Dangerous revisionism

[O'l Gravy Leg.]

There can be many fair criticisms made of Churchill and the British Empire and it's good to understand the past. That history though must be understood in the context of the past and how the world was during that period of history, in part so we might learn from mistakes and make better choices in the future.

Winston was a man of his time, and I as a younger man would largely judge the man and the empire by standards of today, with the benefit of the lessons learned from 100 years of progress.

So as a young man, in my early 20s I may well have agreed with insanity that is coming out of Cambridge academics (in part, I'd never have believed the Empire was worse than the Nazis) I'm Irish so there is much cause for a young uninformed Irish kid to believe the very worst of the British empire without pause for thought and reflection (2 things young people today are almost entirely bereft of when considering matters of historical frames of reference)


I was uninformed, that was the root cause of my thoughtless opinions on these matters. Yes bad things happened, but unlike the Nazis, it was not by design that bad things happened in the Empire. Unlike the Nazi system, which was by design evil, it's goals were evil in nature, destruction of peoples, countries, cultures and races)

Slavery seems now to be the biggest selling point to attack British heritage from all quarters, as if slavery was solely the domain of the British Empire, with little mention that Britain largely was responsible for ending the slave trade, and that all those colonies in the empire allowed so many from those places to come to Britain and go to universities, work and live, if you were a member of the Empire you could go to Britain and make a life as so many did. It was not perfect, nothing is, there were bad people but they were outweighed by many more good people. The good is erased. The benefits of what Britain had left behind in colonies, education systems, communication systems, governance and management systems, railroads, ports and even much knowledge is largely unmentioned.


Academics at an institution as illustrious as Cambridge, claiming through deconstruction driven regressive revisionist argumentation that Churchill and the British Empire was worse than the Nazis, is a symptom of a rot eating away at British heritage and culture.
If a people do not know where they came from, a people don't know where they want to go in future. All the real lessons are not learned from a revised and debased history.


Churchill College Hosts Anti-Churchill Talk: ‘Embodiment of White Supremacy’, British Empire ‘Far Worse’ Than Nazis
https://political-viewer.com/2021-0...supremacy-british-empire-far-worse-than-nazis



TL DR- Sisu sucks

 

[O'l Gravy Leg.]

In fact, one of the main reasons the Nazis did not expand to have an Empire to rival that of the British empire in size and scope (an empire that would have realised a horrific future for millions around the world) was Churchill, Britain, and the empire.

Furthermore, the academics (Priyamvada Gopal, Onyeka Nubia, Kehinde Andrews, and Madhusree Mukerjee) who push this toxic fake history, would not be here today at Cambridge to poison the minds of Uni students if it were not for the empire.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

One might argue that, like the roman empire, people didn't actually want to to be a member therfore the benefits of being one is not part of their thinking when the topic of empire arises.

I'm sure people were told of all the straight roads and Bath houses etc in gaul and dacia and other places but in reality about 100 men controlled the whole thing with an iron fist.

The British empire was broader in scope but in many ways no less an oligarchy.

Let's not pretend that the names were stopped by much other than us capital and Russian blood.

Britain was not a realistic target for German forces aside from the air. Home fleet made invasion impossible. A series of failures on the German side like failure to get Franco to actually do anything about Gibraltar or the idolisation and bailing out of mussolini etc.

But anyway, academics discussing freely is to.
be lauded even if we might not agree with their direction.

 

[saintanton]

One might argue that, like the roman empire, people didn't actually want to to be a member therfore the benefits of being one is not part of their thinking when the topic of empire arises.

I'm sure people were told of all the straight roads and Bath houses etc in gaul and dacia and other places but in reality about 100 men controlled the whole thing with an iron fist.

The British empire was broader in scope but in many ways no less an oligarchy.

Let's not pretend that the names were stopped by much other than us capital and Russian blood.

Britain was not a realistic target for German forces aside from the air. Home fleet made invasion impossible. A series of failures on the German side like failure to get Franco to actually do anything about Gibraltar or the idolisation and bailing out of mussolini etc.

But anyway, academics discussing freely is to.
be lauded even if we might not agree with their direction.

This is a political hot potato that I'd rather not juggle with, but I need to point out that your sentence I've highlighted seems extremely disrespectful to those who made enormous sacrifices - many with their lives - to resist the expansion of the Nazis. A lot of people of my age were very conscious of the losses of our parents' generation - from Britain, all corners of the reviled empire, and also of the highly significant - if unofficial - support of many of Sis's people.
Lots of our elders never lived to see us born or grow up, and the effect on the immediate post-war generations shouldn't be summarily dismissed.
Mainland Europe was devastated and yes, the Russians lost more, but it's not just about numbers is it?

 

[Tobes]

There can be many fair criticisms made of Churchill and the British Empire and it's good to understand the past. That history though must be understood in the context of the past and how the world was during that period of history, in part so we might learn from mistakes and make better choices in the future.

Winston was a man of his time, and I as a younger man would largely judge the man and the empire by standards of today, with the benefit of the lessons learned from 100 years of progress.

So as a young man, in my early 20s I may well have agreed with insanity that is coming out of Cambridge academics (in part, I'd never have believed the Empire was worse than the Nazis) I'm Irish so there is much cause for a young uninformed Irish kid to believe the very worst of the British empire without pause for thought and reflection (2 things young people today are almost entirely bereft of when considering matters of historical frames of reference)


I was uninformed, that was the root cause of my thoughtless opinions on these matters. Yes bad things happened, but unlike the Nazis, it was not by design that bad things happened in the Empire. Unlike the Nazi system, which was by design evil, it's goals were evil in nature, destruction of peoples, countries, cultures and races)

Slavery seems now to be the biggest selling point to attack British heritage from all quarters, as if slavery was solely the domain of the British Empire, with little mention that Britain largely was responsible for ending the slave trade, and that all those colonies in the empire allowed so many from those places to come to Britain and go to universities, work and live, if you were a member of the Empire you could go to Britain and make a life as so many did. It was not perfect, nothing is, there were bad people but they were outweighed by many more good people. The good is erased. The benefits of what Britain had left behind in colonies, education systems, communication systems, governance and management systems, railroads, ports and even much knowledge is largely unmentioned.


Academics at an institution as illustrious as Cambridge, claiming through deconstruction driven regressive revisionist argumentation that Churchill and the British Empire was worse than the Nazis, is a symptom of a rot eating away at British heritage and culture.
If a people do not know where they came from, a people don't know where they want to go in future. All the real lessons are not learned from a revised and debased history.


Churchill College Hosts Anti-Churchill Talk: ‘Embodiment of White Supremacy’, British Empire ‘Far Worse’ Than Nazis
https://political-viewer.com/2021-0...supremacy-british-empire-far-worse-than-nazis



TL DR- Sisu sucks

I think you can & should teach history warts and all. What tends to happen is that the history taught ends up being dictated by the ‘winners’. Personally I think there’s a bigger debate here and that the title of speech / discussion they chose to have on this subject was deliberately provocative and therefore unlike to end up with a nuanced and sensible debate.

With regards to Churchill himself, his actions around the Indian famine in 1943, do strongly suggest that he apportioned a lower value to the lives of the then British subjects in India than he did to other subjects of a different ethnicity. Does that make him worse than a dictator trying to literally extinguish the genes of humans he wanted to eradicate? Errrmm no, so the ‘debate’ sort of ends there. Which is a shame, as I was never taught about the debatable actions of the British Empire, in any aspect, and that’s got to be wrong, not least because it creates exceptionalism imo.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

This is a political hot potato that I'd rather not juggle with, but I need to point out that your sentence I've highlighted seems extremely disrespectful to those who made enormous sacrifices - many with their lives - to resist the expansion of the Nazis. A lot of people of my age were very conscious of the losses of our parents' generation - from Britain, all corners of the reviled empire, and also of the highly significant - if unofficial - support of many of Sis's people.
Lots of our elders never lived to see us born or grow up, and the effect on the immediate post-war generations shouldn't be summarily dismissed.
Mainland Europe was devastated and yes, the Russians lost more, but it's not just about numbers is it?

Sacrifice is not my point; it was not about human suffering.

It was purely a comment on what prevented the nazi empire from taking root over a longer period.

So am I wrong, that the US capitalist resources poured in and the Russian front where 80% of nazi forces were occupied and destroyed where where the nazi blight was really smashed?

Personally I think suffering is a whole other debate imo, one that is simpler to acknowledge and empathise with. It should be noted that the merits and history of empire is full of personal suffering so a few can benefit.

 

[Jimmy Squarefoot]

No one can deny what Churchill did for this country but I refuse to hold him in high esteem given his racist views and horrible actions (Indian famine is one example).

Put it this way, people defend Churchill for beating the racist Hitler but let's not pretend Churchill didn't want something similar. He also believed in an aryan race.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

No one can deny what Churchill did for this country but I refuse to hold him in high esteem given his racist views and horrible actions (Indian famine is one example).

Put it this way, people defend Churchill for beating the racist Hitler but let's not pretend Churchill didn't want something similar. He also believed in an aryan race.

Or stalin? stalin beat hitler but is seen as a terrible despot and as evil for all the things he did as well.

the point of looking back is to learn imo. The point of ripping down statues is to make a few people feel good about themselves (not better, just good. If it were to feel better I'd say go for it)

 

[O'l Gravy Leg.]

This is a political hot potato that I'd rather not juggle with, but I need to point out that your sentence I've highlighted seems extremely disrespectful to those who made enormous sacrifices - many with their lives - to resist the expansion of the Nazis. A lot of people of my age were very conscious of the losses of our parents' generation - from Britain, all corners of the reviled empire, and also of the highly significant - if unofficial - support of many of Sis's people.
Lots of our elders never lived to see us born or grow up, and the effect on the immediate post-war generations shouldn't be summarily dismissed.
Mainland Europe was devastated and yes, the Russians lost more, but it's not just about numbers is it?

Indeed, I never said British were the this or that re who was "primarily responsible" for defeating Germany.

Historically, if MITO knew his WWII history, he'd know that if Britain had capitulated, Germany could have deployed all forces to take Russia and would have succeeded in taking Moscow, not having a war on two fronts.


Given the context of my post, the crux of it was not "who did what in WWII".

MITO is turning into me

 

[O'l Gravy Leg.]

I think you can & should teach history warts and all. What tends to happen is that the history taught ends up being dictated by the ‘winners’. Personally I think there’s a bigger debate here and that the title of speech / discussion they chose to have on this subject was deliberately provocative and therefore unlike to end up with a nuanced and sensible debate.

With regards to Churchill himself, his actions around the Indian famine in 1943, do strongly suggest that he apportioned a lower value to the lives of the then British subjects in India than he did to other subjects of a different ethnicity. Does that make him worse than a dictator trying to literally extinguish the genes of humans he wanted to eradicate? Errrmm no, so the ‘debate’ sort of ends there. Which is a shame, as I was never taught about the debatable actions of the British Empire, in any aspect, and that’s got to be wrong, not least because it creates exceptionalism imo.

No one cares what you think or say, least of all me, I dont read your ****e 99% of the time, and stuff like this is far beyond your cognitive understanding.

Stick to football hot pie trader

 

[O'l Gravy Leg.]

Close this thread mods, a couple get it, but the rest, like that low IQ potat Tobes only want to pick at something because I posted it, rather than actually discuss the merits of revising history in order to make young minds hate a dishonest version of their own history, when its better understand bad things that happened in history and how we can stop them happening again.


My mistake, I'll stick to footie

 

[Tobes]

No one cares what you think or say, least of all me, I dont read your ****e 99% of the time, and stuff like this is far beyond your cognitive understanding.

Stick to football hot pie trader

Wow, nice response to a completely reasonable post, that you’ve patently completely misunderstood or simply didn’t understand. Your insecurities make you impossible to converse with.

 

[Tobes]

Close this thread mods, a couple get it, but the rest, like that low IQ potat Tobes only want to pick at something because I posted it, rather than actually discuss the merits of revising history in order to make young minds hate a dishonest version of their own history, when its better understand bad things that happened in history and how we can stop them happening again.


My mistake, I'll stick to footie

How dare you patronise posters with a response like that, what’s your beef? That people had a slightly different angle to you? In which case why even post a piece for debate? You’re one ****ed up ****er you.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Indeed, I never said British were the this or that re who was "primarily responsible" for defeating Germany.

Historically, if MITO knew his WWII history, he'd know that if Britain had capitulated, Germany could have deployed all forces to take Russia and would have succeeded in taking Moscow, not having a war on two fronts.


Given the context of my post, the crux of it was not "who did what in WWII".

MITO is turning into me

where did i ever say "if Britain capitulated" Your point directly states "one of the main reasons the Nazis did not expand to have an Empire to rival that of the British empire in size and scope (an empire that would have realised a horrific future for millions around the world) was Churchill, Britain, and the empire."

you will also note that I actually said there was zero threat of real invasion of the island of Britain due to home fleet.

I am not quite sure how you take me stating my view of the main reasons that nazi germany didn't take root for a longer empire means what you've said.

Again I stated the main reasons were US capital pouring in resources and russian victories.

If you actually look Italy went and attached Yugoslavia etc and delayed the german invasion of russia by several weeks. The germans ended up having to bail them out. a small portion of that was greece which was another british debacle but not the main delay. The winter ground german forces to a halt outside moscow. They never again not near it. Stalingrad bled germany dry. Kursk ended the german offensive capability.

But anyway..... The context of your OP on revisionism is your MAIN Point however I was replying to the point you made that i quoted above.

 

[Solid Air]

It was a defence of understanding history rather than post modernist reconstruction of it in order to find someone to blame and demonize, with some admissions of my own failings as a young person. (we got altered versions of history in Ireland too when I was growing up)

These regressive and completely dishonest reconstructions breed anger and hate at one's own culture, heritage and the sacrifice of ancestors.


You probably didn't read it, and even if you did, didn't spend 10 seconds thinking about it. (not my post, but the topic). Which is fine, but if that is the case, you should probably just say nothing then.

Instead you wanted to tell us how you felt, classic narcissism

at least he was succinct .

 

[Archers Road]

Or stalin? stalin beat hitler but is seen as a terrible despot and as evil for all the things he did as well.

the point of looking back is to learn imo. The point of ripping down statues is to make a few people feel good about themselves (not better, just good. If it were to feel better I'd say go for it)

Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did.


Not many statues of either of them left standing tbh. Woke snowflakes must have pulled them all down I suppose. No respect for history

 

[Archers Road]

No need to pull statues down when you can do this. Sometimes I love this country. Which is strange, because the Daily Mail keeps telling me I hate it...

You must log in or register to see images

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did.


Not many statues of either of them left standing tbh. Woke snowflakes must have pulled them all down I suppose. No respect for history

yes exactly. Stalin is seen easily by "us" as a despot and a mass murderer etc. Our perception is developed by years and years of reinforcement in the cold war, My point is to "others" churchill may well be seen as another empire builder etc.

I believe interestingly Roosevelt was shocked by the "naughty letter" where churchill and stalin carve up european influence.

As I said defacing a Churchill statue is to make a certain element feel good (call them what you like) I doubt there's too many that felt "better" about their place in british society as a result. The difference between having fun as a woke white person and being a member of a minority seeing racist stuff pointing out you are a minority must be large.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Close this thread mods, a couple get it, but the rest, like that low IQ potat Tobes only want to pick at something because I posted it, rather than actually discuss the merits of revising history in order to make young minds hate a dishonest version of their own history, when its better understand bad things that happened in history and how we can stop them happening again.


My mistake, I'll stick to footie

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Archers Road]

yes exactly. Stalin is seen easily by "us" as a despot and a mass murderer etc. Our perception is developed by years and years of reinforcement in the cold war, My point is to "others" churchill may well be seen as another empire builder etc.

I believe interestingly Roosevelt was shocked by the "naughty letter" where churchill and stalin carve up european influence.

As I said defacing a Churchill statue is to make a certain element feel good (call them what you like) I doubt there's too many that felt "better" about their place in british society as a result. The difference between having fun as a woke white person and being a member of a minority seeing racist stuff pointing out you are a minority must be large.

I find it quite interesting that Churchill had to really bully and cajole the British Parliament, and then the Whitehouse, into accepting an alliance with Stalin’s Russia. He famously said he’d sign a treaty with the devil , if it helped him defeat Hitler. But to some people across the globe, Churchill was the devil, and the British Empire was their oppressor.

In the end Hitler was the greater evil, and whatever and whoever it took defeat him was an acceptable price. But weren’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki also war crimes? And what about Dresden? (there’s a reason why bomber command had to wait decades to get their own memorial).

Nothing in history is ever straightforward, which is while I smile when people say “you can’t change history”. Our knowledge and perception of it changes all the time.