I wonder what the reaction online/in the media would be if someone did that to George Washington statues. The American founding fathers were all ok were slavery, weren't they? Admittedly they lived 150+ years before Churchill.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Statue of Racist had text corrected in London
- Thread starter Ocarina_117
- Start date
Oh yes because the Nazis were so interested in peace. š¤£
Churchill may have been a shitty person but please don't try to make it seem like he was more war hungry than Adolf Hitler of all people.
he heard that trail of tears thing from america and wanted his own version for the brand
From Wikipedia:
Even though India contributed 2.5 million soldiers to the Army, Churchill said 'I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion'.
Even though India contributed 2.5 million soldiers to the Army, Churchill said 'I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion'.
Deleted member 59
Guest
Is this the start of more or less every historical figure (who benefited either directly or indirectly from the slave trade) getting rightfully "cancelled"? I do wonder just how widely this will spread, like how many of the US founding fathers benefited from it? Are people thinking there'll be a lot of protests around July 4th?
The British have never reckoned with all the of the evils that they inflicted upon the rest of the world. That they celebrate monsters like Churchill makes that very clear.
What pisses me off is that none of this is taught (intentionally) so when people jump to his defence it's largely out of being spoonfed half-truths and expecting the other side of the argument to be made up.
They just can't fathom his two-dimensional persona to have such cruelty.
Surely this is when introspection kicks in and you wonder why you were taught the way you were. That is if you want to better yourself.
All I care about is that he was there for wartime and was quite rightly replaced postwar.
ps3ud0 8)
They just can't fathom his two-dimensional persona to have such cruelty.
Surely this is when introspection kicks in and you wonder why you were taught the way you were. That is if you want to better yourself.
All I care about is that he was there for wartime and was quite rightly replaced postwar.
ps3ud0 8)
Britain doesnāt just glorify its violent past: it gets high on it | Afua Hirsch
The defensive, patriotic narrative of empire has become a drug. Like all addicts, those hooked on it cannot stomach critique, writes Guardian columnist Afua Hirsch
www.theguardian.com
Colour me shocked.
He believed in an "Aryan stock" that should rule over others.
Racial views of Winston Churchill - Wikipedia
But hey, slow down on the Churchill hate guys.
Whoa.
I think it's worth saying though, that a lot of the reverence for him (and other historical figures) comes from a lack of knowledge around these aspects - not in spite of, or because of these.
It simply isn't taught about or talked about very often in popular culture.
That's not to excuse someone dismissing it once they do know, but don't be surprised if people are resistant to acts like this when there's very little discussion ongoing in mainstream circles.
I did not know any of this.
What an absolute cunt.
This is the energy that Boris has been trying to cultivate?
Tear that shit down!!!
This is very true.
It wasn't until a few years ago that I first read about what a monster Churchill really was. Until that point I barely knew anything except the whitewashed version who won ww2.
Of course, anyone defending him after they know this or its pointed out to them are deserved of criticism.
I think many people are still far too ignorant to see how evil and morbid colonialism really was.
I think all good people, once they read about the horrible things Churchill said and did while he had the power, would change their opinion of him very significantly.
This isnt lazy, hipster woke liberal bullshit, this is about people in power treating other human beings as subhuman.
Regardless of whether they opposed Nazism.
This isnt lazy, hipster woke liberal bullshit, this is about people in power treating other human beings as subhuman.
Regardless of whether they opposed Nazism.
blatantly ahistorical bullshit used to handwave away racism. it's just wrong to say everyone from Churchill's era was as racist as he was.
You edited my post in your quote to try and make me look like an asshole.
Her statue is in the HoC. Little bit tricky to access that!
I did a tour of the HoC with work not long ago and seeing her statue (and how nearly everything is covered in gold in the house of Lords area) was quite repulsive.
THIS IS NOT THE CHURCHILL I WAS TAUGHT ABOUT IN SCHOOL!
That cuddly war winner would never have done any of the things in this thread. All I can say is I'm glad I live in a country where this stuff is available after you've been given the high school version. It still seems every time I have a look into Churchill I find a new depravity. I think kids in 50 years learning about trump will be able to relate, and as if it needs restating, fuck Boris.
That cuddly war winner would never have done any of the things in this thread. All I can say is I'm glad I live in a country where this stuff is available after you've been given the high school version. It still seems every time I have a look into Churchill I find a new depravity. I think kids in 50 years learning about trump will be able to relate, and as if it needs restating, fuck Boris.
My first reaction upon seeing the OP was "wait, Churchill? As in Winston Churchill? Wasn't he the PM of Britain during WW2?".
I remember only hearing about his accomplishments beforehand. I had literally 0 clue about the terrible racist acts he did while he was in power because it was never taught to me. This thread really opened my eyes to that, so thanks for making it.
I remember only hearing about his accomplishments beforehand. I had literally 0 clue about the terrible racist acts he did while he was in power because it was never taught to me. This thread really opened my eyes to that, so thanks for making it.
I hate that people, not only in here but on my TW, keep diminishing Churchill as just a 'racist' like the kind of racism your Grandpa shows when he goes to the supermarket and is mean to brown and black people. He was a vile human being who directly instigated or provoked genocides.
'but he was key on the WWII against Nazis!" and sho was fucking Stalin and we know he was a monster too.
'but he was key on the WWII against Nazis!" and sho was fucking Stalin and we know he was a monster too.
I'll be honest, I didn't know some of that stuff about Churchill, glad I finally know how much of a monster he was.
Very much approve of this. Irish social media was abuzz hoping they'd fuck up some of the Cromwell statues while they were at it, lol.
his dad was a cunt too, he annexed Burma as a new year present for Queen Victoria.
You aren't even allowed to take pictures in there, had them stop my manager when she was trying to take pictures of the entrance hall.
Honestly you might as well tear down all the statues. I can't think of anyone who has a statue that didn't do horrible things or allow horrible things to happen. Even Lord Nelson, who was friends with slavers in the Caribbean and opposed the abolition of slavery.
I wouldn't be opposed to that. History doesn't have to be celebrated nor do the people who made the major decisions. Someone else said it best. You wanna put up a statue, celebrate the nameless face whose back all this was built on.
I took History for GCSEs and even though I was sad we never got out of the 20th century during it, I'm appalled by what I'm reading about Churchill now.
Can we take him off the Ā£5 note as well please? Not sure I want the arsehole living in my wallet in the future.
Can we take him off the Ā£5 note as well please? Not sure I want the arsehole living in my wallet in the future.
Actually a bunch of the founding fathers were against slavery, and several were against but had inherited some in states where they legally were forbidden from freeing them(seriously, even if they were bankrupt they couldn't). And several did free them. Washington was against it.
It's amazing to me that during my history lessons and college history lessons, all we ever learn't about was how great a leader, strategist, and orator churchill was
It's baffling that I have to find out through twitter just thehuge Amount of atrocities he actively chose to commit, his racist and downright horrific opinions.
It's baffling that I have to find out through twitter just thehuge Amount of atrocities he actively chose to commit, his racist and downright horrific opinions.
His role in the war is irrelevant.
British Empire (like all their contemporaries and like most countries throughout history) was also fascist. Just to a different degree than the Nazis. They don't need to be celebrated just because the defeated the Nazis.
If an outside power came to free the British Working Classes from oppression from the hegemony, Churchill would be fighting the outsiders.
I like the compromise of keeping the statues but adding a permanent "was a racist" under them, in a nice plaque and everything.
But being more serious, yeah, getting rid of every public statue of a racist is a great idea. And if that means we end up with no statues... I guess we simply suck and picking who we make statues of, and we should try to do better in the future.
Madrid is plagued with this shit too: Kings, Generals, all kinds of monsters. The only one I'd keep is the one we have of Lucifer, who was also a monster but at least not real.
But being more serious, yeah, getting rid of every public statue of a racist is a great idea. And if that means we end up with no statues... I guess we simply suck and picking who we make statues of, and we should try to do better in the future.
Madrid is plagued with this shit too: Kings, Generals, all kinds of monsters. The only one I'd keep is the one we have of Lucifer, who was also a monster but at least not real.
Yeah, I think a good balance is to move a few statues into museums where context can be provided, and then to teach in schools the good and the bad of the people.
Churchill, like anyone, was a complex human being who was capable of both bad and good. We as a society are too quick to label people as pure good or pure evil (though in cases like Hitler obviously it is 99.9% evil based on his actions). My point (and I'm sorry if I'm not being clear) is that by making people out as pure evil, we hand-wave away the idea that we are all capable of evil things, and that the "evil" people had something wrong with them, or were abominations that won't be repeated again. In fact, we all are capable of bad things if we are put in certain circumstances. The same is true of how we celebrate "good" people too much (like in the case of Churchill) where too many then hand-wave away his sins by saying something like "sure he killed, but he also stopped Hitler!". The way we view Stalin in the west is a more accurate way of holding up historical figures who did some "good": We say that yes, he aided the Allies, but he was also a total monster.
Hopefully I'm coming across as not hand-waving away anything here!! I think we should take these statues down, move some into a museum where the historical context and surrounding info can be explained (as to why the statues even exist), and then in schools explain that Churchill was a bad person who also happened to stop other bad people from doing bad things. Don't make anyone good or evil (even though that's easier for people to understand), show them as complex people who did the things they did for different reasons (prevailing beliefs of their times, their own bravery/convictions, their own psychopathy, etc).