You think that’s a curse, try being of African descent.
We all are.
You think that’s a curse, try being of African descent.
The point is, symbols matter. There's no point in pretending they don't.I don’t get your point
You're right but France surrendered within 7 weeks. It's not something I hold against them sometimes surrender is the only way to save the lives of your people and obviously the countries with the biggest guns are the ones who can go face to face.I don't mean to be argumentative but both Britain and France declared war at the same time, I think the Commonwealth and Empire (oh fe*k) declared war a week later. But I could be wrong.
Good to see France doesn't count.Just a small mention for Canada, Australia, New Zealand.... South Africa (not sure whether I should mention SA)....
Edit. Of course all of the ahem...Commonwealth countries should get a mention too, before I am bombarded with outrage....
I never said they didn’t matter?The point is, symbols matter. There's no point in pretending they don't.
That's wacist.We all are.
I've probably just picked this up too late, never mind. Apologies!I never said they didn’t matter?
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the poster I replied to stating no adult should have this level of attachment to an inanimate object.
sorry if I’ve lost the track of thought you’re on
Look back, I mentioned France eventually and it was then pointed out that after 7 weeks they had been forced to surrender. So picky picky.Good to see France doesn't count.
edit: saw your later post. Not that it did count anyway
No worries. It is a minefield in hereI've probably just picked this up too late, never mind. Apologies!
Trying to resist posting but there's so much crap in this thread.
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
Would it satisfy everyone if we used this?Trying to resist posting but there's so much crap in this thread.
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
fecking nazis everywhere at the moment, now's not the time to tear down a statue of our most famous anti nazi.The problem with going after Churchill at this time is the fact there is still a sizable population still alive who fought or suffered at the hands of Nazism. You then have to consider the families of this population who had fathers, mothers, grandparents, siblings etc killed in action, killed in camps or indeed the extensive bombing to which this country suffered.
To win a war you have to win hearts and minds and not build even more division.
To win a war you have to fight many battles along the way starting with the enemies weakest links, not go straight for the big prize.
There was hardly any kick back going for the likes of Colston and there are many such statues across the country which need to be brought down (forcefully if necessary).
I don't give a shit what happens to the Churchill statue, a vile man but he is still regarded as the saviour against Nazism whether rightly or wrongly by the big majority in the UK.
Education is key to the aims of any movement and even more so when going up a national icon.
This vilification of Churchill which I support 100% will not win hearts and minds and cause only more division.
I live in a town which was bombed regularly by the luftwaffe and trying to convince the children who had run to the Anderson shelters in the middle of the night, coming out to see whole streets obliterated and their children and grandchildren who were brought up on those tales that Churchill was evil is a huge ask and won't be done overnight.
I do totally understand the frustration and pain of anyone who wants it to happen overnight but changing the outlook of a sizable population takes time and persistence.
Been resisting the same but couldn't be bothered as people with strong opinions and poor knowledge don't tend to concede.Trying to resist posting but there's so much crap in this thread.
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
It would be nice if all people would learn from past mistakes.Would it satisfy everyone if we used this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II
To be fair, the war was Churchill's redemption in some eyes. Up until then anything he did turned to shit and he was a figure of derision and would be but a footnote in UK history never mind having a statue on Whitehall.fecking nazis everywhere at the moment, now's not the time to tear down a statue of our most famous anti nazi.
Absolutely. Unintended mistakes are still horrendous mistakes.It would be nice if all people would learn from past mistakes.
There's a lot wrong with Britain's view of the war, the winner's curse I guess is that we never had to confront its legacy and instead indulged in a load of national myth making instead. But that aside, nazism was defeated, the country was saved and Churchill was a major part of that, dating from long before the war even started. That's what the statue respects.Been resisting the same but couldn't be bothered as people with strong opinions and poor knowledge don't tend to concede.
It's always shown in the polls that the majority of Brits think we did the most to liberate Europe. No other country sees it that way not so surprisingly.
We did hold out though and if Germany had occupied us then history would have been different.
Has anyone even said britain did the most?Been resisting the same but couldn't be bothered as people with strong opinions and poor knowledge don't tend to concede.
It's always shown in the polls that the majority of Brits think we did the most to liberate Europe. No other country sees it that way not so surprisingly.
We did hold out though and if Germany had occupied us then history would have been different.
Yes of course and it's not to belittle the efforts of those who held out and fought in the war.Been resisting the same but couldn't be bothered as people with strong opinions and poor knowledge don't tend to concede.
It's always shown in the polls that the majority of Brits think we did the most to liberate Europe. No other country sees it that way not so surprisingly.
We did hold out though and if Germany had occupied us then history would have been different.
Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:Trying to resist posting but there's so much crap in this thread.
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
Why is it a myth that we stood alone in 1940 when the US and the Russians were still not in the war? By all means include Free french, Poles and Commonwealth troops.Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
To be fair Russia probably did the most.Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
There was a considerable pile-on in the last few monthsI'd like to point out today that I learned that Egypt declared war on Germany in 1945.
I don't want to express any strong opinions myself.There was a considerable pile-on in the last few months
Oddly enough there was actually quite a bug difference between the war generation and the post war generation in his they view the EU and brexitIt's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Really shows the role nostalgia can play.Specifically, when defining a ‘war generation’ that experienced the majority of their formative period during the Second World War, as well as a number of other more recent generations, this war generation is revealed as displaying significantly more positive views towards European integration than the immediate post-war generations. In fact, the size of this generational effect between the war and post-war generations is approximately equivalent to the same change in attitude that would be expected from a two-year reduction in education levels, a factor well known to increase Euroscepticism.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/...neration-are-almost-as-pro-eu-as-millennials/
Trying to resist posting but there's so much crap in this thread.
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
Yes exactly, I’ve been labelled a racist for pointing out these very comparisons. Mental.Yeah the comparisons are barmy to say the least.
This thread just goes around in circles. As another poster pointed out earlier I very much doubt the statue will be taken down. What will happen is it will remain covered for a while, the lockdown will be lifted, and gradually people will return to normal life. Off the back of that the violent element of there far left and far right "protests" will lose interest and latch on to something else. In doing so the rest of the mature population can continue to push and work towards meaningful, lasting positive change. A great start would be reviewing the educational curriculum.
It's like the Giggs vs Bale debate.Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
As far as I remember from my own history lessons from some 15 years ago (which are hazy so may be inexact), while Britain may have been the only major power fighting Germany and Italy at one point, it was never doing so alone. Other countries were still fighting and assisting, as were soldiers from countries like Belgium and France. I seem to remember Greece being centrally involved at that time. And Britain certainly wasn't the only country fighting Axis powers at that time.Why is it a myth that we stood alone in 1940 when the US and the Russians were still not in the war? By all means include Free french, Poles and Commonwealth troops.
Sack Churchill, sell the UK?It's like the Giggs vs Bale debate.
The UK did it for longer, but the US and Soviets had a better peak.
Good post, you would think that this is obvious to the majority.BLMUK (or at least its offshoots) overplayed their hand with this one, imo.
The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.
I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.
With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.
I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill isn't being celebrated by most Brits because of his racist policies. You can't make them to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance for something positive. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.
Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then.
Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.
Sounds about right.BLMUK (or at least its offshoots) overplayed their hand with this one, imo.
The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.
I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.
With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.
I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill is being celebrated for his victory over the Nazis rather than for his racist policies. You can't force Brits to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance with something positive.
Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.
Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.