Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

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

Churchill was of his time, his views on race were little different to the rest of society’s.

What is hoped to be gained by vilifying Churchill?

Is it not better to look at society as a whole a consider how it has progressed (or regressed) and were you think it needs to go.

What you must also consider is why different races have different reputations and if that reputation is appropriate. It’s not for nothing that Fijians have a reputation as wife beaters and Nepalese (Gurkhas) are seen as scary little buggers.

"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history." George Orwell
 
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
 
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.
 
Top