Bang on
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
There's not a monument in antiquity that would stand if we applied such rules. Not one. Colosseum? gone. My Christians and slaves slain in their thousands upon thousands. Darwin on the currency? his views on the black person as less evolutionarily developed are well documented by serious historians. How about Isaac Newton? His shares in a company that profits from slavery. Statue gone. Roman triumphal arches? gone. All imperial conquests resulting in raping, sacking, enslaving, etc. Greeks are safe? not on your life. Not a Greek monument would remain either. You have to be consistent. If a few statues go down on the account of retaining balance, then they all go down.
35 million Indians civilians were killed by the british and yet nazis are considered worse
Good watch.
If you do a little digging is generally quite difficult to find a respected historical figure who hasn't been a giant cnut in some respect, possibly by contemporary, but almost certainly by today's standards. At the end of the day, they were all humans, lacking the context, knowledge and social awareness we have today. It's generally a bit pointless to idolise people rather than their achievements.
But yeah, Churchill was a huge racist.
But yeah, Churchill was a huge racist.
Yes that's true and I take that response as a balanced view. What I can't necessarily agree with is the mass destruction of statues and monuments that recognise the good those people did and in no way celebrate the racist views they had.
Let''s put it another way, hero's who battled in WW1 and WW11 - should we look into their potentially racist views (as people of that era) and no longer acknowledge that they risked their lives and indeed died to protect their country? It affected all walks of life, in a very different time.
What is the cut off point? I ask that because unless you do factor in the environment and upbringing these people had that ultimately shaped their opinion on race then it's all a waste of time and serves nothing but to pander to the current mob.
As many have pointed out, nobody is born racist, it's learnt behaviour from parents and those around you. We are lucky that we live in this modern society where the vast majority of us aren't shaped by racists with a distinct lack of education.
Last edited:
Precisely. As I've said, I've been behind the BLM movement from the beginning but taking down historical statues and monuments is a complete nonsense.
Not sure that is what is being advocated, but the whitewashing of certain histories is unacceptable also. It is also an a front for people who live here who for instance have family who were owned/traded/killed by someone like Edward Colston to have to walk past a statue celebrating the man with zero context as to who he was and his impact on the world we live in.
Now some of those statues need either to have context or be put in a museum so the education around the context of their histories can take place. Acting like it never happened is not helpful on either side. However there had been a campaign in Bristol for over 6 years regarding the Colston statue and nothing was done. People had enough and took action.
Recognising and celebrating people as heroes for the the good they have done whilst hiding their heinous past is not helpful, now we're not talk about people who simply held racist views. we are talking about those who actively participated, and or profited from death/slavery/subjugation or those who were responsible for mass deaths due to their beliefs about bing a superior race.
You can't compare that to someone who battled in WW1
Not sure I agree on your last point, as modern society is still majority racist
Because the forum is trying it's best to clamp down on the use of ridiculous and uncalled for insults, especially when it's simply because people don't share exactly the same opinion.
East India Company atrocities were no just in India
Agree with all this.
Again I appreciate your trying to bring a balanced view however it still doesn't address the question - where is the cut off point?
Every major monument from Britain to Rome to China all invariably involve heinous pasts - but do you know why? Because it was a heinous time, with nothing but war to celebrate, set in a backdrop of widespread normalised racism fuelled by a huge lack of education and desire for ones own country/race to climb the ladder.
Show me a country that uses statues to celebrate fairies and bedtime stories, or monuments that reflect nothing but good deeds of the past. What of the Colosseum in Rome? Should we pull it to the ground and turn away the millions that flock to see the place where people were slaughtered for entertainment?
You could argue these monuments serve more of a purpose to remind people of our current ethical standards and how we should never let them drop to the way they where.
If you read the history on the Colston statue there was no good reason for it to be up. It was only erected over 100 years after his death through the endeavours of a single superfan. He tried to raise capital from the public for the statue but failed to reach the target so it is thought to have paid for the remainder himself.
1. It is not a person.
2. We also don't tear down Cape Coast Castle in Ghana as it serves for historical context and education
My point was having statues celebrating people (without their historical context i.e whitewashing those peoples history) is unacceptable
The Colosseum should stay where it is as long as the history of the place is taught as that serves a purpose.
Celebrating people and hiding their past doesn't serve any purpose but to hide history is what I am saying
Also it wasn't fuelled by lack of education, it was design for capital gain, but thats another conversation.
James Penny was a slave trader, so signs for Penny Lane are being defaced in Liverpool.
James Penny was a slave trader, so signs for Penny Lane are being defaced in Liverpool.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there is no evidence that the road was named after him.
I'm no expert on the issue. Apparently the scousers are investigating.
Hopefully The Beatles get cancelled, the fecking overrated cnuts.
I'm a big fan, but am perfectly prepared the countenance the cancellation of Paul, with immediate effect, if only to avoid any further tarnishing of their reputation. The man cannot sing a note and should have hung up his piano 15 years ago, but I digress...Was there no contemporary criticism of Churchill at all for his racist attitudes or what happened in India?
We've had similar statue arguments in Bulgaria as well. Some want the statues from communist era to be demolished, others want WW2 memorials to be destroyed, because we were on the losing side and they believe at the end of the war, the Allies needlessly bombarded and destroyed some of our cities, even when we declared defeat and had surrendered.
Actually, in the 90s, the government publicly destroyed the most famous communist mausoleum in the centre of the capital city Sofia. It's definitely a very polarising topic.
I do agree that if we start getting rid of statues for moral reasons, we can't just pick and choose.
Actually, in the 90s, the government publicly destroyed the most famous communist mausoleum in the centre of the capital city Sofia. It's definitely a very polarising topic.
I do agree that if we start getting rid of statues for moral reasons, we can't just pick and choose.
We were taught about the Indian Mutiny of 1857, Amritsar might have been mentioned briefly and the Thuggees were given a whole lesson once. I suppose that doesn't count does it?
I read a decent book a few years ago, maybe 5 or 6, I think it was called Britain's Empire, Resistance, Revolt and Repression or some such order of Rs but I lent it to someone and never got it back so can't be sure which order. It does seem that we cannot rely on the Curriculum for now.
Edit. Looking back it was an English lesson that was spent discussing the Cult of Thuggee.
Interesting thing about the box is that they’ve been employed at numerous large scale protests before on various statues.
So you’re not going to answer the post and instead just deflect. OK.
A representation of ‘England’s finest: am sure Churchill would be proud.
For this I really do have sympathy for the police
Such a nice atmosphere
For this I really do have sympathy for the police
Such a nice atmosphere
Must be antifa in disguise, right?
Serlf appointee protectors of Churchill statute perform nazi salute.
Racism is widely agreed to exist through lack of education and ignorance.
Again - cut off point.
These statues don’t serve as some point to worship the person. They are symbols of history and moments in time for somebody who invented this or somebody who created the scouts or somebody who led us to victory against the Nazi regime etc etc. They are just moments in time that we’re important and serve to educate.
We should forget these moments because the person had some skewed views on race? And not for one minute should we explore the reasons that shaped that persons view?
If people think this will fix racism or even help at all they are entirely wrong, if anything I can’t really think of anything more inflammatory to harden a racist view than by taking down statues / monuments to appease the very people they already (wrongly) dislike.
Edit: Regarding my last sentence, see videos above my post that now show people making Nazi salutes at Churchill’s statue.
Only goes to show these statues should have been kept well away from the subject, they will now be flashpoints to only heighten segregation.
Last edited:
So you do t think removing a statue of a known and undisputed can be a very powerful way of educating about racism?
What do you think even happened last six days after scribbles I’m Churchill statue including today’s response by supporters of Churchill currently violently abusing police and performing nazi salutes? You think it all just entrenched people if echo chambers even further?
You post these but they can easily be videos posted like this for the protests over the previous week.
I’m not defending either but you can’t pick or choose what to show and defend either. When it was protesters this behaviour was brushed aside as just a few.
this was all to be expected sadly
James Penny was a slave trader, so signs for Penny Lane are being defaced in Liverpool.
The whole city should be knocked down. They played the biggest role in the slave trade and over 1 million slaves passed through there.
That is where the majority of the city's wealth came from.
Today, it is not widely agreed to have been how it started.
No we should not forget WW2, is the statue the only historical memorial we have of this?
Regarding Churchill specifically if you think its just racist views why people object to the statue then more education is needed.
Ensuring statues of certain people are displayed in the correct historical context will help to educate people. Many didn't even know that Churchill was a racist arian supremacist let alone know much about his role in the bengal famine of 1943
The whole issue around Churchill has more to do with the fact his history has been airbrushed.
Last edited:
Plus they all supported Suarez when he racially abused Evra.
30 point deduction should suffice.
The UK's not a racist country, though.
I’m disgusted with that. I sincerely hope that’s a minority of Britain and not representive of mosts thoughts.
The classic call of the warrior "fackin cam onnnnn!"
Never get a better chance to load them all up on buses and see whether they'd like to visit a harbour.
The Colosseum is famously evoked in Christian tradition as a site of martyrdom and has been for well over a millennium. Aside from the obvious interest in its architecture and connection to Ancient Rome, it's symbolism as a site of the persecution of early Christians is probably one of its biggest reasons people visit it.
There's absolutely no parallel between a monument which has huge both archaeological and cultural significance, and, say, the Calston statue in Bristol - the only purpose of which was to glorify a specific guy. No-one flocks to a statue to remember the bad things that person did, except when they're tearing it down. I can't think of a single historical example of a permanant statue being created of someone to commemorate the bad things they did. That's unambiguously not what they're for. To take your example, no-one is flocking to pay homage to Christian martyrs at any of the surviving statues or monuments which specifically glorify Roman emperors responsible for the persecution of Christians.
And then, if the argument is: 'if the Colosseum was built by slaves, why shouldn't we tear it down like the statues?', that would be a false equivalence. The equivalent of tearing down the Colosseum would be demolishing substantial parts of cities like Bristol and Liverpool where much of the better-known architecture was built or funded by slave labour. If anyone was arguing for that, the Colosseum would be a great counter-argument, but they're not, so it's not.
From what I’ve observed in my life racism against people of colour (POC) and recently Muslims is thriving and common in UK. If you’re white, it’s not your lived experience, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Or are the huge number of BLM protester lying and just being opportunitist to gain unfair advantage in society?
Overt expressions like today’s thugs might be rarer but the same passionate white racist simply expresses his opinions through hidden expressions of racism (Amy Cooper) or though opportunity denying decisions in employment and access to public services. Certainly this notion being expressed last week ‘that racism in UK aint what it used to be, and much better than US’, is totally false. It’s just not your lived experience.
Even football stadiums remain places of unchallenged racist expression, and many POC or Muslims just don’t go, because they can’t handle the abuse. I’m shocked at the racist aggression every time I go to West Ham’s stadium (every year to watch MU), despite West Ham being located in the most multi cultural part of London for 30 years.
If you care, please ask POC or muslims you know just to see how common it is. And just listen without trying to impose your own lived experience upon it.
Bringing all this back to this thread, the false myths propagated around Churchill for 72 years is a massive source of validation for people of this ilk.
Last edited:
This whole debate is quite dumb as there is a lack of understanding or respect for the fact that different things represent different values to different people, so you can only judge each thing and each person on its and their own merit.
The Churchill statue for example. I know enough about Churchill to be of the opinion that he wasn't a particularly great man and was actually responsible, or at least oversaw, some pretty awful things. However to me what a statue of him represents is taking in pride in fighting and defeating the nazis, and in ending a racist regime that was intent on eradicating "inferior" races of people from the planet. If someone defaces it with "was a racist" then although I'm never going to care enough about a statue to get angry about it, to me that is an extremely disrespectful and ignorant thing to do. It is also a very stupid thing to do given that it is actually quite obvious what the statue represents to a lot of perfectly reasonable people.
To another person the same statue might represent British led atrocities, or historic racism...and I would be all for engaging in discussions that find a way to be respectful to everyone. Whether that means moving the statue, replacing it with something else, taking steps to more fully acknowledge what it represents to everyone. I suspect not many people at all would be completely against this. Only the very extreme end of the right wing spectrum.
There are some statues which are literally just statues of rich men who were rich because they traded slaves. There are some, like the one that got thrown into the sea, that widely divide people as to what they represent...and then there are some, like the Churchill one, which are clearly not there to glorify or celebrate historical racism.
If we're really serious about making this all about statues, and I don't know why we are, then there should be discussions and a unified approach. Remove a statue because, as a society, we want to respect what it means to black people, rather than just to ourselves. Not have an angry mob go around targetting statues or vandalising people's streets without giving anyone else so much as a say in the matter, never mind respecting them.
The Churchill statue for example. I know enough about Churchill to be of the opinion that he wasn't a particularly great man and was actually responsible, or at least oversaw, some pretty awful things. However to me what a statue of him represents is taking in pride in fighting and defeating the nazis, and in ending a racist regime that was intent on eradicating "inferior" races of people from the planet. If someone defaces it with "was a racist" then although I'm never going to care enough about a statue to get angry about it, to me that is an extremely disrespectful and ignorant thing to do. It is also a very stupid thing to do given that it is actually quite obvious what the statue represents to a lot of perfectly reasonable people.
To another person the same statue might represent British led atrocities, or historic racism...and I would be all for engaging in discussions that find a way to be respectful to everyone. Whether that means moving the statue, replacing it with something else, taking steps to more fully acknowledge what it represents to everyone. I suspect not many people at all would be completely against this. Only the very extreme end of the right wing spectrum.
There are some statues which are literally just statues of rich men who were rich because they traded slaves. There are some, like the one that got thrown into the sea, that widely divide people as to what they represent...and then there are some, like the Churchill one, which are clearly not there to glorify or celebrate historical racism.
If we're really serious about making this all about statues, and I don't know why we are, then there should be discussions and a unified approach. Remove a statue because, as a society, we want to respect what it means to black people, rather than just to ourselves. Not have an angry mob go around targetting statues or vandalising people's streets without giving anyone else so much as a say in the matter, never mind respecting them.