Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Even the Unknown Warrior is Racist!

To sow the seeds of racial disharmony and thus provide the chance for Marxism to flourish
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The fact that the army was predominantly white is the reason, as we all know.

But there’s a bigger point here: the Unknown Soldier represents all. He is symbolic. That’s the whole reason for how and why things were done.
 
Jesus fcuking Christ!!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
The fact that the army was predominantly white is the reason, as we all know.

But there’s a bigger point here: the Unknown Soldier represents all. He is symbolic. That’s the whole reason for how and why things were done.
And speaking as a descendent of an 'Unknown' I completely get that sentiment, even after 100 years or so. One can only imagine how much closure it gave at the time.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Chef

LE
I wonder how the National Army Museum can know enough about the Unknown Warrior to make such a suggestion? Clue's in the name.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Hence my starting the threads on military museums and the National Trust.

The people these institutions are pandering to are unelected and minorities in the sense that they represent a very small group of people and opinion in this country.
 
I would have, but after what's been done at the IWM, etc it's not a huge surprise.
Haven't been for years but really enjoyed it when I did, particularly the illuminated diorama of the battlefield at Waterloo. I bet its all changed now to explore 'themes' instead?

ETA: @oldnotbold appears to have answered my question before I asked it!!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
I can't help thinking western civilisation is in some form of managed decline - destined to be akin to the fall of the roman empire - all in the hope that, in maybe a thousand years - some historian will say: "well, they mean't well".
 
Using similar wording..

Officials at the National Army Museum are likely to be woke sheep who do not represent those that have served and the majority of the country.
 
Absoulute bollox

1) The bodies were exhumed from the Western front - I think its rather more likely that the fact 99% of those that served there were white** May be rather more statistically significant than likely number of racists.

2) They exhumed suitible remains in 1920 - that would presumembly be intact skeletons with UK Specific equipment / partially surviving ID tags - Its far more likely that given 3yrs were spent churning up the same 200m wide bit of land that the bodies were from 1918 battles - see above re non white troops

3) whilst ive no doubt ethnicity could be pretty much determined from ID tags - Since these are unknowns Its pretty clear the fibre based tags had disintigrated or become lost and since I very much doubt the Anthropological skills of most people to determine the ethnicity of skeletal remains. thus making unlikely they were judged on race.

**Based upon number of Indian troops (Cavalry Division aside) who only served on the western front for a short period (1915), and UK demographics vs casualties.



edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
Using similar wording..

Officials at the National Army Museum are likely to be woke sheep who do not represent those that have served.
Agreed, but they also seem to be intent on misrepresenting the history of the very organisation whose history they are supposedly there to preserve, warts and all. I'm sure that they used to brand themselves as the museum of the British Army, that would appear to be no longer the case.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Absoulute bollox

1) The bodies were exhumed from the Western front - I think its rather more likely that the fact 99% of those that served there were white** May be rather more statistically significant than likely number of racists.

2) They exhumed suitible remains in 1920 - that would presumembly be intact skeletons with UK Specific equipment / surviving ID tags - Its far more likely that given 3yrs were spent churning up the same 200m wide bit of land that the bodies were from 1918 battles - see above re non white troops

3) whilst ive no doubt ethnicity could be pretty much determined from ID tags - Its more likely the fibre based tags had disintigrated and I very much doubt the Anthropological skills of most people to determine the ethnicity of skeletal remains. thus making unlikely they were judged on race.

**Based upon number of Indian troops (Cavalry Division aside) who only served on the western front for a short period (1915), and UK demographics vs casualties.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, if the bodies still had ID discs then they wouldn't have been buried as 'unknowns' in the first place. Apologies in advance if I've misread your post, though: as a bit wound up about this currently!!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top