Cambridge University strikes again.

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Fair enough.

I think the default view on here is that he was a wrong un but there's no point in us arguing about that.
From what I've read on here, I'm not sure that's accurate really. That said, I do think there's certainly a growing acceptance of the facts and a certain amount of recognition that Churchill's self-styled myth is, just that!

Of course there are plenty who seem to prefer to live in a state of denial and then others (in complete contrast) in a state of self-flagellation, when it comes to our colonial history. I'm not sure there's a particular need for either really... You can't deny the truth and British Education has certainly done what it could to colour the truth, to a point where most of us have an extremely innacurate perspective on our own history, which isn't particularly healthy IMHO. There's also no need to get too hung up about the past either, so long as you acknowledge where you went wrong.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
From what I've read on here, I'm not sure that's accurate really. That said, I do think there's certainly a growing acceptance of the facts and a certain amount of recognition that Churchill's self-styled myth is, just that!

Of course there are plenty who seem to prefer to live in a state of denial and then others (in complete contrast) in a state of self-flagellation, when it comes to our colonial history. I'm not sure there's a particular need for either really... You can't deny the truth and British Education has certainly done what it could to colour the truth, to a point where most of us have an extremely innacurate perspective on our own history, which isn't particularly healthy IMHO. There's also no need to get too hung up about the past either, so long as you acknowledge where you went wrong.

I have no problem with your views on the matter and I just don't like what I see as a general acceptance that he was a wrong un.

As I said before, no point in us arguing what the default view of Churchill on this forum is and if I'm wrong I'm wrong - "won't be the first time", I hear you say.

Plenty of others topics to fallout over.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I have no problem with your views on the matter and I just don't like what I see as a general acceptance that he was a wrong un.

As I said before, no point in us arguing what the default view of Churchill on this forum is and if I'm wrong I'm wrong - "won't be the first time", I hear you say.

Plenty of others topics to fallout over.
As I say, much of that acceptance is probably borne out of undeniable facts. I’m not sure there’s much to be gained from trying to paint someone as something they weren’t, just because the truth might shatter your illusions etc..It is what it is ...

The trouble is that we invest so much of ourselves into these myths and stories of Great Britain, Churchill, defeating Nazism etc... that it’s quite a severe psychological blow to come to terms with the possibility that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, as it were.

It’s important to come to terms with the fact that accepting the historical truth doesn’t make you or me a lesser person... The fact that Churchill was actually a bit of a cunt and what we were led to believe was a rather flowery version of the truth, doesn’t actually diminish us as people...
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
As I say, much of that acceptance is probably borne out of undeniable facts. I’m not sure there’s much to be gained from trying to paint someone as something they weren’t, just because the truth might shatter your illusions etc..It is what it is ...

The trouble is that we invest so much of ourselves into these myths and stories of Great Britain, Churchill, defeating Nazism etc... that it’s quite a severe psychological blow to come to terms with the possibility that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, as it were.

It’s important to come to terms with the fact that accepting the historical truth doesn’t make you or me a lesser person... The fact that Churchill was actually a bit of a cunt and what we were led to believe was a rather flowery version of the truth, doesn’t actually diminish us as people...

I don't know where we're going with this to be honest.

You've got your opinions whether I agree with them or not.

It is not a FACT that Churchill was a cnut, it would appear that you are of the opinion that he was a cnut.
 

Levi501

Well-known member
Obviously anyone living through WW2, ears pressed to the wireless, hanging on Churchill’s every last word,hoping for good news and positivity, probably wouldn’t have a bad word said about him. He came to be the right man at the right time, to rouse the people during these frightful times, and he succeeded in that respect. On the other hand he was an enigma, crossed the ‘floor’ of the Commons twice, the disaster at Gallipoli. There’s no doubt he harboured racist tendencies, saying the death of Ghandi whilst on hunger strike wouldn’t be a bad thing as he was an enemy of Empire, the Bengal Famine which has been mentioned. Also couldn’t see a problem with using poison gas against uncivilised tribes such as the Kurds and Afghans, his treatment of strikers. His views on Jews as an incorrigible
alien, and his anti Islam views, but as is documented most of the British hierarchy were of similar views. The History i was taught at school was solely about this great hero who led us to victory in WW2, totally agree, but not the other side of his early life involving the issues I’ve mentioned to give balance to his long life.
 

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
Churchill’s greatest achievement was the mobilisation of the English Language as a weapon of war in 1940 when we had only a few other weapons to fight the Nazis, and when many of his Conservative colleagues wanted to discuss peace terms. He believed if we could hold out long enough in our natural fortress, the USA would eventually mobilise as well. The added bonus was that Hitler then turned on the Soviet Union which took the jackboot off our collective necks. But that was a year later. Those 12 or so months make up for a lot of his other sins.
 
Last edited:

tangerine_neil

Well-known member
“No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness” - Aristotle

“There’s a fine line between genius and insanity” - Oscar Levant
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
I read all of it, I just picked out some positives. I think Chuchills legacy is strong enough that his story can be told warts n all.
Or do you want his biographies to be like some piece of celebrity fluff that the Kardashians might commission!
Absolutely not. I ,merely pointed out that the AK post was predominantly an negative one. It just so typical.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Obviously anyone living through WW2, ears pressed to the wireless, hanging on Churchill’s every last word,hoping for good news and positivity, probably wouldn’t have a bad word said about him. He came to be the right man at the right time, to rouse the people during these frightful times, and he succeeded in that respect. On the other hand he was an enigma, crossed the ‘floor’ of the Commons twice, the disaster at Gallipoli. There’s no doubt he harboured racist tendencies, saying the death of Ghandi whilst on hunger strike wouldn’t be a bad thing as he was an enemy of Empire, the Bengal Famine which has been mentioned. Also couldn’t see a problem with using poison gas against uncivilised tribes such as the Kurds and Afghans, his treatment of strikers. His views on Jews as an incorrigible
alien, and his anti Islam views, but as is documented most of the British hierarchy were of similar views. The History i was taught at school was solely about this great hero who led us to victory in WW2, totally agree, but not the other side of his early life involving the issues I’ve mentioned to give balance to his long life.
In fairness to the individuals involved in the Cambridge discussion, they weren’t really discussing Churchill as a character, so much as the wider impact of his actions and attitudes towards, so called, inferior races and how (in the context of the glorification of him in our modern society) that reinforces white supremacy today.

I think people would struggle to argue that him (along with many senior politicians of his day) were not white supremacists.

The notion that the British Empire might have been worse than Nazi Germany seems (on the face of it) to be an abhorrent suggestion, especially given that we ‘saved the world from the fascist Nazi’ however, viewed through a different lens... A lens that values the lives of black and brown people as much as white... A lens that recognises genocide in people with different skin tones and examines the harm and death resulting from both entities... Viewed from that perspective, perhaps it’s not an unreasonable suggestion after all.

The point was also mentioned that genocide had been inflicted by White Europeans since they began to colonise the world .... So to that extent, it wasn’t so much a Nazi thing, but a White European thing...A White supremacist thing...

I’m inclined to think it was perhaps just a human thing... That terrible things have happened throughout our existence, but it is hard to deny that the white race has held the whip hand for most of known history and the balance of wealth and health is heavily skewed in our favour.
 
Last edited:

Levi501

Well-known member
In fairness to the individuals involved in the Cambridge discussion, they weren’t really discussing Churchill as a character, so much as the wider impact of his actions and attitudes towards, so called, inferior races and how (in the context of the glorification of him in our modern society) that reinforces white supremacy today.

I think people would struggle to argue that him (along with many senior politicians of his day) were not white supremacists.

The notion that the British Empire might have been worse than Nazi Germany seems (on the face of it) to be an abhorrent suggestion, especially given that we ‘saved the world from the fascist Nazi’ however, viewed through a different lens... A lens that values the lives of black and brown people as much as white... A lens that recognises genocide in people with different skin tones and examines the harm and death resulting from both entities... Viewed from that perspective, perhaps it’s not an unreasonable suggestion after all.

The point was also mentioned that genocide had been inflicted by White Europeans since they began to colonise the world .... So to that extent, it wasn’t so much a Nazi thing, but a White European thing...A White supremacist thing...

I’m inclined to think it was perhaps just a human thing... That terrible things have happened throughout our existence, but it is hard to deny that the white race has held the whip hand for most of known history and the balance of wealth and health is heavily skewed in our favour.
To compare Nazi Germany with the British Empire is certainly rather rash to say the least, the Nazis were playing the blame game against one Race the Jews to whip up internal frenzy amongst the German people. The Empire was all about going out into the world to conquer and gain land and material wealth in many different countries, which on the whole were inhabited by peoples with brown/black skin. As you say the white race ( North European) has held the whip hand for centuries, since they had the wherewithal and greed to go out and so call ‘civilise’ the world.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
It occurs to me that this White European Supremecist stuff is very Western Orientated. It ignores the history of Asia, where conquest, empires and mass murder was practiced long before we were even a country. I am surprised no one has mentioned Japan in this thread, particularly as there was some gut wrenching stuff in the Myanmar / Burma thread this week. China and the Hordes also comes to mind. More recently Pol Pot.

Personally, I had to drop history at school fairly early on, maybe that is why I am less committed to the "official" view. You can only learn by widespread reading, always understanding that every author has their own spin. There appears to be a concerted effort to rewrite history at the moment, but with another, no more and no less valid, spin.

Just read this on a BBC article about cancel culture, this discussion is going on across the pond too, about their giants :

Author Gary Kamiya, writing in The Atlantic magazine, said the board's decision was another example of "progressive cultural censorship".
"The possibility that judging past figures by the standards of the present is both untenable and ethically suspect did not, apparently, occur to the committee," he wrote. "Nor did the committee decide that the towering achievements of Lincoln or Washington or Jefferson might just outweigh their shortcomings."
One of the warnings lobbed by those who rail against "cancel culture" is that it will eventually know no boundaries. The living and the dead will all be subject to judgement by the contemporary standards of the day - standards that can change according to political whim.
 
Last edited:

Recidivist3

Well-known member
On a more local level, attempts by a fair few people on here to ‘close down’ Cat or 62 could be regarded as cancel culture in action
 

spudgun

Well-known member
It occurs to me that this White European Supremecist stuff is very Western Orientated. It ignores the history of Asia, where conquest, empires and mass murder was practiced long before we were even a country. I am surprised no one has mentioned Japan in this thread, particularly as there was some gut wrenching stuff in the Myanmar / Burma thread this week. China and the Hordes also comes to mind. More recently Pol Pot.

Personally, I had to drop history at school fairly early on, maybe that is why I am less committed to the "official" view. You can only learn by widespread reading, always understanding that every author has their own spin. There appears to be a concerted effort to rewrite history at the moment, but with another, no more and no less valid, spin.

Agree that widespread reading is the way to go, but realistically re-treading the same ground by multiple authors is a bit of a trudge.

A good perspective on Churchill is `Four faces and the man`, which gives essays on him as a stateman, politician, historian, military strategist and as a man, all written by different distinguished historians.

I took history to A level but regret not engaging a little bit more at the time ( it was two out of geography, history and German in my day).

I think I would be a far better student now...
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
It occurs to me that this White European Supremecist stuff is very Western Orientated. It ignores the history of Asia, where conquest, empires and mass murder was practiced long before we were even a country. I am surprised no one has mentioned Japan in this thread, particularly as there was some gut wrenching stuff in the Myanmar / Burma thread this week. China and the Hordes also comes to mind. More recently Pol Pot.

Personally, I had to drop history at school fairly early on, maybe that is why I am less committed to the "official" view. You can only learn by widespread reading, always understanding that every author has their own spin. There appears to be a concerted effort to rewrite history at the moment, but with another, no more and no less valid, spin.

Just read this on a BBC article about cancel culture, this discussion is going on across the pond too, about their giants :

Author Gary Kamiya, writing in The Atlantic magazine, said the board's decision was another example of "progressive cultural censorship".
"The possibility that judging past figures by the standards of the present is both untenable and ethically suspect did not, apparently, occur to the committee," he wrote. "Nor did the committee decide that the towering achievements of Lincoln or Washington or Jefferson might just outweigh their shortcomings."
One of the warnings lobbed by those who rail against "cancel culture" is that it will eventually know no boundaries. The living and the dead will all be subject to judgement by the contemporary standards of the day - standards that can change according to political whim.
In the context of this particular discussion, I'm not so sure that "rewriting history" is an appropriate or particularly accurate description (at least not in what I suspect is the intended context)... History (as we know it) is being rewritten or perhaps a more accurate description might be "corrected" or "balanced" to reflect a more factual and balanced account.

The UK is not unique in our ability to create our own version of history that is heavily skewed in our favour and as you say, mass murder / genocide has also been practiced by other races too.

I struggle to grasp why people see this Cambridge discussion as an issue and particularly why (as it appears) there is such an objection to four non- white individuals engaging in a discussion about Churchill and the Empire in the absence of someone to 'even out the discussion'.

I also think that the reference to 'cancel culture' and also the judgement of historical individuals by modern day standards, kind of misses the point to a large extent. As I kind of alluded to above, this was not so much about making particular judgement about the person or character of Churchill, but instead (as the name kind of suggests) to evaluate the racial consequence of Churchill, based on the slightly skewed version of him that we have come to accept.

It's very easy to try and dismiss or (as some would prefer) shut down these kinds of discussions as I think they force us (as Privileged White British Males) to confront some quite challenging thoughts and opinions..

I think It's fair to say that the "British Empire" (beyond token reference) was pretty much excluded from my education, with the focus of modern British history being on WW1 to a certain extent and WW2 to a much greater extent.... The overwhelming narrative for WW2 being that Britain and Chruchill pretty much won the War against Germany single handedly.... Soviet involvement in the War effort was virtually erased from history too....

Maybe that's how history works.... Perhaps in the immediate aftermath and whilst directly impacted generations are still alive there's a need to maintain the propaganda and only over time can a nation start to reflect on the reality and accept it for what it was.
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Well-known member
Then what about post #108? Is that atypical? Who is being relentlessly negative here? You do come across as an absolute whopper with no agreeable balance.
I don’t think you are in a position to talk about balance after the shite you post on here. As for the whopper comment, classic 👋🏻
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Absolutely not. I ,merely pointed out that the AK post was predominantly an negative one. It just so typical.
But what if he did a few great things and maybe did a few things that are questionable by current standards. That might look predominantly negative but maybe that is the truth.
I have actually read about something he is alleged to have done that would cause a meltdown on here so maybe it is better to edit or airbrush some of his story.
 

Ruperthoop

Well-known member
My problem is this has got nothing to do with academic debate. This is about bigoted individuals who have brought nothing new to the table .They are full of hate.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
It's very easy to try and dismiss or (as some would prefer) shut down these kinds of discussions as I think they force us (as Privileged White British Males) to confront some quite challenging thoughts and opinions
I am not convinced anyone is trying to shut down any discussion, I love having my knowledge challenged, as I mentioned in my widespread reading, and the best way to get this board to discuss a subject is for someone to try to tell everyone to move on.

I also have to disagree about your point on cancel culture, as that is exactly what the discussion was doing, no matter how innocently. To discuss the British Empire and it's impacts in isolation from what was happening in the rest of the world, where it came from, what the existential threats were to the UK before it, is sterile and misleading. Maybe they would rather we had let the Spanish, or maybe the French invade and be subsumed. The British Empire came about because the leaders of the time realised the importance of professional armed services and administration. In Biological terms, they out competed their rivals. If they had not, there would have been a much larger Spanish Empire, or a huge French republican Empire, a Russian Empire, or maybe a Catholic Empire. If there had been no British Empire at the start of WW2, the Allies would not have been able to survive till America became involved. If the UK had fallen, the Americans would have been unable to invade Europe, and the world would be a very different place. If, if if.

I really wish we could get beyond this binary choice, left/right, good/bad, us/them. Understand history, learn the lessons and try to be better citizens.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I am not convinced anyone is trying to shut down any discussion, I love having my knowledge challenged, as I mentioned in my widespread reading, and the best way to get this board to discuss a subject is for someone to try to tell everyone to move on.

I also have to disagree about your point on cancel culture, as that is exactly what the discussion was doing, no matter how innocently. To discuss the British Empire and it's impacts in isolation from what was happening in the rest of the world, where it came from, what the existential threats were to the UK before it, is sterile and misleading. Maybe they would rather we had let the Spanish, or maybe the French invade and be subsumed. The British Empire came about because the leaders of the time realised the importance of professional armed services and administration. In Biological terms, they out competed their rivals. If they had not, there would have been a much larger Spanish Empire, or a huge French republican Empire, a Russian Empire, or maybe a Catholic Empire. If there had been no British Empire at the start of WW2, the Allies would not have been able to survive till America became involved. If the UK had fallen, the Americans would have been unable to invade Europe, and the world would be a very different place. If, if if.

I really wish we could get beyond this binary choice, left/right, good/bad, us/them. Understand history, learn the lessons and try to be better citizens.
I presume you read the OP? 😆 I'm not suggesting you are trying to shut them down, but clearly there are plenty of people who have tried to shut down this discussion.

I'm struggling to grasp your reference to 'Cancel Culture', which to my understanding relates to the de-platforming of certain individuals or opinions in our Universities or boycotting celebrities based on their expressed opinions.... Essentiallyif Cancel Culture were to be relevant to this partular issue then it would relate to the attempts to prevent the discussion happening, rather than anything that was said by any of the participants.

As has already been said, this 'discussion' was not a debate and therefore it was a discussion that clearly chose to view Churchil and the Empire from a different perspective.

You and it seems many others don't appear to be able to accept or acknowledge that the discussion can be valid or take place in the absence of the conditions that you wish to place on the discussion or how you (or others) believe that discussion ought to be framed. Let's face it.... the accepted view of this 'history' has hardly been framed in unbiased terms and therefore it could be argued that to add balance an alternative view might also be required to take an equally biased perspective...

So for me... I have no issue with the nature of the discussion and I feel no need to see it framed in a context that I choose in order to make me feel better about it. I accept that others have a viewpoint and that their expressed view on it is valid (No need to try and invalidate them at all).... I found the different perspective very interesting.

Obviously that doesn't mean you or I need to accept the discussion as an unbiased and factual account of history and clearly there are likely to be many strands to this if / when the college representatived engage in discourse / debate.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
You and it seems many others don't appear to be able to accept or acknowledge that the discussion can be valid or take place in the absence of the conditions that you wish to place on the discussion or how you (or others) believe that discussion ought to be framed. Let's face it.... the accepted view

I think you are misinterpreting what I am writing. I am not trying to stop any discussion, to the contrary, I welcome the discussion, but by keeping it narrow, without context, question its validity. It would be like discussing the proposed European Super League without the context of the Premier leagues and TV money.

I don't understand your language about making you feel better about it, maybe you don't like to be challenged, I welcome it, it's how I learn.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I think you are misinterpreting what I am writing. I am not trying to stop any discussion, to the contrary, I welcome the discussion, but by keeping it narrow, without context, question its validity. It would be like discussing the proposed European Super League without the context of the Premier leagues and TV money.

I don't understand your language about making you feel better about it, maybe you don't like to be challenged, I welcome it, it's how I learn.
I haven't suggested you are trying to stop the discussion, but as you will note from the O/P there were attempts by other academics / historians to shut down the discussion before it even took place.... What do you think the article itself is all about?

That said, you still feel the need (as I have said) to try and invalidate the discussion that did take place....And that's what I mean about 'making you feel better' .. Perhaps it's subconcious, but the fact that you feel the need to invalidate the discussion suggests you struggle to just accept it for what it is....In other words because you find the 'not so pleasant' history of the British Empire challenging to deal with or come to terms with, you personally need to frame that in a context that makes it more palatable to you personally..... That framing however is not required in order to validate the opinons, but is instead (just what it is) a construct that you (and others) have created in order to justify abhorrent acts, policy, behaviour.

It's no different to invalidating the expressed feelings of a female rape victim by making some comment like "Not all men are rapists". Essentially when we do that, we are seeking to make ourself feel better, because when Men rape women we somewhow feel a sense of personal guilt that you then need to offload...

What I am saying to you is the discussion is valid regardless and it doesn't require you or anyone else to validate it... Just like it doesn't require a white panelist or Chrurchill fan to balance it.


BTW... I'm not having a go here.... Just trying to encourage you to think about this in a slightly different way.... I think we all struggle to a lesser or greater extent with this by the way....
 
Last edited:

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
That said, you still feel the need (as I have said) to try and invalidate the discussion that did take place....And that's what I mean about 'making you feel better' .. Perhaps it's subconcious, but the fact that you feel the need to invalidate the discussion suggests you struggle to just accept it for what it is....In other words because you find the 'not so pleasant' history of the British Empire challenging to deal with or come to terms with, you personally need to frame that in a context that makes it more palatable to you personally..... That framing however is not required in order to validate the opinons, but is instead (just what it is) a construct that you (and others) have created in order to justify abhorrent acts, policy, behaviour.
I love the way you manage to assign motives to others, quite touching, and in this case total bollocks. It actually is a historians view, slicing something down without context is actually what makes people feel safe, not the other way round, put it in little boxes marked good and bad. As a country, we have an uncomfortable history, and so does every other nation on the face of the earth. We have mostly moved from Monarchies imposed by violence, to a form of democracy, with enormous amounts of abominations in between. The real problem with taught history still, is it is the history of nations and leaders, it never dwells on the fact that in the UK, the biggest number of those who have suffered over the last millennia are the indigenous population. Serfdom, starvation, slavery, summary punishment, land clearances, the hell of the mills, mines and steelworks in recent centuries.

The discussion was valid in itself, but without being put in a historical context, sterile. I note you did not tell me why my analogy was wrong, I know you like a good analogy yourself.
 

Recidivist3

Well-known member
I have actually read about something he is alleged to have done that would cause a meltdown on here so maybe it is better to edit or airbrush some of his story.
Self censorship at its best

Allegations but no evidence, as far as i’m aware, to suggest that Churchill was a paedophile.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I love the way you manage to assign motives to others, quite touching, and in this case total bollocks. It actually is a historians view, slicing something down without context is actually what makes people feel safe, not the other way round, put it in little boxes marked good and bad. As a country, we have an uncomfortable history, and so does every other nation on the face of the earth. We have mostly moved from Monarchies imposed by violence, to a form of democracy, with enormous amounts of abominations in between. The real problem with taught history still, is it is the history of nations and leaders, it never dwells on the fact that in the UK, the biggest number of those who have suffered over the last millennia are the indigenous population. Serfdom, starvation, slavery, summary punishment, land clearances, the hell of the mills, mines and steelworks in recent centuries.

The discussion was valid in itself, but without being put in a historical context, sterile. I note you did not tell me why my analogy was wrong, I know you like a good analogy yourself.
I didn't see the relevance of the analogy and I still don't understand why you feel the need to state that the discussion was sterile or why you believe the 'historical context' or let's just refer to that as 'the excuse' is relevant.

The discussion that took place (and I'm assuming you have listened to it?) discussed the Racial impact of Churchill and in wider context the British Empire. So in that context why does the absence of your version of historical context make the discussion sterile...The widespread impact of the Empire is still there today... The beneficiaries are still the beneficiaries and the victims and dead are still the victims and dead...The attrocities still occurred and the effects of those attrocities still impact lives....The attitudes that stem from that era still impact on modern day society and the context (whilst perhaps valid to a different discussion entirely) makes no difference?

So let's just go back to our rape victim a second and lets assume we are discussing the psychological impact of the rape on the victim... What relevance do you think it has to the impact on the victim that the rapist had a terrible upbringing and was abused as a child?


Incidentally, I appreciate you comments about assigning motives etc.. but your post above (again) is littered with the same excuse making that suggests you really do struggle with acceptance....
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Just once I would appreciate a reply that accepted that not everyone views the world your way, and doesn't disparage anyone who disagrees. Again, the nonsense about struggling with acceptance, no, I disagree with you. There is no absolute right and wrong to this issue, just views.
The widespread impact of the Empire is still there today... The beneficiaries are still the beneficiaries and the victims and dead are still the victims and dead...The attrocities still occurred and the effects of those attrocities still impact lives....The attitudes that stem from that era still impact on modern d


Your rape analogy is nonsense. We are not discussing a single incident, we are discussing a long time period and its impact. To place one timescale on the discussion is convenient, but does not negate the context.

The widespread impact of the Empire is still there today... The beneficiaries are still the beneficiaries and the victims and dead are still the victims and dead...The attrocities still occurred and the effects of those attrocities still impact lives....The attitudes that stem from that era still impact on modern day society and the context (whilst perhaps valid to a different discussion entirely) makes no difference?
I answered this above. The Empire should also be seen in the context of its time and growth. Maybe read a little more about its beginnings, and what was going on in the world around its creation. The discussion about Churchill and the Empire could also be had about the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the Belgian Empire, American Hegemony and many others.
 

Alf

Well-known member
What gets me in those first few posts, what really drives me round the bend actually, is there is absolutely no attempt to engage with the point at hand. No attempt to argue, debate, disprove anything. Just reactionary, unflinching denial of anything they don't like the sound of.

There's no point in being right, left, liberal, nazi, monster raving loony or anything if we're not capable as a society of discussing anything. That attitude is exactly why the left and right wings become more and more of an extreme, toxic echo chamber.
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Just messaged my 95 year old Grandma who is old enough to remember him as PM about this thread.

"Right man, right place, right time. The fact we can discuss the rights and wrongs of him, is pretty much only because of him."

That'll do.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Just once I would appreciate a reply that accepted that not everyone views the world your way, and doesn't disparage anyone who disagrees. Again, the nonsense about struggling with acceptance, no, I disagree with you. There is no absolute right and wrong to this issue, just views.



Your rape analogy is nonsense. We are not discussing a single incident, we are discussing a long time period and its impact. To place one timescale on the discussion is convenient, but does not negate the context.


I answered this above. The Empire should also be seen in the context of its time and growth. Maybe read a little more about its beginnings, and what was going on in the world around its creation. The discussion about Churchill and the Empire could also be had about the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the Belgian Empire, American Hegemony and many others.

I think I've gone to some lengths to confirm that I am not having a go or trying to be disparaging. Is it possible that you might be taking my comments to heart, simply because (as I suggest) like many of us you are struggling to grapple with these issues? I'll come onto this again...

The rape analogy is perfectly valid... and we are discussing a 'discussion that took place' (a video of which is linked on this thread), in which the racial consequences of Churchill were discussed. I'll just repeat that "The Racial Consequences". To that extent, the actual acts and attitudes attributed to Churchill and in wider context the Empire and how those impacted on different races. You seem to be suggesting that context (in your chosen form) which essentially constitutes your own and other peoples attempts to try and somewhow justify certain acts or behaviour might somehow nullify or impact on the Racial Consequences?

As I has already said, the reasons that the Empire came about have no bearing or relevance to this particular discussion. Simply the fact that the Empire was, that abhorrent acts were committed in its name, that Churchill acted the way he did, said what he said and did what he did...That he held and expressed the views expressed is all that matters and the racial consequences (both then and still today) is all that matters...

The reasons for the creation of the Empire and any attempts to try and justify the acts carried out, the attitudes of Churchill and the impact he and it had on others, is a completely separate discussion and as I say it is borne more out of a need for those of us who are privileged enough to have benefitted to try and justify these things to ourselves and of course it is historically relevant to understand how it came about, why it existed, what preceded it etc...

Coming back to the point above, from what I see your posts appear to be littered with the kinds of excuse making and attempts to claim victimhood, that is very common...In fact I'd go as far as to say that your responses are extremely predictable and the types of answers that many of us would subconsciously revert to in this situation.... Even the fact that you are becoming frustrated by me pointing this out to you is highly predictable (as will be your reticence to acknowledge this and fight back, yet again)... I had hoped for slightly better in your case, because you are not some right wing nut job, though perhaps (like most people) this might take some time for you personally to process...All I will say is that it is worth putting yourself through the ringer on this and seriously doing some self-examination about how you really feel and why.

If I take another example from one of your posts above...Again another common theme in these kinds of responses to this issue, but you seek to invalidate the impact on other Nations / Peoples by refering back to our own people and to psychologically associate yourself with that suffering... The inference here is that "My people have been victims too", therefore I am a victim too and so your claims of racial consequence are invalid .... However the reality is that you (like me) enjoy huge privilege, due to no other reason than your skin is white....Yes, of course many white British People have suffered in Mills etc.. However the situation remains right now that we are privileged enough to live here in the UK a Wealthy country, due to wealth earned from the spoils of the Empire, in a White dominated society whilst those affected nations still suffer consequences.

I mean look at the situation in the world as it is right now with Covid 19 (a point made in the discussion I think BTW).... Because a few White people have started to die in higher than acceptable numbers, suddenly the World has to sit up and take notice, with Societies all over the world grinding to a halt and Billions of pounds being found to fund vaccine creation....

Yet.... massive death from famine, disiease, poverty (all of which could be easily sorted) is just a day to day occurence for people with Black / Brown skin and the world barely notices.... THAT is what White Supremacy is about and it exists in me and you just like it exists in Right Wing nutters and just like it did in Churchill and his peers.... And if it takes more discussions like this one to make some of us wake up to these facts then that can only be a good thing IMHO.
 
Last edited:

20togo

Well-known member
As I say, much of that acceptance is probably borne out of undeniable facts. I’m not sure there’s much to be gained from trying to paint someone as something they weren’t, just because the truth might shatter your illusions etc..It is what it is ...

The trouble is that we invest so much of ourselves into these myths and stories of Great Britain, Churchill, defeating Nazism etc... that it’s quite a severe psychological blow to come to terms with the possibility that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, as it were.

It’s important to come to terms with the fact that accepting the historical truth doesn’t make you or me a lesser person... The fact that Churchill was actually a bit of a cunt and what we were led to believe was a rather flowery version of the truth, doesn’t actually diminish us as people...
It's a fact that Churchill was a somebody whereas you are a nobody.
I presume you read the OP? 😆 I'm not suggesting you are trying to shut them down, but clearly there are plenty of people who have tried to shut down this discussion.

I'm struggling to grasp your reference to 'Cancel Culture', which to my understanding relates to the de-platforming of certain individuals or opinions in our Universities or boycotting celebrities based on their expressed opinions.... Essentiallyif Cancel Culture were to be relevant to this partular issue then it would relate to the attempts to prevent the discussion happening, rather than anything that was said by any of the participants.

As has already been said, this 'discussion' was not a debate and therefore it was a discussion that clearly chose to view Churchil and the Empire from a different perspective.

You and it seems many others don't appear to be able to accept or acknowledge that the discussion can be valid or take place in the absence of the conditions that you wish to place on the discussion or how you (or others) believe that discussion ought to be framed. Let's face it.... the accepted view of this 'history' has hardly been framed in unbiased terms and therefore it could be argued that to add balance an alternative view might also be required to take an equally biased perspective...

So for me... I have no issue with the nature of the discussion and I feel no need to see it framed in a context that I choose in order to make me feel better about it. I accept that others have a viewpoint and that their expressed view on it is valid (No need to try and invalidate them at all).... I found the different perspective very interesting.

Obviously that doesn't mean you or I need to accept the discussion as an unbiased and factual account of history and clearly there are likely to be many strands to this if / when the college representatived engage in discourse / debate.
Have you said anything there apart from a load of old waffle? why waffle for ten words when you can do it for 500.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Self censorship at its best

Allegations but no evidence, as far as i’m aware, to suggest that Churchill was a paedophile.
Wrong.
Its something that I've been told by a few different people, and I looked it up and there are reports of it, but I have no idea how valid it is, but it's not paedophile related.
 
Last edited:

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
You seem to be suggesting that context (in your chosen form) which essentially constitutes your own and other peoples attempts to try and somewhow justify certain acts or behaviour might somehow nullify or impact on the Racial Consequences?
Please give a single example of where I have justified this act or behaviour

Coming back to the point above, from what I see your posts appear to be littered with the kinds of excuse making and attempts to claim victimhood, that is very common...In fact I'd go as far as to say that your responses are extremely predictable and the types of answers that many of us would subconsciously revert to in this situation
Nope, not making any excuses, maybe you are reading my responses through your preconceived idea of being correct
I had hoped for slightly better in your case, because you are not some right wing nut job, though perhaps (like most people) this might take some time for you personally to process...All I will say is that it is worth putting yourself through the ringer on this and seriously doing some self-examination about how you really feel and why.
Patronising piffle.

I mean look at the situation in the world as it is right now with Covid 19 (a point made in the discussion I think BTW).... Because a few White people have started to die in higher than acceptable numbers, suddenly the World has to sit up and take notice, with Societies all over the world grinding to a halt and Billions of pounds being found to fund vaccine creation....
Yet you disparage Gill Gates attempts to do something about this

It is probably pointless continuing this discussion, because there is little common area. All I would ask is that you open up to the possibility that I am not inherently racist, am actually concerned for all humans and wish I could change the world to one of better equality and health. I have a clear conscience of those changes for the better that I did manage to achieve during my career, real change to improve the opportunity of those who had been disadvantaged because of their race and religion. Although I love a good barney on here, I would much rather be acting than talking.

Just as an aside, I love the site. You and I can have a good argument about this, yet agree totally on that other thread
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
It's a fact that Churchill was a somebody whereas you are a nobody.

Have you said anything there apart from a load of old waffle? why waffle for ten words when you can do it for 500.
20's, I'm not sure why you felt the need to post that tbh.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Wrong.
Its something that I've been told by a few different people, and I looked it up and there are reports of it, but I have no idea how valid it is, but it's not paedophile related.
Is it that he had dementia during his last spell as PM? And what he did during a meeting of the cabinet?
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Please give a single example of where I have justified this act or behaviour

Look, before I start, I am not trying to offend you or patronise you, but rather encourage you to go through some quite difficult self-examination. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I really don't think so and whilst I appreciate that you aren;t particularly enjoying having this conversation, I think it's worthwhile having it with you nonetheless.

If we start with the basic premise that... a) The British Empire has inflicted some horrible acts and b) You (and me) are the beneficiaries of that and c) In all likelihood both of us quite enjoy our position and would be reticent to give it up... then both of us inevitably carry a certain amount of underlying guilt, when that is brought to our attention (whether we like it or not and whether we are prepared to admit to it or confront it or not)...

That guilt will then manifest itself in certain pretty consistent behaviours which will include denial or justification and we probably engage in some of that behaviour without really knowing. So as an example, when we first started discussing this subject, whilst you could acknowledge the discussion could legitimately take place, you still felt the need to frame that with "but in my opinion in would have been more valid had it the full context of Empire been considered". As I see it, that is unwittingly a defensive mechanism kicking in.... There was no particular need for you to say that, but you (for whatever reason) felt the need to say it.
Nope, not making any excuses, maybe you are reading my responses through your preconceived idea of being correct

I'm not bothered about being correct to be honest and I'm not sure there's a right or wrong in any case. I'm just trying to have a conversation with a poster who I have a good deal of respect for and who I believe to be capable of a certain amount of introspection on a subject like this one.

Whether or not you are prepared to acknowledge it, the responses you have given to me are consistent with what I am talking about here. So essentially (subconciously) IMO you are trying to relieve or distance yourself of the guilt or whatever highlighted above. In the first instance that would be the attempt to try and 'excuse' the acts of the Empire by suggesting the discssion is less valid unless it includes the reasons or excuses why Empire existed or those acts occured and subsequently by the reference to the suffering of our own Nation / People "See I am a victim too" reference. As I have said, like it or not, these are very consistent themes for all of us.
Patronising piffle.
I apologise if you felt my comments were patronising, as I said at the outset that certainly wasn't my intention. I was, perhaps clumsily, trying to appeal to your better nature.
Yet you disparage Gill Gates attempts to do something about this
This is another subject, but to be clear I don't think that is true. What I have done is question the legitimacy of one indivdiual being able to buy control and huge over world health and a range of other significant international issues. Especially when that individual has family links with prominent promoters of eugenics.
It is probably pointless continuing this discussion, because there is little common area. All I would ask is that you open up to the possibility that I am not inherently racist, am actually concerned for all humans and wish I could change the world to one of better equality and health. I have a clear conscience of those changes for the better that I did manage to achieve during my career, real change to improve the opportunity of those who had been disadvantaged because of their race and religion. Although I love a good barney on here, I would much rather be acting than talking.
I don't believe for one minute that you are remotely racist, far from it and I believe that you are concerned for all humans etc.. I share your views on this and I'm absolutely sure that you would treat individuals equally etc... That's not what I am saying here at all.

It is simply the case that we all struggle to manage the issues that I mentioned and therefore there are some 'built in' mechanisms that tend to colour our reactions. In this case, on the extremest side, some people can't even accept that a discussion like this one in Cambridge could legally take place...They want to simply shut it down and perpetrate the lie... At the other end of the spectrum we can accept the discussion and even empathise with those opinions, but we still feel a need to try and justify or excuse...

It's no big deal, I just found it interesting and recognised a lot of my own retorts, when trying to grapple with the subject... I actually think it's much more difficult subject than people are prepared to acknowledge. 👍
 
Last edited:

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
I don’t think you are in a position to talk about balance after the shite you post on here. As for the whopper comment, classic 👋🏻
At least I tend to post interesting shite rather than the brain-dead Gumby attitudes I always see from you. You rarely make it past two lines. You started the abuse (as usual). End of discourse. 👌
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Is it that he had dementia during his last spell as PM? And what he did during a meeting of the cabinet?
No it is about his days as a military cadet at Sandhurst and allegations of homosexuality that almost went to court.
Maybe the story is widely known, not sure, but some people want to elevate him to God like status but he was a normal man with faults and weaknesses like every one.
Not that being gay is a fault or weakness but forcing yourself on somebody that doesnt want it obviously is!
Like I say the story is out there but I dont know how credible it is.
 

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
Ok I’ll bite. What abuse ?
I don’t think you are in a position to talk about balance after the shite you post on here.
That abuse.

Another two sentences, 5 words. Here’s a challenge for you. Try adding an extra sentence each day to your posts. By the end of a week you might manage a full paragraph. Then we might see some thought processes rather than automatic knee-jerks. You know you can do better. Sorry to patronise you. ✍🏼

By the way, the moddey dhoo is fat.
 
Top
X