Churchill to Hitler

[Pinkkgaga]

So it’s trending on Twitter that people are comparing Churchill to Hitler and saying he was just as bad.
Absolutely disgusting imo, but I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on it.

but all these arguments do seem to be detracting from what needs to be done in the present day.

Or are they ?

What needs to be done in the present day is to try and ensure everyone is treated equally and has equal opportunities to achieve their full potential and in doing so making the whole world - and planet - a better place tomorrow than it was yesterday.

(Obviously not with this shower of turds in power).

Part of that is to look back and maybe - just maybe - determine that systematic oppression and brutality be acknowledged and rectified wherever possible ?

It's hardly surprising that the people caught in the current headlamp glare of societies spotlight are desperately trying the same tactics they used back then to distract from how they achieved - and abused - their privilege by trying to gaslight entire cultures and nations.

I think a lot of the current groundswell of anger - from all sections of society, it's not just a race, colour or ethnicity issue - is a lot of people have twigged that their parent died with less not more privilege than they currently enjoy, and that trend is still on a downward - not upward - spiral. The real issue is inequality in all it's forms.

You cannot put right the past. There's more than enough wrong in the present to be getting on with before you attempt to undo Peterloo, the Highland Clearances and the Inclosure Acts (Not to mention the Norman seizure of Saxon land in the first place.)

So Ye Gods what are these morons on about regards Baden-Powell? He made a very oblique and pretty clear reference to the odiousness of the Nazi regime, noting playfully that Mein Kampf was such a wonderful read and what a pity Hitler never put its generous welfare promises into practice. The Nazis banned the Scouts. RBP was in the their little black book of Brits to be detained when they took over. His use of the actual Hindu swastika was copied (and reversed) by the Nazis, not the other way round.

These fucking morons need to go back to primary school.

Okay so let’s go back to Adam and Eve and dissect every single politician, statesman, king and leader and if we find the tiniest mistake in their actions or bad decision they made, let’s tear their statues to the ground, erase them from history and never mention their names again. Leading a country and governing millions of people is not easy and whatever you say or do you will offend/anger/displease a certain fraction of the people you are trying to look after. Leaders are fallible human beings too and can’t bring decisions that will please everybody. The lot of you have a good life in this country thanks to leaders like Churchill and everyone who went before him and built you a vast empire, otherwise you would probably be a second world country at best.

Sucking it is your use of 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the IRA that I think is a bit much. By your own definition, you would need to also say the loyalist paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing (and they actually killed more civilians than the IRA over the course of the conflict).

All sides killed civilians in the Troubles, and all those deaths were tragedies.

All of this because black people asked to be treated right.

You cannot put right the past.

So let's not bother eh ? Let's "move on".

Not quite sure why we have prisons thought. Or indeed any idea of "justice" which is (allegedly) all about "putting things right".

Personally I'd keep a very close eye on the sort of people that try to say "it's all in the past", as they are probably the sort of people who'd much rather we forgot their past too. Certain the sort of thing a twice sacked, proven liar and cheat and cowardly PM who has used excruciatingly racist language and tropes in the past 25 years as well as conspiring to commit violence with a convicted fraudster might say.

All of this because black people asked to be treated right.

Again. After the 1980s. The 1960s. The 1930s. ect etc.

One day, you'd think someone would listen.

@dreamingbohemian

Sucking it is your use of 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the IRA that I think is a bit much. By your own definition, you would need to also say the loyalist paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing (and they actually killed more civilians than the IRA over the course of the conflict).

All sides killed civilians in the Troubles, and all those deaths were tragedies.

Firstly, it isn't my use. You obviously didn't read what I wrote so I don't know why you are wasting your time replying. As I indicated, this phrase is in common use. I cited its use by respected figures such as the professor of history I mentioned and the former head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I'm sorry to hear you think it's 'a bit much' but your opinion of it isn't relevant.

It is the correct phrase to describe the IRA's actions in border areas. Ethnic cleansing involves the murder of eldest sons so that there is no-one to take over the family farm or business. Or targeting a place of worship so that Protestants consider moving away. The IRA engaged in this repeatedly. The intent is more targeted than leaving a bomb in a public place or other acts of terror.

By my own definition I would not need to say that loyalist paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing. They engaged in sectarian murder but I'm not aware of areas where they murdered one member of a Catholic family to drive the whole family out. Can you give examples of this, please?

Can you also please state where your evidence comes from that loyalists murdered more innocent people than the IRA? These figures come from CAIN, which is a respected academic source. They state that republicans murdered 2058 and loyalists 1027.

belfastchildis.com/lost-lives/the-troubles-1969-1998-statistical-breakdown-of-deaths-in-the-troubles/

We don’t have to go back to Adam and Eve. But maybe read about the 1960s when certainly your parents were most likely alive. And your grandparents. And how black and brown people were treated in the UK and the US and British colonies then.

The defensiveness is people at having to confront a tiny fraction of their past is a really useful insight into how ingrained white privilege is.

It’s easier to say, yep racist things happened and I don’t give a monkey’s. I don’t care if someone’s grandmother had a bottle shoved up their vagina for standing up to the British in a Mau Mau camp. And she can’t get compensation because the British burned the files. That’s okay because today Kenya is free and they should be grateful for British rule. My life is good and I am not personally racist to anyone. So people shouldn’t keep bringing this up because it makes me uncomfortable. And black and brown people should be grateful for the privilege they have today as minorities and ‘stop harping about the past’. But people find that uncomfortable to articulate because that forces them to confront their deep seated racism. But really that’s what you are saying.

What’s really fascinating is how so many people are arguing that destroying statues and monuments will ‘erase the past’ when these statues have been around for 150+ years and people seem to have not a clue about the history in the first place??

So are these statues there to remind us of the past and make sure we don’t ‘erase history’? And to make us confront the past critically? In which case why are people so shocked/surprised/defensive. Surely you guys knew this all along since you had these statues to ‘educate’ them.

Or are they to ‘celebrate’ these people. In which case why don’t we actually look critically at who we are ‘celebrating’?

And how black and brown people were treated in the UK and the US and British colonies then.

My DF - being an immigrant, albeit white - wasn't allowed to sit with the English workers for tea/lunch. He sat with the Indians and West Indians (who were always around our house). When he started his own business he was helped by - and helped them back. Because my DMs DF had been born in India, she'd also grown up around a more diverse culture.

Then, of course, with a foreign surname, I was picked on at school.

Still, you play racists as you find them. When DFs planning permission for an extension was rejected, he slapped a "For Sale" sign up, and had loads of Indian and West Indian friends around "to view". When a neighbour asked why we were moving, DF mentioned the lack of space ... Some neighbours were horrified and wrote to the council begging them to reconsider (which they did).

Think suckingdiesel has been huffing it for too long.

My source is also CAIN. You need to look at civilians, not all deaths:

cain.ulster.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Even more stark is the percentage of deaths which are civilian, this is much more overwhelming on the loyalist side (which obviously was not targeting the security services).

Yes, ethnic cleansing is a common term but not usually in reference to the Troubles, and it was you who introduced it in this way on this thread. Hence, 'your use'.

The term originated in the Bosnian war of the 1990s, to describe the murder, expulsion and rape of hundreds of thousands of people, in an attempt to remove them from a wide swathe of territory. It is defined as 'the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.' Darfur is another example, or the Rohingya today.

If you want to retroactively apply this term to the tragic but much more limited violence in the Troubles, and only to the IRA -- well, that is your interpretation. It is not a conventional interpretation. Saying the IRA committed ethnic cleansing while the loyalists only committed sectarian murders is a rather distorted view.

What’s really fascinating is how so many people are arguing that destroying statues and monuments will ‘erase the past’ when these statues have been around for 150+ years and people seem to have not a clue about the history in the first place??

Haven't really seen much call for destroying statues. Merely moving them from plinths (which imply a degree of social acceptance of the individual) to museums. Where their place in the society of the day can be explained and contextualised. With the rather surprising upshot that the statue may actually survive a lot longer than if it were to be left to the elements anyway.

Returning to the Colston statue, I was impressed to read the Mayors idea that it be displayed in a museum along with some of the placards that were being waved on the very day it fell (and maybe a little video montage of it's falling). For future generations to be able to understand a bit better than they otherwise might.

That's the difference between what's going on now, and (say) teh Nazis. They destroyed what they didn't agree with. As a so-called civilised society, we should seek to explain what we do not agree with. And why. And if lumps of metal and stone in museums help do that - so much the better.

Never have I wanted to quite Indiana Jones so much ...

It belongs in a museum !!!!!!!

maybe read about the 1960s when certainly your parents were most likely alive. And your grandparents. And how black and brown people were treated in the UK and the US and British colonies then

I don’t need to read anything
White immigrant family with a branch from the West Indies all living together in one house.

Whilst we do still have racism it is no where near the 60s level where you were barred entry to places because of the colour of someones skin or their look.

I think there is a danger of losing sight of why people are protesting and the message is being lost.

George Floyd is a dim and distant memory.
It then moved onto Racism
Then Slavery
Now who was worse Churchill or Hitler.

Stick to one thing otherwise people haven’t a clue what you want

@RuggerHug

Think suckingdiesel has been huffing it for too long.

Really intelligent response, well done.

Why was his planning permission rejected though Rosetti?

Why was his planning permission rejected though Rosetti?

Because he wasn't English. He had a good friend (who was English) who was the chap who drew up the plans and who did what was needed to submit them. He came round quite disgusted after the planning meeting as I recall (pleased to report he came to my wedding - a very old family friend). My DF just said not to worry, he'd handle it. And did.

That's nothing. In 1977, our stretch of road didn't get a street party, because according to the Tory council "too many Indians" lived there. So we didn't.

Priti Patel was bought up not far away, if that helps for context. She was born the year my best friend at school arrived, fresh with Idi Amins boot prints on his families arse.

It's a weird feeling, growing up, hoping you are making the world better, only to realise at some midway point how you failed and that in reality you'll die before anything really changes. Well, that, and then swinging to hope for the future.

Are you sure it wasn't because the neighbours didn't want the disruption, loosing light or it was too big etc?

A distant relative of mine was also kicked out by Idi Amin.

@dreamingbohemian

My source is also CAIN. You need to look at civilians, not all deaths:

cain.ulster.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Even more stark is the percentage of deaths which are civilian, this is much more overwhelming on the loyalist side (which obviously was not targeting the security services).

Yes, ethnic cleansing is a common term but not usually in reference to the Troubles, and it was you who introduced it in this way on this thread. Hence, 'your use'.

The term originated in the Bosnian war of the 1990s, to describe the murder, expulsion and rape of hundreds of thousands of people, in an attempt to remove them from a wide swathe of territory. It is defined as 'the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.' Darfur is another example, or the Rohingya today.

If you want to retroactively apply this term to the tragic but much more limited violence in the Troubles, and only to the IRA -- well, that is your interpretation. It is not a conventional interpretation. Saying the IRA committed ethnic cleansing while the loyalists only committed sectarian murders is a rather distorted view.

Your link is a page of footnotes.

Can you please provide a working link to support your idea that loyalists murdered more civilians than republicans?

As I said, whether you personally object to the term 'ethnic cleansing' is neither here nor there. I explained in the previous two posts that this is a term in common use because it is generally recognised that this happened in border areas. I described a book written about this subject by a professor of history at the University of Ulster. I can understand you wanting to make the discussion personal as an alternative to discussing facts. But facts they undoubtedly are.

Re your last paragraph. The term is not mine, nor is it retroactive, nor is it unconventional and nor is it my own interpretation. See above. Anyone living in border areas at that time knew all too well that it was happening. I was a child when the Darkley atrocity took place. I knew why I was a target and I knew why we had to be searched when we went to church. I was scared to go to sleep at night.

If you consider it a 'distorted' view that Protestants were subjected to ethnic cleansing then you need to read Prof Patterson's book. They undoubtedly were, both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the War of Independence, when Protestant homes were attacked and Protestants were murdered? There is a reason why the Protestant population in the Republic is a tenth of what it was 100 years ago. If you want to deny this, maybe you need to confront your own prejudices.

Trying to think of any British colonies left by the end of the 60s.

I can come up with Hong Kong, Montserrat, and possibly Southern Rhodesia, beyond control of the FCO by then.

Are you sure it wasn't because the neighbours didn't want the disruption, loosing light or it was too big etc?

100% sure - I was 10 at the time, and old enough to understand.
It was a simple one-storey 8-foot extension, and both our neighbours were OK with it (because my DF fixed ones crappy Ford every weekend on one side, and the old lady on the other adored having 3 kids next door she could babysit). I can't recall the reason for the knockback, but it was one of those "even the experts had to look it up" clauses, apparently. DF friends was amazed it was still in force.

My DM was fuming and my Dads friend wanted to "go through the proper channels". I can remember my DF saying to him that wouldn't work, and he had another idea. Which predated "Reggie Perrin" by a year or so .

Oh, that's another one for the naughty step.

A distant relative of mine was also kicked out by Idi Amin.

it's horrifying and disturbing to be able to say they are probably the lucky ones .

Because this is one part of a continuous past. George Floyd didn’t happen in isolation. Unless like patriarchy we see racism as throughly embedded in the structures of our societies and institutions absolutely nothing will change.

I actually think focussing on the statues is counter productive. Because what we need is actual change, a real decolonising of our minds. Of genuine introspection and change in everything beginning with our curricula and being honest about the past. But that’s never going to happen. Which is why people settle for piecemeal action.