A Political Thread

[Vieux Talonneur]

WTF is wrong with some Americans? Re-enacting George Floyd's death is about as low as you can possibly sink. At least their employers seem to have taken it seriously.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rotesters-reenacting-George-Floyds-death.html

 

[TRF_Olyy]

WTF is wrong with some Americans? Re-enacting George Floyd's death is about as low as you can possibly sink.

They were doing it in the UK as well
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-teens-who-mocked-george-22122018

 

[McTallshort]

I'm with AB - Churchill was a vile human being.
His efforts during WW2 should absolutely be remembered and he should be honoured for those - but that doesn't mean he can't be criticised for being an absolute **** before and after.

No one should be surprised that a march against racism daubed his statue with "Racist" - it's factually correct, and a pretty tame description of him to be honest.


I've always thought statues of Cromwell are a bit odd - not only because of everything his towards the Irish, but because....we still have a monarchy?

A monarchy that no longer had absolute rule and probably survived the kind of revolutions that happened in France and Russia. WithCromwell taking power away from the Monarchy it actually saved it.

 

[User1245]

Are you equating the social value of protesting racism to that of having cans in the park? Even as a massive advocate of the second I just don't agree.

No I'm not saying that. The restrictions in place are applicable for everyone. It's unfair otherwise.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

No I'm not saying that. The restrictions in place are applicable for everyone. It's unfair otherwise.

George Floyd's murder was also unfair, there's a lot about the situation that is unfair. Can you really justify using this argument when the effect would be to further persecute minorities.

Either you believe these protests weren't necessary, in which can all I can do is agree to disagree with you on the topic and know I have the correct opinion, or you think they should have waited until mass gatherings were allowed. The problem with the latter is that protests 6-9 months down the line wouldn't have the same impact, I can't speak for the protestors but I don't think the extreme anger and pain that drove these protests could be expressed in the same way if they waited until the beginning of 2021. And in addition to that, an election would have come and gone in the US in that time, Trump has shown no empathy in my opinion and had protesters waited he'd have gotten off too lightly.

I don't think COVID should be taken lightly and I'd have disagreed with protests in New York City in March but that's about it as far as the US is concerned, with the world a lot more educated on this virus with most wearing masks and with outdoor protests very unlikely to see a devastating surge. I think your criticisms are extremely poorly thought out and are missing the bigger picture.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

It's interesting the arguments for the Colston statue etc.
The main argument for people defending the statue seem to be saying don't airbrush history which I agree to a lot of the extent, I love history and feel you can learn a lot of it.
(Although in reality the people saying that tend to unfortunately be saying to for different motives )
BUT I don't agree with keeping the statue up.

For me the argument should be was dumping it in the canal better than dumping outside M Shed and have it in their Slavery section. In any regards it certainly educated people.
Just like I think it would be good to have the Robert Mulligan statue in a museum be it the London Docklands or maybe have a actual slavery museum in London.
I think it would be poignant to have a grand statue with all the warts showing in info about how they got to the status of having grand statues.

Churchill is far more complicated.

 

[Which Tyler]

From Banksy
"What should we do with the empty plinth in the middle of Bristol?

Here's an idea that caters for both those who miss the Colston statue and those who don't.
We drag him out the water, put him back on the plinth, tie cable round his neck and commission some life size bronze statues of protestors in the act of pulling him down. Everyone happy. A famous day commemorated."

https://www.instagram.com/p/CBNmTVZsDKS

 

[Amiga500]

Churchill is far more complicated.

Not really.

He was a c**t before WW2.
He was a c**t during WW2.
He was a c**t after WW2.


You folks need to set aside the hype around him - and really ask the question - aside from a few over-hyped PR pieces that had little material effect (civilian moral is overrated) - what did he actually do that really helped?

If he'd stayed out of military affairs - his tactical and logistical nous were questionable at best - and let the heads of the services deal with it - the UK would have been better off.

 

[Groundhog]

My view on the Colston thing is that if you want to teach history you use memorials. Statues are by their nature a veneration or homage to a person. There are no statues of Hitler in Germany and he has not been erased from history. What the Germans do very well is memorialize in an extremely poignant and tasteful way. Do statues need to be destroyed? Not necessarily. There's value for moving these things into a museum where a balanced account of a figure can be given, but when you put them out in public they understandably become figures who are synonymous with a city or country.
I know it's not such a black and white issue with certain figures and statues, as it is with Colston, but I think it's important that a debate be had whether certain people and by extension their statues should reflect a country today.
This definitely isn't a UK only thing and I think most Europeans countries, and certainly the States have similar cases. In our case, while we don't have a colonial past, I read yesterday about a John Mitchel who was an Irish Nationalist who was exiled to the states where he was pro slavery, described black people as "an innately inferior people" and had two sons die fighting for the Confederacy. Mitchel has a statue in Newry and numerous GAA teams and other things named after him for his nationalist views as an MP.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Not really.

He was a c**t before WW2.
He was a c**t during WW2.
He was a c**t after WW2.


You folks need to set aside the hype around him - and really ask the question - aside from a few over-hyped PR pieces that had little material effect (civilian moral is overrated) - what did he actually do that really helped?

Completetly changed the mentality of a government and country that was willing to just let Hitler to what he wanted for too long?

Whilst not the only reason for winning, it is likely that if Churchill had not become PM, the war would either have been dramaically extended as the Nazis cemented their foothold or we would have lost.

But you know that already and I'm probably just giving you that bite that you like...


Also, when accompanied by a 78% approval rating, I think it's fair to say that he had a significant boost on civilian morale...

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Will some of the things that BoJo has said in the past come back to haunt him? Not that I'm anticipating many statues of him.

 

[McTallshort]

Will some of the things that BoJo has said in the past come back to haunt him? Not that I'm anticipating many statues of him.

or Thatcher or Blair....

 

[Amiga500]

Completetly changed the mentality of a government and country that was willing to just let Hitler to what he wanted for too long?

Whilst not the only reason for winning, it is likely that if Churchill had not become PM, the war would either have been dramaically extended as the Nazis cemented their foothold or we would have lost.

But you know that already and I'm probably just giving you that bite that you like...

Also, when accompanied by a 78% approval rating, I think it's fair to say that he had a significant boost on civilian morale...

The Soviet Union "won the war". Between 65-80% of all Nazi casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. The war would not have been dramatically extended - the main difference might have been the Iron curtain starting in Calais, not Berlin.


Oh, no - not saying he'd no effect on civilian morale - just saying civilian morale is both sturdier than a few speeches and has questionable tangible effect on a war (that is not a war of aggression and is not being fought far away).

For instance, how many times did the war criminal Arthur Harris postulate that carpet (more accurate description than area) bombing German cities would end the war via collapse of civilian morale? What about Hitler's V bombs? Or the Blitz? Numerous instances that campaigns aimed at affecting moral had no tangible effects.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Will some of the things that BoJo has said in the past come back to haunt him? Not that I'm anticipating many statues of him.

In a word? No. Not for years, anyway.
People have been bringing it up for years, it all got air time during the general election and is getting air time again now but nothing has even come close to harming his position.

There will definitely come a point in the not too distant future where people will be gobsmacked someone with his values became PM, in this day and age, though (though I think that'll be because society as a whole will have progressed - atm I don't think it's surprising because there's a large part of the population that agree with his values - but as the next generations grow hopefully these values get pushed out).

 

[ncurd]

I was honestly and quite genuinely amazed that people I knew were genuinely happy him and Carrie had a child and all the hard work he must be going through as a new father. Like the adultery and unknown amount of children are very small blemishes on his character but for people to not know about it....

 

[ncurd]

This makes me hopeful though

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1270682447857037312

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

The Soviet Union "won the war". Between 65-80% of all Nazi casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. The war would not have been dramatically extended - the main difference might have been the Iron curtain starting in Calais, not Berlin.


Oh, no - not saying he'd no effect on civilian morale - just saying civilian morale is both sturdier than a few speeches and has questionable tangible effect on a war (that is not a war of aggression and is not being fought far away).

For instance, how many times did the war criminal Arthur Harris postulate that carpet (more accurate description than area) bombing German cities would end the war via collapse of civilian morale? What about Hitler's V bombs? Or the Blitz? Numerous instances that campaigns aimed at affecting moral had no tangible effects.

Bruh I knew you'd say that lol haha, read my post again... Never said that Churchill "won the war". Just that without him the war may have been extended or lost.

It's just stupid to attribute the winning of ww2 to one factor, it's down to a multitude, of which Churchill was a large part, but (as i said in my first post if you had actually read it) he was by no means the only factor.

On the eastern front specifically, there is a strong argument that can be made that a large part of the reason that it proved so important was because the Germans had to split their resources between both fronts and a decent argument to be made that if Churchill hadn't come to power and maintained the war effort, the Soviets would never have had the oppertunity to inflict such losses on the germans.

Saying that one factor "won the war" as you so eloquently put it is just plain ridiculous. So many factors were intertwined in every victory and loss that it is just plain incompetent/ignorant to try and pin that on one singular factor.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

From Banksy
"What should we do with the empty plinth in the middle of Bristol?

Here's an idea that caters for both those who miss the Colston statue and those who don't.
We drag him out the water, put him back on the plinth, tie cable round his neck and commission some life size bronze statues of protestors in the act of pulling him down. Everyone happy. A famous day commemorated."

https://www.instagram.com/p/CBNmTVZsDKS

I actually like that idea, quite clever.

With regards to Churchill, he was a bullish nationalist with a strong desire to see British supremacy and to also foster close relationships with the USA. That was exactly what we needed in WW2 and I'd imagine that attitude permeated through society and also drove a lot of the decision making in Britain. Outside of the war or Britain though? It was a **** attitude.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

This makes me hopeful though

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1270682447857037312

I refuse to pay any mind to polls - I've been burned too many times over the last 4 years

 

[Reiser99]

My view on the Colston thing is that if you want to teach history you use memorials. Statues are by their nature a veneration or homage to a person. There are no statues of Hitler in Germany and he has not been erased from history. What the Germans do very well is memorialize in an extremely poignant and tasteful way.

I think this is a good point. The statue itself isn't racist, but it shows the type of person that country venerated as you said. However what this and many places elsewhere show is that Britain was and is very proud of it's colonial/empire era and many people still look back on it as a golden age for Britain and some still view it even as something to aspire to. The simple fact is that that era of British history is woefully taught and the curriculum regarding that era is very narrow and only really focuses on Britain's achievements and the point of view from the empire. As long as we keep pretending that the British Empire was this beacon of civilisation that was good for the world then we will continue to have these issues.

Personally it should go in a museum, but Britain as a whole needs to start learning it's own history properly and not from some nationalistic, patriotic, narrow view point.