves too.

 

[berbatrick]

As @berbatrick says above, the faction under Bose was in touch with Japan and may well have joined the war on Axis side. But you need to understand the Indian independence movement was far from a united front under Gandhi as is the popular perception. There were pacifist and aggressive factions and I struggle to see how India would have entered the war as a single entity. This is not even into taking account how the Muslim league under Jinnah would have reacted.
One thing I would also like to point out that although the army was huge in size, it was not technologically on par with the European and Japanese at the time.

Nehru was officially Congress president at the time and he would 100% have wanted to fight against the fascists. (Previously he had refused to meet Mussolini, had visited Barcelona during the civil war, and he had denounced Chamerlain for appeasment.) He had the backing of Gandhi politically but in my mind I find it hard to believe Gandhi sanctioning a war. Based on this Gandhi might have stayed on the sidelines.

Again, with Jinnah I don't know.

For the British Indian Army, one indication is that during the 1946 Naval Mutiny, a lot of the sailors collaborated with the Communists, if that was their leaning then they probably would have continued against the Axis.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Wtf are you on about? that’s the dumbest comparison I’ve seen yet. It’s akin to Trump saying, well Washington had slaves too.

He was a creepy nonce and a massie racist but if those are the kind of statues you enjoy then who am I to argue.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Wtf are you on about? that’s the dumbest comparison I’ve seen yet. It’s akin to Trump saying, well Washington had slaves too.

It's not. They were born less than ten years apart, whereas Washington died almost 150 years before Trump was born.

 

[duffer]

Boris has always had a crush on Winston and see himself as a similar "Man of destiny".

He wrote a 432 page book about Winston Churchill and didn't mention India once.

 

[entropy]

He was a creepy nonce and a massie racist but if those are the kind of statues you enjoy then who am I to argue.

Sure he was. But he didn't advocate for wiping millions off the planet just because he hated their skin color. And also, wtf does he have to do with Churchill?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Boris has always had a crush on Winston and see himself as a similar "Man of destiny".

He wrote a 432 page book about Winston Churchill and didn't mention India once.

Churchill is his hero. Boris proved how woefully un-Churchilian he was during Covid. The opposite of a leader for a deep crisis.

 

[entropy]

It's not. They were born less than ten years apart, whereas Washington died almost 150 years before Trump was born.

So, it's an issue of mathematics. Not about slavery or profiting from it. Got it.