Well, yes, they are going to critically reassess him - in the sense that they're going to take a critical stance. In other words, a subjective rather than an objective stance. In other words, a biased stance.Sorry.
I'd say it is a very odd time to be discussing whether the man who led us to victory in the war was less than perfect. Of course he was flawed, but in a time when we need hope and promise for the future, having a go at a great British leader is not needed.
I also question by what means they are going to "critically re-assess" him. If that is using current standards, he will of course fail... better to be proud of his achievements and be pleased that your College is named after him, for those parts.
The quoted people also already seem to be having a go at him:
' “there are a great many people who will hear no ill of Churchill but also a great many, not just outside but also within Britain, who feel anything from criticism to deep revulsion at the figure of Churchill. Whatever our views on that we are obliged to ask why.” She said that some in the world saw him as monstrous and problematic" '
... which means they have already decided the outcome!
With the best intentions- I'm calling ND on your part.Either you're saying "all innocent black guys will eventually die in custody" of you failed to understand my question.
With the best intentions- I'm calling ND on your part.
You need to re-phrase the question.
Essentially-you asked...Would a black guy who was innocent eventually die in custody.
That pre-supposes a black guy would be in custody for no reason, for an indetermined time.
Therefore-the only answer to your question is-Yes.
Unless inverted commas were left off assassin's reply to you.
his ‘significant flaws’Cambridge college named after Churchill to debate his ‘backward’ views on race
Article quoted for those without subscription.
Don't be daft. The uplifting story of how a working-class former painter and decorator rose to be the leader of a country? He's proof that anyone can succeed.his ‘significant flaws’
If they think Churchill had significant flaws, they're going to absolutely shit themselves when they hear about the guy he was up against!
This is about a single characteristic of Churchill. Dogmeat asked to change multiple characteristics of George Floyd. That single characteristic of Churchill, racism, may have had none or negligible effect, but it was foreigners behaving very badly we were fighting against. Racism may have won us those wars. George Floyd is dead, drug-dealing criminal with health problems that he was, he would die anyway
I never said it did. Did you fail to see the word 'essentially'?
You obviously have comprehension issues.Of course I didn't.
It appeared right in front of the bit where you changed what I did say into something I didn't say so you could have a noodly flex at me for not saying what you wanted me to say.
I'm glad you asked me to explain this to you; most posters would be too proud to admit their limitations in such a public manner.
Also the Macaroni Muncher who ensured the trains were on time to get the workers home for their meager meal after being exploited by bankers and capitalists all day!Don't be daft. The uplifting story of how a working-class former painter and decorator rose to be the leader of a country? He's proof that anyone can succeed.
Forget the messiness with the Jews. The Far Left seems to manage to quite readily.
Again, behave. The EU, not NATO, defeated Nazism. The EU says so. Germany's in the EU, therefore the Germans defeated Nazism. Innit.Incidentally, it's a bit rich accusing Churchill of racism and completely overlooks the big picture, a bit like sorting deck chairs out whilst the Titanic is sinking. Yes he may have had old fashioned views, but if it weren't for WSC then every minority in Europe would be in a concentration camp right now. A real racist in 1940 would be the kind to let loose on women and kids with an mp40.
Well, yes, they are going to critically reassess him - in the sense that they're going to take a critical stance. In other words, a subjective rather than an objective stance. In other words, a biased stance.
It must be difficult squaring Churchill's racism with the number of people of the Windrush generation named Winston.
You obviously have comprehension issues.
Perhaps if I had said "In effect you said..." would that make thinks clearer? I was quite obviously not directly quoting you, and nor did I say I had. I understand you are 'committed' now with this argument and wont let go. That's your issue though- I can't be arsed with someting so ridiculous.
It's not about sensitivity - though it's often wrapped up as being so. It plays on the sensitivities of the gullible and dog-whistle politics, in the sense of people clamouring to agree that something is wrong/racist.What Churchill believed was nothing compared to th guys he was up against, and he defeated them. People are way too sensitive these days.
I remember calling the university woke agendas out in 2017.
What do you think now then @Sixty and @rampant ? How's the destruction of the Classics under the guise of racism going?
The American universities seem to have completely lost the plot. Most of their History courses are obsessed with revisionist race and gender studies.