The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Radagast]

but then the probability that Europe would be nothing more than Hitler’s lebensraum today would have been much higher. Think about what that might have entailed, for Jewish people, the Roma - the list goes on.

And for black people. They were seen as "untermenschen" too, and were forcibly sterilised.

 

[agapelove]

Like it or not, without someone like Churchill you would be living in a very different world. Chamberlain would have been a more acceptable choice in terms of today’s liberal politics, but then the probability that Europe would be nothing more than Hitler’s lebensraum today would have been much higher. Think about what that might have entailed, for Jewish people, the Roma - the list goes on. The idea of removing Churchill’s statue is a wilful act of stupidity, a refusal to face the realities of a world not ensconced in the boundaries of the safety and security people like Churchill won for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong I am extremely grateful for the victories Churchill won for the rest of us. My point is that history has only celebrated and acknowledged one side of the story. Yes, Churchill had a hard job and he had to make some hard decisions and we can recognize that as long as we also recognize that 3 million Bengali lives were sacrificed in the process. Where is the memorial to commemorate those lives? History loves to celebrate its heroes but never the victims, when both played their part in securing the victories we enjoy today. Some people seriously act like Churchill went to Germany and killed Hitler himself.

We’ve been giving the Bengal Famine so much attention but that’s not even the worst thing related to Winston. Look up some of the atrocities committed inside the Kenyan Concentration Camps he helped orchestrate, some serious crimes against humanity. Let’s stop pretending like Churchill was a saint. To quote our friend Quid, “No man does not have feet of clay, this is what people should realise.”

 

[Tom 1]

How do you not see the parallel? All of those events were about achieving things for one group at the expense of another, and I could name about a million other historical events that share this story line, it does not even have to be racial. Most of the time it is, where racial hierarchies are created in the minds of one group who then thinks it's justified to oppress another. What this shows is that history is the human process of killing and plundering in the name of progress. In practically every era of time there is a victim and a victor.

There is no essential difference between this and the everyday choice to spend money on yourself, or eat your own food, rather than giving it to someone else.

 

[Tom 1]

Don’t get me wrong I am extremely grateful for the victories Churchill won for the rest of us. My point is that history has only celebrated and acknowledged one side of the story. Yes, Churchill had a hard job and he had to make some hard decisions and we can recognize that as long as we also recognize that 3 million Bengali lives were sacrificed in the process. Where is the memorial to commemorate those lives? History loves to celebrate its heroes but never the victims, when both played their part in securing the victories we enjoy today. Some people seriously act like Churchill went to Germany and killed Hitler himself.

We’ve been giving the Bengal Famine so much attention but that’s not even the worst thing related to Winston. Look up some of the atrocities committed inside the Kenyan Concentration Camps he helped orchestrate, some serious crimes against humanity. Let’s stop pretending like Churchill was a saint. To quote our friend Quid, “No man does not have feet of clay, this is what people should realise.”

Who does pretend he was a saint? I don’t know anybody who does. Saints don’t win wars.

 

[agapelove]

There is no essential difference between this and the everyday choice to spend money on yourself, or eat your own food, rather than giving it to someone else.

Um I think enslaving an entire race is a bit different than buying myself something nice.

 

[Tom 1]

Don’t get me wrong I am extremely grateful for the victories Churchill won for the rest of us. My point is that history has only celebrated and acknowledged one side of the story. Yes, Churchill had a hard job and he had to make some hard decisions and we can recognize that as long as we also recognize that 3 million Bengali lives were sacrificed in the process. Where is the memorial to commemorate those lives? History loves to celebrate its heroes but never the victims, when both played their part in securing the victories we enjoy today. Some people seriously act like Churchill went to Germany and killed Hitler himself.

We’ve been giving the Bengal Famine so much attention but that’s not even the worst thing related to Winston. Look up some of the atrocities committed inside the Kenyan Concentration Camps he helped orchestrate, some serious crimes against humanity. Let’s stop pretending like Churchill was a saint. To quote our friend Quid, “No man does not have feet of clay, this is what people should realise.”

I’m not sure why you see this different from any other comparable scenario - throughout history there have been innumerable natural and man-made disasters leading to deaths from the 1000s to the 100,000,000s. No-one has been able to prevent that happening. During the aid efforts of the 1980s, pulling out all the stops, some lives were saved - many,many,many more were lost. The idea that trying to tackle the same kind of scenario in the middle of a war, with aid cargoes literally under threat of being torpedoed to the bottom of the ocean, could have been managed with a few tweaks in policy is ludicrous. We’re at a point in history now where aid can be managed fairly well to a certain extent, but even under ideal conditions many many people die unnecessarily every year. Every month. Every day people are dying when there is enough to go around. Zeroing in on what Churchill might or might not have done or thought is pretty futile when it comes to addressing any of that. A lot of people like to talk about this kind of thing, but what are they doing about the people who are dying right now?

 

[Tom 1]

Um I think enslaving an entire race is a bit different than buying myself something nice.

In what way is it different? The difference in scale is meaningless. We buy branded clothes and phones - some child or some adult in conditions barely different to those of a slave made that possible. We have plenty, other people have nothing. When we’re hungry, we buy food from a shop - when there’s no shop, and resources are scarce, people eventually start fighting over those resources. The difference, as far as it exists, is that we can freely have what we want without having to be actively involved in harming other people - we do it by proxy, and we have the privilege of living in a society that provides all of those things because our civilisations are the ones that were the best at dominating other civilisations, which has always meant a great deal of death and suffering.

 

[agapelove]

In what way is it different? The difference in scale is meaningless. We buy branded clothes and phones - some child or some adult in conditions barely different to those of a slave made that possible. We have plenty, other people have nothing. When we’re hungry, we buy food from a shop - when there’s no shop, and resources are scarce, people eventually start fighting over those resources. The difference, as far as it exists, is that we can freely have what we want without having to be actively involved in harming other people - we do it by proxy, and we have the privilege of living in a society that provides all of those things because our civilisations are the ones that were the best at dominating other civilisations, which has always meant a great deal of death and suffering.

Fair point. I believe you’ve helped solidify my original point then, that human history has always been about dominating one another. Another reason why we need to stop celebrating warlords and imperialists as historical icons. Celebrating people this way while ignoring the misery that was the source of such wealth and comfort sends the wrong message to the 0.1% who exploit people today. It says “never mind the wrongs as long as there are some big rights for the rest of us”.

 

[agapelove]

I’m not sure why you see this different from any other comparable scenario - throughout history there have been innumerable natural and man-made disasters leading to deaths from the 1000s to the 100,000,000s. No-one has been able to prevent that happening. During the aid efforts of the 1980s, pulling out all the stops, some lives were saved - many,many,many more were lost. The idea that trying to tackle the same kind of scenario in the middle of a war, with aid cargoes literally under threat of being torpedoed to the bottom of the ocean, could have been managed with a few tweaks in policy is ludicrous. We’re at a point in history now where aid can be managed fairly well to a certain extent, but even under ideal conditions many many people die unnecessarily every year. Every month. Every day people are dying when there is enough to go around. Zeroing in on what Churchill might or might not have done or thought is pretty futile when it comes to addressing any of that. A lot of people like to talk about this kind of thing, but what are they doing about the people who are dying right now?

Natural disasters are different than war. One can he helped/prevented. If we just spend more time talking about war crimes rather than battle victories then maybe the human race would be a little less obsessed about waging war on one another.

 

[Tom 1]

Fair point. I believe you’ve helped solidify my original point then, that human history has always been about dominating one another. Another reason why we need to stop celebrating warlords and imperialists as historical icons. Celebrating people this way while ignoring the misery that was the source of such wealth and comfort sends the wrong message to the 0.1% who exploit people today. It says “never mind the wrongs as long as there are some big rights for the rest of us”.

Unfortunately, it isn’t so simple. Eliminate a Churchill, and you have a Hitler in control. Eliminate a Joshua, and you have a different religion as a dominant culture. There may be a small number of people who revere Churchill as a saint, as you put it, most people however remember Churchill as the man who stopped Hitler before he could consolidate his forces across Europe. That should be remembered and celebrated - the consequences of not having Churchill at that time and place would be enormous. If it doesn’t seem that way, that is only because the war was won, again, because of people like Churchill. Even Stalin gets a tick there - if he hadn’t so ruthlessly sacrificed Soviet troops to defend Stalingrad, the war in the West may well not have been enough. Churchill was a war leader who helped to win a war, he is and should be remembered for that. That’s why there are statues of him in the U.K. He’s not a ‘cultural icon’. If you think the memory of people we owe our security to should be eliminated on the basis of a peacetime (temporary) consciousness then where would you draw the line, and why? King David wiped out whole towns to extend his influence, should the psalms be removed from the bible? The Judeo-Christian god has taken many human lives and caused a great deal of suffering, should he be removed from the bible? Should all churches and synagogues be destroyed so that we don’t celebrate any cultural icons with blood on their hands? Should we get rid of our armed forces altogether and just let someone else do the dominating? The kind of arguments you are putting forward might sound ok in a classroom, but they have no real-world value.

 

[Tom 1]

Natural disasters are different than war. One can he helped/prevented. If we just spend more time talking about war crimes rather than battle victories then maybe the human race would be a little less obsessed about waging war on one another.

I think that’s rather a mistaken idea. Countries don’t go to war because ‘war is great’. Sure, a world without violence would be/ would have been great. How would you ensure that? What would your strategy be? If you imagine that removing some statues might prevent a future war, well, it’s very hard to imagine why you might think that. There are plenty of torn down statues and other remains lying in deserts and forgotten places all over the world, that has made zero difference to the basic drives that lead to more conflicts.

 

[agapelove]

Unfortunately, it isn’t so simple. Eliminate a Churchill, and you have a Hitler in control. Eliminate a Joshua, and you have a different religion as a dominant culture. There may be a small number of people who revere Churchill as a saint, as you put it, most people however remember Churchill as the man who stopped Hitler before he could consolidate his forces across Europe. That should be remembered and celebrated - the consequences of not having Churchill at that time and place are enormous. If it doesn’t seem that way, that is only because the war was won, again, because of people like Churchill. Even Stalin gets a tick there - if he hadn’t so ruthlessly sacrificed Soviet troops to defend Stalingrad, the war in the West may well not have been enough. Churchill was a war leader who helped to win a war, he is and should be remembered for that. That’s why there are statues of him in the U.K. He’s not a ‘cultural icon’. If you think the memory of people we owe our security to should be eliminated on the basis of a peacetime (temporary) consciousness then where would you draw the line, and why? King David wiped out whole towns to extend his influence, should the psalms be removed from the bible? The Judeo-Christian god has taken many human lives and caused a great deal of suffering, should he be removed from the bible? Should all churches and synagogues be destroyed so that we don’t celebrate any cultural icons with blood on our hands? Should we get rid of our armed forces altogether and just let someone else do the dominating? The kind of arguments you are putting forward might sound ok in a classroom, but they have no real-world value.

Taking down a statue does not erase Churchill from history. He will still be in the textbooks and you can dedicate a museum filled with statues of him if you please. We can celebrate his accomplishments and the events he was involved in without necessarily celebrating him as a person. There is literally no purpose to a statue except to be an icon. The Psalms, churches, and armed forces all serve a purpose.

 

[Radagast]

There is literally no purpose to a statue except to be an icon.

As a symbol. In Churchill's case, a symbol of anti-fascism and not surrendering.

Pull down statues of Churchill, and many are going to see that as endorsement of Hitler.

Personally, I think the way that BLM has morphed into an anti-statues campaign (going so far as to attack statues of anti-slavery activists and black Union soldiers) proves that it was never about black lives in the first place.

 

[Tom 1]

Taking down a statue does not erase Churchill from history. He will still be in the textbooks and you can dedicate a museum filled with statues of him if you please. We can celebrate his accomplishments and the events he was involved in without necessarily celebrating him as a person. There is literally no purpose to a statue except to be an icon. The Psalms, churches, and armed forces all serve a purpose.

Not at all, the purpose of Churchill’s statue for different people is not just what you happen to think it is. Churchill is a reminder that we need people who can wage war sometimes. If the option of a perfect person who could wage a war in which only the absolutely worst people with the worst intentions, whose actions could somehow be predicted, suffer harm, and where suffering can be prevented through some simple changes in policy then, uh, great, unfortunately however we do not live in a world where such things are possible. What purpose do the psalms serve that out weighs the ‘dashing’ of infants heads ‘against the rocks’? How many lives would have been saved if the established churches across Europe had not been in a position to provoke wars? How much suffering might have been prevented if religion had been abolished millennia ago, and what would the alternative have been? What purpose do the armed forces serve if dominating other cultures who want more of the stuff available on the planet is a policy we should abandon?

 

[agapelove]

I think that’s rather a mistaken idea. Countries don’t go to war because ‘war is great’. Sure, a world without violence would be/ would have been great. How would you ensure that? What would your strategy be? If you imagine that removing some statues might prevent a future war, well, it’s very hard to imagine why you might think that. There are plenty of torn down statues and other remains lying in deserts and forgotten places all over the world, that has made zero difference to the basic drives that lead to more conflicts.

I said educating people about war crimes could help prevent wars not taking down statues, that was just a moral preference. A huge factor that contributed to the US pulling out of the Vietnam War was public opposition. If people are more well aware of what really goes on overseas then we can help curtail the atrocities that are committed there. Despite all the pro war propaganda most wars are not fought in the name of national security.

 

[agapelove]

Pull down statues of Churchill, and many are going to see that as endorsement of Hitler.

Literally no one will think that.

Personally, I think the way that BLM has morphed into an anti-statues campaign (going so far as to attack statues of anti-slavery activists and black Union soldiers) proves that it was never about black lives in the first place.

You know non BLM people can vandalize too right?

 

[Tom 1]

I said educating people about war crimes could help prevent wars not taking down statues, that was just a moral preference. A huge factor that contributed to the US pulling out of the Vietnam War was public opposition. If people are more well aware of what really goes on overseas then we can help curtail the atrocities that are committed there. Despite all the pro war propaganda most wars are not fought in the name of national security.

That depends how you define national security. Comparisons between WWII and the Vietnam war are sketchy at best, but even so the horrendous and illegal actions of the US in SE Asia, and in Latin America, may have ultimately prevented the Cold War being lost by the West. How convincingly that could be argued for one way or the other is still an open question, I think, but I’d be interested in hearing what your arguments are. War is horrible isn’t really an argument, unless it’s an argument against the existence of humans. There is no difference between the questions ‘should the US have targeted civilians as part of a drive to eliminate communism in SE Asia’ and ‘should the Hebrews have attempted to wipe out other nations in order to maintain their own cultural integrity’? The answers might be different, but the questions are basically the same.

 

[Radagast]

Literally no one will think that.

It seems like an obvious connection to make, when you consider what Google did to their search results.

You know non BLM people can vandalize too right?

I'm guessing the vandalism with BLM slogans is due to BLM, unless I have evidence to the contrary.

 

[Tom 1]

I said educating people about war crimes could help prevent wars

I see what you mean, but I don't see how that would make any difference outside of peacetime. It might make people think differently about war when in a secure environment, but outside of secure environments rational thinking evaporates in an instant. When people feel threatened, and they are not able to defend themselves, they want somebody to do it for them. When it's a choice between you and someone else people rarely opt for the someone else, we make decisions like that all the time, the kinds of conditions that lead to war only play that instinct out on a bigger scale.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Look up some of the atrocities committed inside the Kenyan Concentration Camps he helped orchestrate, some serious crimes against humanity.

This is drivel. Please provide your sources. Churchill called for restraint against the Mau Mau, that suspects should be tried by due process of law. He did post the Mau Mau oath in parliament though, and was appalled by their violence - such as burying the elderly alive, raping and torturing children in front of their parents, burning settlers alive, etc. The Mau Mau were utterly barbaric, that even the Kenyan government has called them worse than dogs in modern times. That the British response was quite harsh is to be expected, but this was certainly not 'orchestrated' by Churchill.

Look up his record: In South Africa he defended the black population, the Cape franchise, the Indian minority (a debt acknowledged by Gandhi) and is known to have scoffed at people that wanted to change swathes of Africa into "white man' s country". He opposed the excesses in Natal in 1906. Churchill was no saint, but he was liberal on race relations within the Empire throughout his career. He was born in Victorian times and liked using terms like Blackamoors, and enjoyed the shocking quip (which is so often used against him today), but at heart, he was substantially decent - as good as one could expect of an Aristocratic Victorian. You are applying anachronistic standards at best.

He did a lot wrong too, like his vainglory at Gallipoli or the Black and Tans (the latter balanced by the success of helping to negotiate the Irish Free State though), but this ludicrous narrative to paint him into a racist bogey is just silly.