The Times: Cambridge college named after Churchill to debate his ‘backward’ views on race

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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!
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.
 
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.
 
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.

The word "eventually" doesn't appear in my question.

But well done you for trying to join in.
 
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
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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!
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.
 
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

The original article cited Floyd's death as a catalyst for the attempts to castigate and erase historical figures by the unbalanced standards of critical race theorists.
 
The word "eventually" doesn't appear in my question.

But well done you for trying to join in.
I never said it did. Did you fail to see the word 'essentially'? Well done for attempting combat though, although I think you're trying too hard :)
 
I never said it did. Did you fail to see the word 'essentially'?

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.
 
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.
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.
Happy fishing.

Out.
 
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.
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!
 
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.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
Again, behave. The EU, not NATO, defeated Nazism. The EU says so. Germany's in the EU, therefore the Germans defeated Nazism. Innit.

Churchill? Racist and a toff. Have you seen his house? Innit.
 
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.

They may be being (or trying to be) clever here (even though they are operating under the serious disadvantage of being Cantabrigians...)

'Critically reassess' doesn't necessarily mean 'take a critical stance'.

It's based on the idea of critical thinking - i.e.: "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualising, applying, analysing, synthesising, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action" (to steal but one definition).

That in turn means - or should mean - that both sides of the argument are heard. This will not necessarily be understood by those who'd like the college to be renamed 'Mary Seacole College ' (or whatever they'd prefer), and if done properly, the squeals of outrage as the review highlights the fact that yes, Winston could be a teensy bit racist in the same way that a significant number of men of all classes who were born in 1874 could be, but he also had many good points (like fighting the Second World War against an opponent who regarded BAME people as simpletons to be exploited for their labour, homosexuals as vermin to be exterminated, transgender people as vermin to be exterminated, the disabled as vermin to be exterminated, etc, etc).

Critical reassessment - again if done properly - will run the very grave risk of John McDonnell being shown up as a charlatan who misrepresented history, as well as shattering some of the shibboleths held by the anti-Churchill camp. And Heaven forfend if the verdict on the Bengal famine turns out to be more nuanced than the 'correct' account presented by a variety of critics...

This does, of course, all depend upon the college doing this properly - but: the college's income from students isn't sufficient to support the establishment. They rely upon income from donors. These donors tend to be those who are not influenced by the whims of those who'd like to see Churchill cast down from all his plinths and his reputation destroyed.

Hence my suggestion that this could be being quite clever - it reduces the wind in the sails of those who'd like nothing more than the college to be renamed and Churchill's papers piled up in the quad and burned, but also means that the college is - to no small extent - going to have to take on board the views of historians like Andrew Roberts (an absolute gent, in my experience, but with occasional lurches to the right which make Mrs Thatcher look like Clem Attlee), Richard Toye (who is to the left of centre, but is balanced - some of his recent conclusions have offended both right and left for being simultaneously 'apologist' and 'snowflake'),Peter Hennessey (middle of the road and a damned good historian) and others. Were Paul Addison still with us (a Labour man, although you'd not have guessed from his books; Gordon Brown was a huge fan after being tutored by him), he'd be giving the ahistorical 'alternative facts' approach a stiff going over its proponents really wouldn't like.

If the college doesn't follow this approach, they'll be panned - from within academia, for not understanding 'critical reassessment' and for an inherently biased approach; from the media, for being overly woke and pandering to a vocal minority for whom facts and nuance don't matter; and from their donors. And unless they've cravenly stupid - not often associated with Cambridge colleges - they know this...

Which is why I say that this might in fact be a very clever means of carrying out a critical reassessment which, when complete, doesn't actually deviate much (if at all) from Addison's conclusion:

"...the recognition of his frailties and flaws has worked in his favour. It has brought him up to date by making him into the kind of hero our disenchanted culture can accept and admire: a hero with feet of clay.”

They can then claim to have carried out a reassessment, presented a 'new' perspective (which is pretty much the mainstream historical perspective - great man, flawed, but still great) and it's all been done with the utmost rigour. Your move, snowflakes...
 
Last edited:

Sana

Old-Salt
What Churchill believed was nothing compared to th guys he was up against, and he defeated them. People are way too sensitive these days.
 
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.
Happy fishing.

Out.

That's the spirit.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
What Churchill believed was nothing compared to th guys he was up against, and he defeated them. People are way too sensitive these days.
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.

Underlying it is a calculated and consistent Marxist effort to change the fabric of our society.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
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.

Churchill had very difficult views concerning race but that does not mean he was a great man. Great but flawed as all such men are.

As for the University of Leicester ditching the Classics, this was a decision by senior management to ditch it because they don't want to fund it and dressed their excuse up as "decolonisation", they used race relations as an excuse for being miserly, tight bastards according to those I've spoken to in academia.
 

Latest Threads

Top