- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,864
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
And for black people. They were seen as "untermenschen" too, and were forcibly sterilised.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.”
Um I think enslaving an entire race is a bit different than buying myself something nice.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.
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.”
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.
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’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?
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”.
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.
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.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.
There is literally no purpose to a statue except to be an icon.
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.
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.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.
Pull down statues of Churchill, and many are going to see that as endorsement of Hitler.
You know non BLM people can vandalize too right?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.
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.
Literally no one will think that.
You know non BLM people can vandalize too right?
I said educating people about war crimes could help prevent wars
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 some of the atrocities committed inside the Kenyan Concentration Camps he helped orchestrate, some serious crimes against humanity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?