Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 7:17:45 GMT
Out of interest I would like to ask a question. In recent times, a public hatred towards Winston Churchill, largely from the younger population has arisen. A common way to put this down is "you would be speaking German if it wasn't for Churchill!" This is used as an attempt to fully delegitimise huge, valid criticisms of Churchill. However, Joseph Stalin is commonly thought of as a "crazed communist who was against free speech and killed tens of millions." But is the exact same not true for him? I think it's safe to say that Stalin had more of an impact on the overall outcome of the war than Churchill. So my point is thus, why is one idolised and criticism of him is suppressed, and the other is tarnished? The actions of both resulted in the deaths of millions, both held abhorrent views towards certain ethnic minorities. Should both not be seen in the same spotlight? Whatever that is. I will answer a question with a question if I may Should be ever erect a statue of anybody ever again? Is it even possible If an authorirty want to wack up a statue of somebody now or try to, no doubt some will dig up offensive tweets or something on other social media recorded having abused someone in street or something On that topic the latest historical artefact under attack by the radical left I have seen is “do they know it’s Christmas time”- apparently a disgusting example of the white saviour which doesn’t take into account religious beliefs etc, etc. The rise of the perennially offended extreme left winger scouring history for things to be offended at makes me think of a quote that has been attributed to Churchill but actually has no real known origin, but yet feels so appropriate for where we are headed: “The fascists of the future will be anti-fascists” |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 7:33:23 GMT
No offence, but I'd say the negative reaction to yesterdays events was partly due to lockdown. The older generation, who's lives have been turned upside down by a virus, are obviously scared. Them seeing young vibrant people outside doing what they whatever they want, that's going to stir huge emotions. Still, not the youths fault though, they are only reacting to the what is happening in the world. Any negative reaction (that I have seen) is down to two things: A) Protesting during a pandemic B) Violence/criminal damage For me A) is much much worse than B). The protesters may think the risks to their own safety were worth taking but I’m not sure they have the right to take those risks on behalf of their relatives or friends or others they come into contact with. The social distancing stuff is not a joke and is there to save lives— that message seems to have been seriously lost because of the protests (although arguably the diminishing of the importance of the lockdown rules has been a process that started with Cummings). The violence seems strange to focus on compared to the timing of the protests, there was nothing like the trouble seen in America and it is arguable whether the idiots involved had anything to do with the protest and weren’t just hangers on looking for a reason to kick off. You make it sound like people wanted to protest, they didn't choose to, they are compelled by the actions of a racist police state. Maybe because you lack empathy, you can't observe what is happening from their point of view? Maybe to some people systematic police violence on a minority is more of an issue than a virus? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jun 9, 2020 7:34:57 GMT
I will answer a question with a question if I may Should be ever erect a statue of anybody ever again? Is it even possible If an authorirty want to wack up a statue of somebody now or try to, no doubt some will dig up offensive tweets or something on other social media recorded having abused someone in street or something On that topic the latest historical artefact under attack by the radical left I have seen is “do they know it’s Christmas time”- apparently a disgusting example of the white saviour which doesn’t take into account religious beliefs etc, etc. The rise of the perennially offended extreme left winger scouring history for things to be offended at makes me think of a quote that has been attributed to Churchill but actually has no real known origin, but yet feels so appropriate for where we are headed: “The fascists of the future will be anti-fascists” I am not great admirer of Churchill but there is a world of difference between him and Stalin,the latter violently oppressed his own people and murdered countless numbers of them,no one can lay that at Churchills door. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 7:51:06 GMT
Any negative reaction (that I have seen) is down to two things: A) Protesting during a pandemic B) Violence/criminal damage For me A) is much much worse than B). The protesters may think the risks to their own safety were worth taking but I’m not sure they have the right to take those risks on behalf of their relatives or friends or others they come into contact with. The social distancing stuff is not a joke and is there to save lives— that message seems to have been seriously lost because of the protests (although arguably the diminishing of the importance of the lockdown rules has been a process that started with Cummings). The violence seems strange to focus on compared to the timing of the protests, there was nothing like the trouble seen in America and it is arguable whether the idiots involved had anything to do with the protest and weren’t just hangers on looking for a reason to kick off. You make it sound like people wanted to protest, they didn't choose to, they are compelled by the actions of a racist police state. Maybe because you lack empathy, you can't observe what is happening from their point of view? Maybe to some people systematic police violence on a minority is more of an issue than a virus?Oh come on, that’s just naive youth talking. The people who lack empathy are the ones deciding for everyone else whether this virus spreads. Fine, go ahead and kill yourself protesting but by doing so you are risking everyone else’s life too. Go ahead and lose a relative to Covid and then come back, look me in the eye and tell me their life was a sacrifice worth making for the sake of protesting racism. Do you think you could honestly do that? |
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Jun 9, 2020 8:00:08 GMT
On that topic the latest historical artefact under attack by the radical left I have seen is “do they know it’s Christmas time”- apparently a disgusting example of the white saviour which doesn’t take into account religious beliefs etc, etc. The rise of the perennially offended extreme left winger scouring history for things to be offended at makes me think of a quote that has been attributed to Churchill but actually has no real known origin, but yet feels so appropriate for where we are headed: “The fascists of the future will be anti-fascists” I am not great admirer of Churchill but there is a world of difference between him and Stalin,the latter violently oppressed his own people and murdered countless numbers of them,no one can lay that at Churchills door. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story TG |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:01:00 GMT
Any negative reaction (that I have seen) is down to two things: A) Protesting during a pandemic B) Violence/criminal damage For me A) is much much worse than B). The protesters may think the risks to their own safety were worth taking but I’m not sure they have the right to take those risks on behalf of their relatives or friends or others they come into contact with. The social distancing stuff is not a joke and is there to save lives— that message seems to have been seriously lost because of the protests (although arguably the diminishing of the importance of the lockdown rules has been a process that started with Cummings). The violence seems strange to focus on compared to the timing of the protests, there was nothing like the trouble seen in America and it is arguable whether the idiots involved had anything to do with the protest and weren’t just hangers on looking for a reason to kick off. You make it sound like people wanted to protest, they didn't choose to, they are compelled by the actions of a racist police state. Maybe because you lack empathy, you can't observe what is happening from their point of view? Maybe to some people systematic police violence on a minority is more of an issue than a virus? Compelled by the actions of a police state? Really? It looked to me as though there were loads of right on hipster types who would jump all over any protest in their constant desire for civil unrest. It would be interesting to know the split between those with a genuine grievance and those who were jumping on the bandwagon. |
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Jun 9, 2020 8:03:13 GMT
I will answer a question with a question if I may Should be ever erect a statue of anybody ever again? Is it even possible If an authorirty want to wack up a statue of somebody now or try to, no doubt some will dig up offensive tweets or something on other social media recorded having abused someone in street or something On that topic the latest historical artefact under attack by the radical left I have seen is “do they know it’s Christmas time”- apparently a disgusting example of the white saviour which doesn’t take into account religious beliefs etc, etc. The rise of the perennially offended extreme left winger scouring history for things to be offended at makes me think of a quote that has been attributed to Churchill but actually has no real known origin, but yet feels so appropriate for where we are headed: “The fascists of the future will be anti-fascists” That's the place where sanity is, in between the two |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:04:26 GMT
Out of interest I would like to ask a question. In recent times, a public hatred towards Winston Churchill, largely from the younger population has arisen. A common way to put this down is "you would be speaking German if it wasn't for Churchill!" This is used as an attempt to fully delegitimise huge, valid criticisms of Churchill. However, Joseph Stalin is commonly thought of as a "crazed communist who was against free speech and killed tens of millions." But is the exact same not true for him? I think it's safe to say that Stalin had more of an impact on the overall outcome of the war than Churchill. So my point is thus, why is one idolised and criticism of him is suppressed, and the other is tarnished? The actions of both resulted in the deaths of millions, both held abhorrent views towards certain ethnic minorities. Should both not be seen in the same spotlight? Whatever that is. It's a fascinating subject, almost unanswerable. Both men did terrible things that they thought were right to do in order to rule an empire. I think they are both examples of the horror of perceived absolute power. You can see it today in the USA and China, both mega states point the finger at each other for committing atrocities, when in fact they are equally complicit. Looking in to the past at churchill and stalin is difficult as it is, because so much propaganda was written by both sides to curry favour with their populations, people have to consider that to even begin assessing history. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 9, 2020 8:05:08 GMT
Out of interest I would like to ask a question. In recent times, a public hatred towards Winston Churchill, largely from the younger population has arisen. A common way to put this down is "you would be speaking German if it wasn't for Churchill!" This is used as an attempt to fully delegitimise huge, valid criticisms of Churchill. However, Joseph Stalin is commonly thought of as a "crazed communist who was against free speech and killed tens of millions." But is the exact same not true for him? I think it's safe to say that Stalin had more of an impact on the overall outcome of the war than Churchill. So my point is thus, why is one idolised and criticism of him is suppressed, and the other is tarnished? The actions of both resulted in the deaths of millions, both held abhorrent views towards certain ethnic minorities. Should both not be seen in the same spotlight? Whatever that is. Not sure using Stalin as a comparator is a valid way if criticising Churchill, for a start it automatically gets the backs up of those you are trying to convince. There are plenty of retorts to the "speaking German" throwback if someone knows the subject well enough. Nobody is beyond criticism but the manner of doing so goes a long way in getting your message across. |
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Jun 9, 2020 8:11:13 GMT
Out of interest I would like to ask a question. In recent times, a public hatred towards Winston Churchill, largely from the younger population has arisen. A common way to put this down is "you would be speaking German if it wasn't for Churchill!" This is used as an attempt to fully delegitimise huge, valid criticisms of Churchill. However, Joseph Stalin is commonly thought of as a "crazed communist who was against free speech and killed tens of millions." But is the exact same not true for him? I think it's safe to say that Stalin had more of an impact on the overall outcome of the war than Churchill. So my point is thus, why is one idolised and criticism of him is suppressed, and the other is tarnished? The actions of both resulted in the deaths of millions, both held abhorrent views towards certain ethnic minorities. Should both not be seen in the same spotlight? Whatever that is. Wasn’t Churchill voted the best ever Brit? I think it’s down to a few things 1. Lack of education. I certainly wasn’t taught in school how much the Russians did for WWII. Since childhood I was taught are brought up with “Britain won the war” 2. “Commies” are evil 3. We idolize the war. To that note, I think we even idolize ourselves that we still have this plucky British togetherness to do what must be done for our country - which lockdown has proven has long gone out of our culture (long before the killing of George Floyd) That public vote really annoyed me.... George Orwell, the man who was interested about, and documented the 'ordinary man' didn't even make the 100, whilst 'big brother', 'room 101', and the term 'Orwellian' were being branded about in British culture.... Just shows that there's a distinct difference between what people think they know, and what they actually know.... Its alright though, David Beckham was 33'rd.... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 9, 2020 8:12:03 GMT
Out of interest I would like to ask a question. In recent times, a public hatred towards Winston Churchill, largely from the younger population has arisen. A common way to put this down is "you would be speaking German if it wasn't for Churchill!" This is used as an attempt to fully delegitimise huge, valid criticisms of Churchill. However, Joseph Stalin is commonly thought of as a "crazed communist who was against free speech and killed tens of millions." But is the exact same not true for him? I think it's safe to say that Stalin had more of an impact on the overall outcome of the war than Churchill. So my point is thus, why is one idolised and criticism of him is suppressed, and the other is tarnished? The actions of both resulted in the deaths of millions, both held abhorrent views towards certain ethnic minorities. Should both not be seen in the same spotlight? Whatever that is. It's a fascinating subject, almost unanswerable. Both men did terrible things that they thought were right to do in order to rule an empire. I think they are both examples of the horror of perceived absolute power. You can see it today in the USA and China, both mega states point the finger at each other for committing atrocities, when in fact they are equally complicit. Looking in to the past at churchill and stalin is difficult as it is, because so much propaganda was written by both sides to curry favour with their populations, people have to consider that to even begin assessing history. Absolute power? Really? Ask yourself this, who was the UK prime minister in 1946, who was President of the USSR in 1946 and why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:22:15 GMT
It's a fascinating subject, almost unanswerable. Both men did terrible things that they thought were right to do in order to rule an empire. I think they are both examples of the horror of perceived absolute power. You can see it today in the USA and China, both mega states point the finger at each other for committing atrocities, when in fact they are equally complicit. Looking in to the past at churchill and stalin is difficult as it is, because so much propaganda was written by both sides to curry favour with their populations, people have to consider that to even begin assessing history. Absolute power? Really? Ask yourself this, who was the UK prime minister in 1946, who was President of the USSR in 1946 and why. I know right? If the extreme left wing honestly think our elected representatives wield absolute power and that comparisons between Stalin and Churchill are appropriate I really worry about the future of this country. The hard left, it turns out, is just as scary as the hard right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:23:25 GMT
Wasn’t Churchill voted the best ever Brit? I think it’s down to a few things 1. Lack of education. I certainly wasn’t taught in school how much the Russians did for WWII. Since childhood I was taught are brought up with “Britain won the war” 2. “Commies” are evil 3. We idolize the war. To that note, I think we even idolize ourselves that we still have this plucky British togetherness to do what must be done for our country - which lockdown has proven has long gone out of our culture (long before the killing of George Floyd) That public vote really annoyed me.... George Orwell, the man who was interested about, and documented the 'ordinary man' didn't even make the 100, whilst 'big brother', 'room 101', and the term 'Orwellian' were being branded about in British culture.... Just shows that there's a distinct difference between what people think they know, and what they actually know.... Its alright though, David Beckham was 33'rd.... Alan Turing won the greatest person of the 20th century so there is some slight hope for humanity yet.... |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jun 9, 2020 8:25:10 GMT
Out of interest I would like to ask a question. In recent times, a public hatred towards Winston Churchill, largely from the younger population has arisen. A common way to put this down is "you would be speaking German if it wasn't for Churchill!" This is used as an attempt to fully delegitimise huge, valid criticisms of Churchill. However, Joseph Stalin is commonly thought of as a "crazed communist who was against free speech and killed tens of millions." But is the exact same not true for him? I think it's safe to say that Stalin had more of an impact on the overall outcome of the war than Churchill. So my point is thus, why is one idolised and criticism of him is suppressed, and the other is tarnished? The actions of both resulted in the deaths of millions, both held abhorrent views towards certain ethnic minorities. Should both not be seen in the same spotlight? Whatever that is. It's a fascinating subject, almost unanswerable. Both men did terrible things that they thought were right to do in order to rule an empire. I think they are both examples of the horror of perceived absolute power. You can see it today in the USA and China, both mega states point the finger at each other for committing atrocities, when in fact they are equally complicit. Looking in to the past at churchill and stalin is difficult as it is, because so much propaganda was written by both sides to curry favour with their populations, people have to consider that to even begin assessing history. To understand history you have to look at facts,corroborated evidence,read widely and try to view the context and time of events that occurred. I would argue that Churchill never had absolute power,there were the balance and checks of a democratic country,even during the the War years government was by coalition. As I have said in previous posts and so have others he was a flawed individual racked with sentimentality and depression however,the evidence is clear that Stalin was a brutal dictator where disagreements were settled by imprisonment or death. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jun 9, 2020 8:29:14 GMT
Wasn’t Churchill voted the best ever Brit? I think it’s down to a few things 1. Lack of education. I certainly wasn’t taught in school how much the Russians did for WWII. Since childhood I was taught are brought up with “Britain won the war” 2. “Commies” are evil 3. We idolize the war. To that note, I think we even idolize ourselves that we still have this plucky British togetherness to do what must be done for our country - which lockdown has proven has long gone out of our culture (long before the killing of George Floyd) That public vote really annoyed me.... George Orwell, the man who was interested about, and documented the 'ordinary man' didn't even make the 100, whilst 'big brother', 'room 101', and the term 'Orwellian' were being branded about in British culture.... Just shows that there's a distinct difference between what people think they know, and what they actually know.... Its alright though, David Beckham was 33'rd.... Ah the cult of celebrity. .... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 9, 2020 8:31:24 GMT
Absolute power? Really? Ask yourself this, who was the UK prime minister in 1946, who was President of the USSR in 1946 and why. I know right? If the extreme left wing honestly think our elected representatives wield absolute power and that comparisons between Stalin and Churchill are appropriate I really worry about the future of this country. The hard left, it turns out, is just as scary as the hard right. Politics is horseshoe shaped, far left and far right are closer than they would admit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:34:05 GMT
Absolute power? Really? Ask yourself this, who was the UK prime minister in 1946, who was President of the USSR in 1946 and why. I know right? If the extreme left wing honestly think our elected representatives wield absolute power and that comparisons between Stalin and Churchill are appropriate I really worry about the future of this country. The hard left, it turns out, is just as scary as the hard right. Talking about power in the philosophical sense... Foucault etc... stalin and churchill killed many people in the quest to grow and maintain an empire, you can't disagree with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:35:15 GMT
I know right? If the extreme left wing honestly think our elected representatives wield absolute power and that comparisons between Stalin and Churchill are appropriate I really worry about the future of this country. The hard left, it turns out, is just as scary as the hard right. Politics is horseshoe shaped, far left and far right are closer than they would admit. As Per the quote I posted earlier: “The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists”. I wondered how that could even make any sense when I first read it but seeing how history is being reviewed and re-spun and moral pressure applied to go agree with the findings I can really appreciate how it is very prescient. I hope your family situation is improving, btw. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:37:37 GMT
I know right? If the extreme left wing honestly think our elected representatives wield absolute power and that comparisons between Stalin and Churchill are appropriate I really worry about the future of this country. The hard left, it turns out, is just as scary as the hard right. Talking about power in the philosophical sense... Foucault etc... stalin and churchill killed many people in the quest to grow and maintain an empire, you can't disagree with that. I wouldn’t, I have posted before about how the Welsh have every reason to despise Churchill for a start....but a comparison to Stalin seems pretty out there. I think Trevor gas summed it up best, in terms of morality there is a world of difference between the two. It is also highly debatable how Britain would have fared were it not for Churchill, so if not him then who? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 8:40:42 GMT
I know right? If the extreme left wing honestly think our elected representatives wield absolute power and that comparisons between Stalin and Churchill are appropriate I really worry about the future of this country. The hard left, it turns out, is just as scary as the hard right. Politics is horseshoe shaped, far left and far right are closer than they would admit. Surely even attempting to give politics a shape or define everyone as left / centre / right is futile? |
|
