Winston Churchill

[Shakesy]

Im sorry but this is complete bollocks. If you want to commemorate or celebrate the defeat of Nazism or other important victories for human progress you'd go to the Cenotaph, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the statue of Edward Jenner, Florence Nightingale etc to remember those who were sacrificed in the fight and those who both contributed significantly and are fully worthy of veneration. If you're going to a statue of Churchill you're doing it because you think he specifically was some sort of great man or hero. After all, he didn't die in a foxhole, he sat there getting pissed and smoking cigars, occasionally condemning some more men to death. He was important in ensuring the victory but he's not someone we should be venerating specifically when tens of millions of people worldwide died and he was responsible for plenty of them. He wants to be a lot more admirable to have a statue of him with not even an explanation of his life for context. Or at least the Cenotaph ought to be a million times bigger than his statue if it comes to it.

In fact the whole of Pall Mall is pretty disgusting really when you think about it, celebrating a load of old dudes who went and did a lot of killing people in various places. The sheer number of Britons who changed the world in amazing and radical ways but the ones we pick out to celebrate in the heart of government are largely just old military men with questionable morals. Artists, philosophers, authors, musicians, playwrights, scientists, engineers, even business people or genuine philanthropists but no, fat old slaughtery men with royal connections is as imaginative as we get.

This is really all I need to read in this thread. Great post.

 

[Moby]

I hope people that have suddenly had a rush of righteous enlightenment, look into whether their grandparents and further down their family tree were racist and had race supremacy issues, because chances are there's a high possibility they were. And if you don't like what you find I hope you take down and destroy any photos of them...

This is what all the "protesters" looking to tear things down should be prepared to subject themselves to, and if they refuse, the mob needs to ransack their homes to destroy any memorabilia of them....

Or

Let the alternative of rational and objective thinking win

That is literally the stupidest thing I've heard in a long long while.

 

[RUCK4444]

It’s page 22, some brilliant and brutally honest commentary and from all sides of the debate .... and you’re still stuck here??? Really???

The ‘education’ challenge on Churchill is enormous

For your education, British Government cabinet meetings were not part of Churchill’s ‘private life’ and the racist opinions and policies he expressed and enacted in those meetings killed millions of people.

Hope you’re clear on that now.

I’m not clear on that sammsky, no . I assume you are referring to the Bengal famine...

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/

This article lists the argument for and against this accusation.

Fact is that It is a highly debated topic and whilst I’ve pointed out his personal opinions on race are disgusting it is also documented that in fact he made many efforts to secure wheat and food supplies during a world war in which every area of the British empire was suffering.

This thread, much like the mobs on the street, are missing some much needed balance to the subject.

I hope your clear on that now

 

[Sky1981]

Desecrating Churchill statue for the Bengal famine while there are certain current UK policy (economic sanction of Iran) practically not allowing them to have their food running at the same time.

Malaysia one of the British commonwealth still has a pro bumiputera policy that specifically discriminate Indian/Chinese minorities in favor of the indigenous Malay.

I'm skeptical towards all this statue desecration, any more of this will become absurdity and taking the limelight away from the BLM topic.

EDIT: Yes I get it, it's a real world. Nations took policy that kills/stricten millions of other nations. But to pretend to turn a blind eye and choosing to desecrate a 50 years old statue is weird.

 

[Sweet Square]

I’m not clear on that sammsky, no . I assume you are referring to the Bengal famine...

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/

This article lists the argument for and against this accusation.

Fact is that It is a highly debated topic and whilst I’ve pointed out his personal opinions on race are disgusting it is also documented that in fact he made many efforts to secure wheat and food supplies during a world war in which every area of the British empire was suffering.

This thread, much like the mobs on the street, are missing some much needed balance to the subject.

I hope your clear on that now

The Bengal famine of 1943 was the only one in modern Indian history not to occur as a result of serious drought, according to a study that provides scientific backing for arguments that Churchill-era British policies were a significant factor contributing to the catastrophe.

Researchers in India and the US used weather data to simulate the amount of moisture in the soil during six major famines in the subcontinent between 1873 and 1943. Soil moisture deficits, brought about by poor rainfall and high temperatures, are a key indicator of drought.

Five of the famines were correlated with significant soil moisture deficits. An 11% deficit measured across much of north India in 1896-97, for example, coincided with food shortages across the country that killed an estimated 5 million people.

However, the 1943 famine in Bengal, which killed up to 3 million people, was different, according to the researchers. Though the eastern Indian region was affected by drought for much of the 1940s, conditions were worst in 1941, years before the most extreme stage of the famine, when newspapers began to publish images of the dying on the streets of Kolkata, then named Calcutta, against the wishes of the colonial British administration.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...icies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study

This thread, much like the mobs on the street, are missing some much needed balance to the subject.

The guy was a leader and had balls

 

[Brwned]

Im sceptical of these ideas. A relatively recent EU report on racism against black people in the EU found the UK to be among the very least racist countries in the EU. Germany was ranked as more racist by every measure and not insignificantly, a country that has supposedly ‘faced its racist history’. As far as I’m aware all the data disproves the idea that the UK is a uniquely racist country and actually shows that it’s one of the most tolerant. On a more anecdotal note the exiled Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei recently fled Germany for the UK because of the racist harassment he faced there.

Don't get me wrong, it might do something but I don’t think its as defining as a lot of people seem to like to imagine. I still feel going after Churchill could be counterproductive to the aims of BLM because of what he means to a lot of people here.

https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/being-black-eu-summary

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...-life-in-britain-germany-virtual-reality-film

Yeah the UK is less racist than most countries I've been to. You can find a country on every continent that has a much bigger problem with racism, and the UK is above average in Europe. I wouldn't go as far as saying that report found the UK is among the very least in the EU, given it only covers less than half of the countries in the EU and among the list is the likes of Malta and Luxembourg, but certainly above average. Racism is obviously still a problem though.

I don't think it would be defining either. Just a small step in the right direction.

 

[nickm]

Im sorry but this is complete bollocks. If you want to commemorate or celebrate the defeat of Nazism or other important victories for human progress you'd go to the Cenotaph, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the statue of Edward Jenner, Florence Nightingale etc to remember those who were sacrificed in the fight and those who both contributed significantly and are fully worthy of veneration. If you're going to a statue of Churchill you're doing it because you think he specifically was some sort of great man or hero. After all, he didn't die in a foxhole, he sat there getting pissed and smoking cigars, occasionally condemning some more men to death. He was important in ensuring the victory but he's not someone we should be venerating specifically when tens of millions of people worldwide died and he was responsible for plenty of them. He wants to be a lot more admirable to have a statue of him with not even an explanation of his life for context. Or at least the Cenotaph ought to be a million times bigger than his statue if it comes to it.

In fact the whole of Pall Mall is pretty disgusting really when you think about it, celebrating a load of old dudes who went and did a lot of killing people in various places. The sheer number of Britons who changed the world in amazing and radical ways but the ones we pick out to celebrate in the heart of government are largely just old military men with questionable morals. Artists, philosophers, authors, musicians, playwrights, scientists, engineers, even business people or genuine philanthropists but no, fat old slaughtery men with royal connections is as imaginative as we get.

Churchill wasn't just another player in the war as you seem to imply, it was his moral clarity about the nature of nazism before the war which defined Britain's entire approach during it. Leadership matters and he is Britain's greatest anti fascist. As someone else has said, the statues of Churchill are there despite his sins not because of them.

 

[Sweet Square]

The fact a decent number on here are desperately attempting to justify keeping a statue up for this guy really should be an argument for getting rid of it. No adult should have this level of attachment to an inanimate fecking object!

 

[nickm]

I'm at the point now where I'm struggling to understand why people care so much about the statue staying up. Why is it offensive to you if it is removed? There is a clear argument as to why many people would find a statue of Churchill offensive which has been given multiple times in this thread but I don't see why it would be offensive from the other angle. If you're in that camp but you wouldn't be part of the group that is running around London today making salutes and other far right gestures then why exactly do you find it offensive?

Because he symbolises Britain standing alone against one of history's greatest evils and if you haven't noticed, a lot of British people tend to get pretty sentimental about that since we never fecking shut up about the war.

 

[Sky1981]

The fact a decent number on here are desperately attempting to justify keeping a statue up for this guy really should be an argument for getting rid of it. No adult should have this level of attachment to an inanimate fecking object!

Oh the irony. On the contrary, it's not the object.

If you're an adult you'll know that it's just exactly that, an object. Why do you need the feel to desecrate a dead object just to show your emotion?

What's next? Songs? Movies? Literature? Union Jack?

We can't erase the past, it's there. You can make a case if they're building a new statue glorifying a slave trader in 2020, but if you wanna go back in time and start your judgment hammer why stop at statue?

 

[RUCK4444]

The fact a decent number on here are desperately attempting to justify keeping a statue up for this guy really should be an argument for getting rid of it. No adult should have this level of attachment to an inanimate fecking object!

Conversely fighting in the street to take down a statue that stands for nothing remotely relating to racism is quite obviously worse... but again it doesn’t fit the narrative.

 

[nickm]

The fact a decent number on here are desperately attempting to justify keeping a statue up for this guy really should be an argument for getting rid of it. No adult should have this level of attachment to an inanimate fecking object!

Well no the Churchill statue is there. We dont have to justify keeping it, you have to justify removing it and I cant see any sane government agreeing with that for a long time.

 

[RUCK4444]

@Sweet Square
Firstly you’ve proven nothing but more debate and posting that I said he had balls is fine with me, he did. I also agreed he was a racist. There’s a difference between a racist and a tyrant guilty of mass genocide.

Theoretically speaking, do you think Britain today could sustain a poverty stricken continent during a world war? Let alone in the 40’s

 

[Cassidy]

Because he symbolises Britain standing alone against one of history's greatest evils and if you haven't noticed, a lot of British people tend to get pretty sentimental about that since we never fecking shut up about the war.

What? Alone? When?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

At what point can we start taking the churches down. If you really want to destroy the symbols of historical oppression then symbols of organised religion have to be right up there.

 

[11101]

Im sorry but this is complete bollocks. If you want to commemorate or celebrate the defeat of Nazism or other important victories for human progress you'd go to the Cenotaph, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the statue of Edward Jenner, Florence Nightingale etc to remember those who were sacrificed in the fight and those who both contributed significantly and are fully worthy of veneration. If you're going to a statue of Churchill you're doing it because you think he specifically was some sort of great man or hero. After all, he didn't die in a foxhole, he sat there getting pissed and smoking cigars, occasionally condemning some more men to death. He was important in ensuring the victory but he's not someone we should be venerating specifically when tens of millions of people worldwide died and he was responsible for plenty of them. He wants to be a lot more admirable to have a statue of him with not even an explanation of his life for context. Or at least the Cenotaph ought to be a million times bigger than his statue if it comes to it.

In fact the whole of Pall Mall is pretty disgusting really when you think about it, celebrating a load of old dudes who went and did a lot of killing people in various places. The sheer number of Britons who changed the world in amazing and radical ways but the ones we pick out to celebrate in the heart of government are largely just old military men with questionable morals. Artists, philosophers, authors, musicians, playwrights, scientists, engineers, even business people or genuine philanthropists but no, fat old slaughtery men with royal connections is as imaginative as we get.

I think you're getting your streets muddled up. There's not really much on Pall Mall but hedge funds and shops selling things nobody needs. There's a war memorial, Florence Nightingale, and King George as far as i can remember. Nothing to get worked up about.

I assume you mean Whitehall, as that's where Churchill's statue is. It's the street at the centre of British government and military, it's hardly surprising the statues along it would be figures connected to government/Royalty. The artists, philosophers, authors, musicians, playwrights, scientists, engineers, business people and genuine philanthropists all have their monuments, but in different places. Are you from the UK? Maybe that was a slip of the tongue/typing but i get the impression a lot of people complaining in here have never been to the UK and just think it's full of monuments to the worst of civilisation.

The fact the Cenotaph was also attacked renders it all moot anyway. The people vandalising statues don't care about racism, BLM or any of that. They are just pretend anarchists out to cause trouble. As exemplified by the people caught on film attacking these statues being mostly middle class white folk.

 

[Dan_F]

This is such a red herring. I don’t pretend to speak for BLM, but I highly doubt taking down a statue of Churchill was even in the top 100 things that they were trying to achieve.

Yes the statue had one person spray paint “is a racist” on there, if they wanted to do more damage they could have done last weekend.

Again, the Cenotaph. One person sprayed “BLM” on there, as they had done on walls all over London. One person tried to set fire to a flag and it was stopped by the protestors. How are people equating this to an attack on the Cenotaph? It’s literally two people out of all those people there.

I don’t think discussion on this subject is a bad thing, however, it’s done in such a toxic way through the media that neither side will listen to the other.

 

[sammsky1]

I’m not clear on that sammsky, no . I assume you are referring to the Bengal famine...

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/

This article lists the argument for and against this accusation.

Fact is that It is a highly debated topic and whilst I’ve pointed out his personal opinions on race are disgusting it is also documented that in fact he made many efforts to secure wheat and food supplies during a world war in which every area of the British empire was suffering.

This thread, much like the mobs on the street, are missing some much needed balance to the subject.

I hope your clear on that now

Is that your research? A website named after Winston Churchill?

 

[sammsky1]

@Sweet Square

Firstly you’ve proven nothing but more debate and posting that I said he had balls is fine with me, he did. I also agreed he was a racist. There’s a difference between a racist and a tyrant guilty of mass genocide.

Theoretically speaking, do you think Britain today could sustain a poverty stricken continent during a world war? Let alone in the 40’s

He proved without doubt that your opinions belong to a fool.

 

[RUCK4444]

Is that your research? A website named after Winston Churchill?

It’s a university study, it’s backed up by many various research.

He oversaw it but there is clear documented evidence he sought aid from Canada and Australia, we were in the middle of a world war the likes the planet has never seen before bare in mind. It’s agreeable he’s a racist but that in some way paints the rest of the picture for people without it being set in stone.

 

[RUCK4444]

He proved without doubt that your opinions belong to a fool.

The Home Secretary and PM disagree and I think they are better informed than Sammsky on the old Red caf. Take a break lad or join the mob, I could respect it more then.

 

[Mogget]

Boris along with some other pro statue supporters and protectors have claimed that removing statues is bad because it ‘erases’ a nations history.

Britain actually went through this process of erasing its history; wilfully and strategically. It even had a project name.

This is what it looks like. Shameless whitewashing of the some of the most disgusting acts in the known history of humanity. Hands up who got taught that in GCSE or A-Levels?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You're not going to get a reply to this post because the people you're arguing with don't actually give a shit about history being erased. It's just a convenient way of defending statues of racists and slavers.

 

[sammsky1]

Well no the Churchill statue is there. We dont have to justify keeping it, you have to justify removing it and I cant see any sane government agreeing with that for a long time.

It will continue to get ‘vandalised’ for a long time now, or just have to stay boarded up.

 

[sammsky1]

The London mayor and PM disagree and I think they are better informed than Sammsky on the old Red caf. Take a break lad or join the mob, I could respect it more then.

Right you must be. Enjoy.

 

[11101]

What? Alone? When?

At the beginning the US was nowhere to be seen, Russia was still neutral, Germany had taken over all of Western Europe and Britain was looking like being next. It was the lowest point in the war for Britain as we were totally isolated and being carpet bombed nightly by the Luftwaffe. We very nearly fell during those early years.

This is such a red herring. I don’t pretend to speak for BLM, but I highly doubt taking down a statue of Churchill was even in the top 100 things that they were trying to achieve.

Yes the statue had one person spray paint “is a racist” on there, if they wanted to do more damage they could have done last weekend.

Again, the Cenotaph. One person sprayed “BLM” on there, as they had done on walls all over London. One person tried to set fire to a flag and it was stopped by the protestors. How are people equating this to an attack on the Cenotaph? It’s literally two people out of all those people there.

I don’t think discussion on this subject is a bad thing, however, it’s done in such a toxic way through the media that neither side will listen to the other.

Of course it's not their aim. Why would a protest about police brutality care about a war memorial? It's other groups hijacking the movement to rile up violence and discontent, they don't care that it ruins the original movement. The news now is being dominated by talk of the statues and violence going on and little about the original purpose. These people are good at what they do, but it serves nobody but themselves and these same few appear every time there is any kind of protest movement.

 

[Kag]

There are some that would have you believe that Churchill swam the length of the channel without coming up for breath, single-handedly repelling the Wehrmacht armed with nothing more than a shotgun and cigar.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Because he symbolises Britain standing alone against one of history's greatest evils and if you haven't noticed, a lot of British people tend to get pretty sentimental about that since we never fecking shut up about the war.

He symbolises Britain’s last gasp attempt to hold onto colonialism for me and most of his lobbying during ally strategy planning was based around maintaining British colonial interests .

 

[sammsky1]

You're not going to get a reply to this post because the people you're arguing with don't actually give a shit about history being erased. It's just a convenient way of defending statues of racists and slavers.

The million dollar question of course is the motives for defending statues of racists, mass murderers and space traders.

@SilentWitness asked them to explain themselves but no one has come back yet with a simple honest answer yet.

Must be torture to have to read the truth for those inclined in this way.

 

[Dan_F]

Of course it's not their aim. Why would a protest about police brutality care about a war memorial? It's other groups hijacking the movement to rile up violence and discontent, they don't care that it ruins the original movement. The news now is being dominated by talk of the statues and violence going on and little about the original purpose. These people are good at what they do, but it serves nobody but themselves and these same few appear every time there is any kind of protest movement.

The news is being led by the media. They have decided the topic is now Churchill’s statue, off the back of Colston, which are two completely unrelated things. They know fully that it’s an easy way to discredit the movement, as Churchill is so loved.

I’m not sure who you’re referring too? The couple of people at the protests last week who I mentioned?

 

[Sweet Square]

Oh the irony. On the contrary, it's not the object.

If you're an adult you'll know that it's just exactly that, an object. Why do you need the feel to desecrate a dead object just to show your emotion?

What's next? Songs? Movies? Literature? Union Jack?

We can't erase the past, it's there. You can make a case if they're building a new statue glorifying a slave trader in 2020, but if you wanna go back in time and start your judgment hammer why stop at statue?

Sky1981 - "We can't erase the past, it's there"

Sky1981 - "What's next? Songs? Movies? Literature? Union Jack?

Sky1981 - "I demand a petition! Hello can anyone heat me ? Hello is this microphone turned on ? Guys we need to sign a petition first"

@Sweet Square

Firstly you’ve proven nothing

I said he had balls is fine with me, he did.

Really ? Have I really proved nothing with this ?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

At what point can we start taking the churches down. If you really want to destroy the symbols of historical oppression then symbols of organised religion have to be right up there.

That's actually true

 

[That'sHernandez]

At what point can we start taking the churches down. If you really want to destroy the symbols of historical oppression then symbols of organised religion have to be right up there.

Now if you ask me... obviously not a popular opinion amongst the faithful though!

 

[RUCK4444]

Sky1981 - "We can't erase the past, it's there"

Sky1981 - "What's next? Songs? Movies? Literature? Union Jack?

Sky1981 - "I demand a petition! Hello can anyone here me ? Hello is the microphone turned on ? Guys we need to sign a petition first"






Really ? Have I really proved nothing with this ?

?? How does this translate in 2020 to removing a statue related to somebodies actions in WW11

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Now if you ask me... obviously not a popular opinion amongst the faithful though!

Or the sensible. I'm not a believer, but I respect the right of others to be.

 

[Posh Red]

I keep reading stuff along the lines of ‘the attention/media is being taken away from the real message of BLM‘, yet whenever I turn on the news they are talking about racism and how it can be tackled etc. Is this actually a thing or do people just like saying it?

 

[Sweet Square]

?? How does this translate in 2020 to removing a statue related to somebodies actions in WW11

Read the post I'm responding to.

We can't erase the past, it's there. You can make a case if they're building a new statue glorifying a slave trader in 2020, but if you wanna go back in time and start your judgment hammer why stop at statue?

 

[Sky1981]

Sky1981 - "We can't erase the past, it's there"

Sky1981 - "What's next? Songs? Movies? Literature? Union Jack?

Sky1981 - "I demand a petition! Hello can anyone heat me ? Hello is this microphone turned on ? Guys we need to sign a petition first"






Really ? Have I really proved nothing with this ?

Are you well mate?

 

[Sweet Square]

Are you well mate?

Huh ?

We can't erase the past, it's there. You can make a case if they're building a new statue glorifying a slave trader in 2020, but if you wanna go back in time and start your judgment hammer why stop at statue?

I'm just expanding you're incredibly awful argument

 

[That'sHernandez]

Or the sensible. I'm not a believer, but I respect the right of others to be.

Personally I don’t thing organised religion and belief in/worship of God(S) are the same thing to be honest.

I agree everyone has a right to their beliefs and indeed I would not prevent them from expressing them.

 

[Sky1981]

Huh ?




I'm just expanding you're incredibly awful argument

Right.. people will forget churchil exist if we have no statue of him.

All those pictures you quote, that doesn't erase the fact we know about them. Ask anyone here, most will have an idea what them pics represents. Just because you torn down Saddam's statue doesn't make people forget.

I have never been to german, or iraq, but I knew about the Berlin wall and Saddam without having to look at their statue.