Churchill and the current racism storm

[SteveHants]

[Moderator note: large amount of content moved off Rashford dairy promotion thread about Churchill on to separate politics thread]

The uncomfortable truth is this has really been a BBC campaign, he is the poster boy - being perfect fodder for the BBC as it currently is; nonetheless, if it was his idea to start with (which is just about possible...), all credit to him for it. But it took off due to relentless BBC promotion, on radio, television and online.

Regardless of whether one thinks this is a good or bad thing to have, there must be a questioning over the BBC's News department's continued involvement in politics. They keep making and shaping news, 'stirring' and inciting, rather than reporting it; when did Churchill's statue near Parliament become 'controversial', but that is how the BBC have being referring to it...?

Churchill (and his statue) Has been "controversial" since 1910 (Tonypandy), 1919 (Glasgow) and from at least 1920 in Ireland.
I find this Churchill fetishization fascinating, especially as every relative I have spoken to who actually fought in WW2 (grandparents, great uncles etc) despised him for reasons largely connected to the aforementioned.

 

[Danllan]

​

Churchill (and his statue) Has been "controversial" since 1910 (Tonypandy), 1919 (Glasgow) and from at least 1920 in Ireland.
I find this Churchill fetishization fascinating, especially as every relative I have spoken to who actually fought in WW2 (grandparents, great uncles etc) despised him for reasons largely connected to the aforementioned.

Interesting, I find this Churchill demonization fascinating, especially since every relative I have spoken to, who actually fought in WW2 (grandfather, great uncles, & uncles + many others unrelated to me), thought he was great for his recognising the evil of and standing up to the Germany of the 1930s, all that despite his faults.

I don't know, but I think it extremely likely that a very large majority of the population share my sentiments and experiences in this matter. And if a statue, or anything else is to be deemed 'controversial' because even just a small number of people question or oppose it, surely the BBC should refer to itself as:

'the controversial broadcaster the BBC...'​

Because there are a hell of a lot of us that question it and dislike its attempts to set the news agenda.

Just saying...

 

[SteveHants]

​

Interesting, I find this Churchill demonization fascinating, especially since every relative I have spoken to, who actually fought in WW2 (grandfather, great uncles, & uncles + many others unrelated to me), thought he was great for his recognising the evil of and standing up to the Germany of the 1930s, all that despite his faults.

I don't know, but I think it extremely likely that a very large majority of the population share my sentiments and experiences in this matter. And if a statue, or anything else is to be deemed 'controversial' because even just a small number of people question or oppose it, surely the BBC should refer to itself as:

'the controversial broadcaster the BBC...'​

Because there are a hell of a lot of us that question it and dislike its attempts to set the news agenda.

Just saying...

I don't think he did "recognise the evil" of Nazism, given that his own views were a cigarette paper away from Powells.
I think he simply did not like, nor trust the Germans in the wake of WW1 and, unlike his contemporaries amongst the British aristocracy didn't admire Hitler simply because he was a powerful German leader (and not because of his politics) and therefore a threat.

The anti-Churchill sentiment was not really a "tiny minority", and indeed, the first chance at the ballot-box the population got, Churchill was outed from power.

If you think the BBC, the state owned broadcaster would do anything to actually jeapordise the status quo (and with it, it's own existence) you are being somewhat naieve.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate"

 

[Danllan]

I don't think he did "recognise the evil" of Nazism, given that his own views were a cigarette paper away from Powells.
I think he simply did not like, nor trust the Germans in the wake of WW1 and, unlike his contemporaries amongst the British aristocracy didn't admire Hitler simply because he was a powerful German leader (and not because of his politics) and therefore a threat.

The anti-Churchill sentiment was not really a "tiny minority", and indeed, the first chance at the ballot-box the population got, Churchill was outed from power.

If you think the BBC, the state owned broadcaster would do anything to actually jeapordise the status quo (and with it, it's own existence) you are being somewhat naieve.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate"

You seem to be allowing your personal politics and preferences to take precedence over historical fact; you need to examine Hansard and the contemporary newspapers if you think he wasn't switched on regarding Hitler and Germany, these are independent and verifiable primary sources of historical information.

And you appear to be making the same mistake with regard to Enoch Powell, in inferring that they were both close to being Nazis. Of course you dislike Powell, but surely even you would give someone such as Tony Benn credit for not being a 'Nazi' and for having sufficient intelligence to recognise someone who was, wouldn't you? And yet Tony Benn was a personal friend of Enoch Powell and stated that he wasn't - using the term then fashionable - a 'racialist'.

Again you make an historical error in conflating the removal of Churchill from power and dislike / distrust of him as PM and wartime leader. The population, in the wake of and following the privations of WW2, wanted massive social change and Churchill simply wasn't the one to do it. Clearly the Left thought he was the right man for the wartime job, they got and kept him in power.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to offer free debate, it promotes - indeed pushes - identity politics and 'wokeness' at every opportunity. I think it knows its time is limited and that it wants to get the boot into the political Right while it still can.

It is very unlikely that Mr Rashford either began or is organising the current thing - although it's just about possible. We shall have to hold our breaths for the long seconds it will take for the socialist Sir Keir Starmer to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Exfarmer]

You seem to be allowing your personal politics and preferences to take precedence over historical fact; you need to examine Hansard and the contemporary newspapers if you think he wasn't switched on regarding Hitler and Germany, these are independent and verifiable primary sources of historical information.

And you appear to be making the same mistake with regard to Enoch Powell, in inferring that they were both close to being Nazis. Of course you dislike Powell, but surely even you would give someone such as Tony Benn credit for not being a 'Nazi' and for having sufficient intelligence to recognise someone who was, wouldn't you? And yet Tony Benn was a personal friend of Enoch Powell and stated that he wasn't - using the term then fashionable - a 'racialist'.

Again you make an historical error in conflating the removal of Churchill from power and dislike / distrust of him as PM and wartime leader. The population, in the wake of and following the privations of WW2, wanted massive social change and Churchill simply wasn't the one to do it. Clearly the Left thought he was the right man for the wartime job, they got and kept him in power.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to offer free debate, it promotes - indeed pushes - identity politics and 'wokeness' at every opportunity. I think it knows its time is limited and that it wants to get the boot into the political Right while it still can.

It is very unlikely that Mr Rashford either began or is organising the current thing - although it's just about possible. We shall have to hold our breaths for the long seconds it will take for the socialist Sir Keir Starmer to jump on the bandwagon.

Your views on Churchill are spot on, I wonder where the OP got his odd views from, although I acknowledge he was a controversial figure right up to WW2
As for Mr Rashford , whether he wrote the letter time will tell.

 

[SteveHants]

Your views on Churchill are spot on, I wonder where the OP got his odd views from, although I acknowledge he was a controversial figure right up to WW2
As for Mr Rashford , whether he wrote the letter time will tell.

In the first instance, every relative of mine who fought in WW2.
They had not, and would not forgive him for Tonypandy or Glasgow.
The Irish side of my family (who did not fight) had more of a problem with his use of the black and tans.
Then, I suppose, it's only a matter of reading.
He certainly believed in the gassing of "lesser races" which was incredibly controversial in the wake of WW1, when the reality of gas attacks was still fresh in the minds of the populace.

 

[Danllan]

The fact that you have changed my "race with nationhood" to "identity with place" is quite telling.
The "so what" is that this "blood and soil" nationalism is a fundamental part of Fascism, the idea that you couldn't be a German in the eyes of the Nazis unless you were part of the "aryan" race, for example led to the notion of untermensch.

In the same way, the far right in this country try to link northern European whiteness with nation (these days, in the past other ethnicities, such as the Irish were classed as "untermensch"). This is why people might talk about "sending people home" who were born here and have lived here for generations (Jamaicans, for example, were part of England, or now, Britain, before the act of union with Scotland, and therefore have been "British citizens" longer than the Scots).

You are seriously arguing about semantics, while introducing Nazism - which Enoch Powell was in no way part or a supporter of (give evidence) - and bandying it around.

The UK isn't teeming with Nazis, and people who throw the term about and make such claims both make themselves look daft and diminish its proper meaning.

I have no idea why you seem set on bringing the far Right into a discussion about whether a footballer has or hasn't authored a campaign in his name. Unless you've git a thing about uniforms...

 

[SteveHants]

You are seriously arguing about semantics, while introducing Nazism - which Enoch Powell was in no way part or a supporter of (give evidence) - and bandying it around.

The UK isn't teeming with Nazis, and people who throw the term about and make such claims both make themselves look daft and diminish its proper meaning.

I have no idea why you seem set on bringing the far Right into a discussion about whether a footballer has or hasn't authored a campaign in his name. Unless you've git a thing about uniforms...

I gave an example of where the notion of race and nation "blood and soil" was central to Fascism including Nazism, I didn't say that Powell was a Nazi, he was famously a Tory, and, like many of his day, flirted with fascism.

I didn't say the UK was teeming with Nazis, although we do have a growing far right movement (which, if you had read my post, is what I said).

You know exactly why I brought the far right into the discussion - it is in response to your posts.

Again, you seem to like to deflect, either with some spurious whataboutery or deliberately misquoting and/or misunderstanding my point.

Back to Rashford, it was you and only you who seemed to feel that someone as lowly as a footballer from Wythenshawe was capable of criticising the government without some sort of help or string-pulling.

Why is this?

 

[ollie989898]

Churchill (and his statue) Has been "controversial" since 1910 (Tonypandy), 1919 (Glasgow) and from at least 1920 in Ireland.
I find this Churchill fetishization fascinating, especially as every relative I have spoken to who actually fought in WW2 (grandparents, great uncles etc) despised him for reasons largely connected to the aforementioned.

Churchill may have won the war but he was very promptly voted out afterward...

 

[SteveHants]

Churchill may have won the war but he was very promptly voted out afterward...

I know, I made that point in one of my posts, to illustrate how he was a controversial figure, even to the WW2 generation, because according to certain posters he was not at all controversial in his time.

 

[Qman]

Churchill may have won the war but he was very promptly voted out afterward...

And then got voted back in after the usual Labour shambles.

Winston Churchill saved the world from Nazi tyranny and there can be no argument about that.

 

[Danllan]

No-one ?
OK, to put it another way.
If all circumstances had been the same, but rather than Marcus Rashford the protagonist had been Alastair Cook - white, cricketer, farmer - would the same snide comments have been made on this thread as to who wrote what ?

Are you trying to virtue-flag or what? Looking for reasons to find offence of some sort? What snide comments have been made about his race? Footballers aren't famed as great thinkers, Rooney, Gascoigne, Cantona et al., and it was on that basis that I - and I guess others - were questioning the authorship / running of the campaign.

I gave an example of where the notion of race and nation "blood and soil" was central to Fascism including Nazism, I didn't say that Powell was a Nazi, he was famously a Tory, and, like many of his day, flirted with fascism.

I didn't say the UK was teeming with Nazis, although we do have a growing far right movement (which, if you had read my post, is what I said).

You know exactly why I brought the far right into the discussion - it is in response to your posts.

Again, you seem to like to deflect, either with some spurious whataboutery or deliberately misquoting and/or misunderstanding my point.

Back to Rashford, it was you and only you who seemed to feel that someone as lowly as a footballer from Wythenshawe was capable of criticising the government without some sort of help or string-pulling.

Why is this?

Please cite your evidence of EP ever 'flirting' with fascism, he was the ultimate democrat! You do know what fascism means, don't you?

I made my reason for questioning it very clear, you read into it something to rouse your political virtuousness. As for deflection, I haven't and you did by kicking off about the far right.

See earlier regarding his interviews, and above for a really simple explanation of why , that would have been obvious to anyone not seeking to be offended.

Churchill may have won the war but he was very promptly voted out afterward...

For the reason I gave + see below.

I know, I made that point in one of my posts, to illustrate how he was a controversial figure, even to the WW2 generation, because according to certain posters he was not at all controversial in his time.

And then voted back in by the same electorate A.S.A.P. - once the NHS etc. had been established.

Edit: have just seen that last point made above, but it's so good it deserves repeating.

 

[DeeGee]

You seem to be allowing your personal politics and preferences to take precedence over historical fact; you need to examine Hansard and the contemporary newspapers if you think he wasn't switched on regarding Hitler and Germany, these are independent and verifiable primary sources of historical information.

And you appear to be making the same mistake with regard to Enoch Powell, in inferring that they were both close to being Nazis. Of course you dislike Powell, but surely even you would give someone such as Tony Benn credit for not being a 'Nazi' and for having sufficient intelligence to recognise someone who was, wouldn't you? And yet Tony Benn was a personal friend of Enoch Powell and stated that he wasn't - using the term then fashionable - a 'racialist'.

Again you make an historical error in conflating the removal of Churchill from power and dislike / distrust of him as PM and wartime leader. The population, in the wake of and following the privations of WW2, wanted massive social change and Churchill simply wasn't the one to do it. Clearly the Left thought he was the right man for the wartime job, they got and kept him in power.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to offer free debate, it promotes - indeed pushes - identity politics and 'wokeness' at every opportunity. I think it knows its time is limited and that it wants to get the boot into the political Right while it still can.

It is very unlikely that Mr Rashford either began or is organising the current thing - although it's just about possible. We shall have to hold our breaths for the long seconds it will take for the socialist Sir Keir Starmer to jump on the bandwagon.

And then got voted back in after the usual Labour shambles.

Winston Churchill saved the world from Nazi tyranny and there can be no argument about that.

By ‘....the usual Labour shambles.’ I take it that you include the launch of the NHS as being part of it?

 

[SteveHants]

I'd missed the "Winston Churchill saved the world from Nazi tyranny, and there can be no argument about that" gem.

I'm sure the families of the 20,000,000 Soviet dead (and possibly those of the 20,000,000 Chinese dead) would agree....

 

[SteveHants]

There could be so many “and’s” added on

Quite.

Even if you subscribe to the Nietzschian idea of the "superman" (and I don't) as the main driving force in history, youd have to give Stalin far more credit than Churchill or Roosevelt. The USSR was throwing its entire might at the Nazis whilst we were still deciding if we should involve the empire and the Americans were doing their best to stay out of it....

 

[Exfarmer]

I'd missed the "Winston Churchill saved the world from Nazi tyranny, and there can be no argument about that" gem.

I'm sure the families of the 20,000,000 Soviet dead (and possibly those of the 20,000,000 Chinese dead) would agree....

I suggest you go and read some history, if anyone is more rapobsible it is Stalin who collaborated with Hitler while Churchill was a voice in the wilderness.
read up Stalingrad by many authors to see the real criminals in WW2

 

[Exfarmer]

Quite.

Even if you subscribe to the Nietzschian idea of the "superman" (and I don't) as the main driving force in history, youd have to give Stalin far more credit than Churchill or Roosevelt. The USSR was throwing its entire might at the Nazis whilst we were still deciding if we should involve the empire and the Americans were doing their best to stay out of it....

Stalin collaberated with Hitler to carve up Europe until his great mate stabbed him in rhe baxk. Even then he very nearly lost it . You sir are a complete arrogant fool,!

 

[SteveHants]

Stalin collaberated with Hitler to carve up Europe until his great mate stabbed him in rhe baxk. Even then he very nearly lost it . You sir are a complete arrogant fool,!

I think you've somewhat missed the point. Read the first sentence of my post.
And I'm not sure I'd call Stalin and Hitler mates, pretty sure communists in Germany ended up in death camps etc.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact only concerned Poland and not "all of Europe".

 

[Exfarmer]

I think you've somewhat missed the point. Read the first sentence of my post.
And I'm not sure I'd call Stalin and Hitler mates, pretty sure communists in Germany ended up in death camps etc.

Your knowledge of the 2 nd WW. Is obviously non existent, both Stalin and Hitler sent opponents left, right, centre, jew, whateverto there death in many forms. As far as Ww2 was concerned where Hitler was Concerned , it started probably on 7th March 1936. For Uk when German and Russian troops carved up Poland 1st September 1939
However Hitlers mate Stalin gave aid and comfort to Hitler and this included the development of armour until 22nd of June 1942.
in fact Stalin at first refused to believe the reports from troops on the ground, that operation Barbarossa had actually started, so great was his belief that Hitler was an ally

 

[Raider112]

I don't think he did "recognise the evil" of Nazism, given that his own views were a cigarette paper away from Powells.
I think he simply did not like, nor trust the Germans in the wake of WW1 and, unlike his contemporaries amongst the British aristocracy didn't admire Hitler simply because he was a powerful German leader (and not because of his politics) and therefore a threat.

The anti-Churchill sentiment was not really a "tiny minority", and indeed, the first chance at the ballot-box the population got, Churchill was outed from power.

If you think the BBC, the state owned broadcaster would do anything to actually jeapordise the status quo (and with it, it's own existence) you are being somewhat naieve.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate"

I think it's a bit much to second guess the personal thoughts of someone from 100 years ago. You don't like a man who most see as a national hero, that's your choice but maybe better to stick to facts rather read the mind of a dead man. And as your statements on Stalin seem to be wide of the mark maybe you need to look further than family anecdotes for your facts.
I think an awful lot of people must be mistaken on the BBC's agenda as they seem determined to jeapordise the status quo, whether it's on Brexit, Covid or BLM, the latter being the one that could cause the most division of the three.
Do you really think Kuennsberg gives the impression of being a Tory?