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.

Much of also what can be found in museums is also deeply problematic. And Indiana Jones is frankly as racist as it gets.

The problem with pointing out racism to well meaning white people is you get one of the following:

• are you sure it was racism or because of your race?
• really? Did that really happen? (So much of it on MN this week- as if we really enjoy telling tales racial humiliation)
• it was a long time ago. (Not really).
• they were a product of their time (erm which is why we need critical history)
• how long are people going to bang on about this (you tell me how long)
• I am not racist myself (congratulations would you like a medal?)

It’s exhausting.

Sorry, the link is working for me. I've attached a screenshot, I hope it works.

You can see similar figures here in this article about an academic study:
www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/academic-says-republicans-responsible-for-60-of-troubles-deaths-1.3983227

"Prof Kennedy said that 1,232 Catholic civilians lost their lives in Troubles related violence with most such Catholic civilian deaths being at the hands of loyalists while 698 Protestant civilians lost their lives in the conflict with most of these being at the hands of republicans."

I'm very sorry about the violence and terror you experienced.

I say retroactive because the term itself only came into use in the 1990s (if you have a source showing the term being used in Ireland in the 1970s, I would be very interested in that -- genuinely).

I am not trying to deny that Protestants have been the victims of sectarian violence, including with the aim of driving them from certain areas. To say that only Protestants ever experienced this is what I say is distorted.

I don’t see any British Museum (including the one in London) contextualising anything including quite HOW they got the vast majority of what they have acquired.

At times I really wonder what planet people live on. If you dig around in any powerful persons past you can probably dig up shit. Most of which is shit because of the seemingly currently universal pursuit of aNachronism.

That being said Churchill was ruled with a rod of iron. But arguably inorder to successfully guide a country through something like WW2 Otis necessary to have a ruthless streak to make the very hard decisions you know will lead to the sacrifice of many young people for the greater good. If we had had the sort of liberal leader who would be deemed acceptable in the world of mumsnet we would all be blonde haired, white skinned German speakers by now, or at the very least paying our taxes to Mother Russia.

I actually think focussing on the statues is counter productive. Because what we need is actual change, a real decolonising of our minds.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. And - Bristol apart - it's quite heartening how there is a debate happening over the position these statues should occupy in the public mindspace, for want of a wanky word. Plinths imply respect or at least a tacit acceptance of an individuals history and it's place in the society around it. Whereas a museum axiomatically signals that persons place is in the past. And museum is probably the best place to explore that place.

I think - and it's only one persons opinion - that some of the people whose statues are still on plinths from hundreds of years ago would be embarrassed, upset, offended, puzzled, or just unhappy at that situation themselves.

It's interesting Islam swerves a lot of this by not allowing statues in the first place ...

I would like to think the two are not mutually exclusive but as an academic who has tried to mildly argue that we should have the odd non white author in our first year global history course (and that global history is not the study of Europe/N America) and been told off for my ‘hectoring tone’ I am really really really not holding my breath.

Sorry everyone, I don't want to derail the thread talking about the Troubles. I do see it as another frustrating example of history being ignored or misused even when current problems (Brexit) should be showing how important it is.

Also the only non white faculty member in a 34 person department who are astonished why as a non white person I can’t teach all of non white history. We have someone for France. In fact two. One modern, one early modern. Two for German. Endless English historians. 50% of our students are interestingly BAME. But me, I have to teach all of Asia, Africa and Latin America...

Also someone once asked me why I don’t speak French since surely it is the language of all ‘civilised academics.’ I actually speak read and write four languages from the global south plus English. But hey those uncivilised languages don’t count, do they?

I would like to think the two are not mutually exclusive but as an academic who has tried to mildly argue that we should have the odd non white author in our first year global history course (and that global history is not the study of Europe/N America) and been told off for my ‘hectoring tone’ I am really really really not holding my breath.

It's only as you get older - if you have the interest - you realise how little you know. And each passing day reveals you knew less than you thought the day before. By turns saddening, inspiring, and frightening.

All of which being said, part of the joy of history - for me anyway - is the connection between the here and now and times gone by. Much as I might want to, I don't live in South America. Or Africa. So fascinating as the explorations of the history of the civilisations of those places might be, it's not quite as ... immediate or direct as knowing that where I am typing from was mentioned in the Domesday book. I hope that isn't mistaking parochialism for racism. I was equally fascinated to stand amongst the ruins at Gedi when I was there. Only that was a holiday, sadly. I didn't get to live the life exotic.

That's really dreadful ChaBishkoot, I'm sorry to hear that.

What I see in my own institution is that the push for 'global history' content results in hiring more white men to talk about the British Empire.

DGRossetti
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).

In which case, why did your DF put up a "For Sale" sign to upset the neighbours??

DGRossetti

I put in for an extension. (1.8m) I was refused because of the amount of objections.

Neither my neighbours objected.

Are you saying I didn’t get planning because I am not 100% English

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

I think there are some British Overseas Territories still and that the sun doesn't quite manage to set on them. The sun rises in one an hour before it sets in the other. I have no idea where they are, but they must be 11 hours apart, and probably near the Equator. It would not work if one was in the Arctic.

In which case, why did your DF put up a "For Sale" sign to upset the neighbours??

No, it was so "neighbours" (not next door but in the street) could see a steady parade of Indian (Sikh) people coming to view and realise "there goes the neighbourhood".

Part of which was helped by the fact that another friend of ours (via my DM) was an estate agent who was also born in India like my DGF during the raj, and who loved Indian and Indians (he found houses for a lot of people who worked with my DF in the 60s, when it was harder to buy a house if you weren't 100% English. These are still the days of John Lydons autobiography in London.)

Are you saying I didn’t get planning because I am not 100% English

I can only tell you what I know. I really cant' tell you what I don't know. Especially from half a century ago.

Feel free to question my experiences. I don't mind.

There are two sorts, the ones too rich to want to be independent: Bermuda, Caymans, Turks & Caicos, Channel Isles etc.

Then there's the ones too poor or too small to become independent: Falklands, Gib, Indian Ocean Ty (Diego Garcia a whacking great American base.) St Helena and Tristan da Cunha in the Atlantic. Pitcairn in the Pacific with thirty-odd inbred decendants of the Bounty mutiny. The British Sovereign Bases on Cyprus. And the special case of British Antarcitic Ty including South Georgia, the S.Sandwiches and assorted other seal-crap incrusted rocks down that way.

Well the ICJ has ruled that Britain should return the Chagos Islands (which includes Diego Garcia) to Mauritius. Britain is refusing.

Basically when Mauritius gained independence in 1968, Britain kept the Chagos Islands, kicked out their inhabitants, and yes let a ginormous American base be built there.

It's not a settled issue -- not in the past. Those people who were exiled still want to go home and have been bringing all sorts of legal cases in order to do so.

Some independence dates from the late 1960s and 70s:

Yemen 1967
Mauritius 1968
Swaziland 1968
Bahrain 1971
Qatar 1971
UAE 1971
Zimbabwe 1980
Belize 1981

The Chagosians don't want to be 'returned' to Mauritius who never had them in the first place, unless you count when they were both considered to be part of the Isle-de-France.

Mauritius after the fishing rights, and the lucrative rent from the yanks for the airbase, a bloody long way from Mauritius.

Some independence dates from the late 1960s and 70s:

Yemen 1967
Mauritius 1968
Swaziland 1968
Bahrain 1971
Qatar 1971
UAE 1971
Zimbabwe 1980
Belize 1981

So that leaves just British Honduras (Belize) after the 1960s that UK was in a position to grant independence to, and that only when it was considered strong enough to hold off the Guatemalan junta thugs who were after it in much the same way Venuzuela claimed Guyana and Trinidad.

The Trucial States in the Gulf were protectorates never colonies.

They were not independent. I know it makes a lot of difference to Brits whether they were colonies or mandates or protectorates or whatever, but the details are lost on most locals.

The Chagos Islands were administered by the UK as part of the Colony of Mauritius until 1965. Between 1968 and 1973 all the residents of the islands were deported so that the US could build its base. The Chagossians ended up in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK and have been fighting for compensation or a right to return ever since. This is their lawsuit in the ECHR:
hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115714%22]}

The UN and the International Court of Justice have ruled that the UK should return the islands to Mauritius.

From what I have read, it's true there are mixed feelings among Chagossians, some want to return to the islands, some want to stay in the UK or Mauritius, mostly they just want to have a choice.

@dreamingbohemian

Sorry, the link is working for me. I've attached a screenshot, I hope it works.

You can see similar figures here in this article about an academic study:
www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/academic-says-republicans-responsible-for-60-of-troubles-deaths-1.3983227

"Prof Kennedy said that 1,232 Catholic civilians lost their lives in Troubles related violence with most such Catholic civilian deaths being at the hands of loyalists while 698 Protestant civilians lost their lives in the conflict with most of these being at the hands of republicans."

I'm very sorry about the violence and terror you experienced.

I say retroactive because the term itself only came into use in the 1990s (if you have a source showing the term being used in Ireland in the 1970s, I would be very interested in that -- genuinely).

I am not trying to deny that Protestants have been the victims of sectarian violence, including with the aim of driving them from certain areas. To say that only Protestants ever experienced this is what I say is distorted.

Which is why I didn't say it. What I said was this:

"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?"

The research you cite has an entirely different focus - he is trying to prove the hypothesis that:
"“The Provisional IRA proved the dynamic for three decades of political violence and as such was primarily responsible for the Troubles – the Provisional IRA was not about civil rights or defending Catholic communities, it was about achieving a 32 county republic by force of arms.”

As such, his figures are only for IRA murders and not republican murders as a whole. You forget that the INLA, the Real IRA, continuity IRA and other republican terror groups were murdering Protestants at this time.

wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html
The last two diagrams on this page indicate that 863 Protestant civilians were murdered by republicans and 704 Catholics were murdered by loyalists. The category of 'others' could mean anything so I haven't included it. This is the last post I will write about statistics as these are people not statistics. Every innocent death is a tragedy for a family and a community.

Churchill was a horrific human being.
Hitter was a horrific human being.
Stalin was a horrific human being.

That venerating one of them is now a crime (rightfully so, I hasten to add) is testament to the saying that God is on the side of the big battalions.
They were also all, ultimately, responsible for genocide.
Whoever SuckingDieselFella is, he/she is a right wing piece of shit.

Lifeisgenerallyfun Churchill was a liberal.

The majority of us will be happy when this mass hysteria over statues and historical figures is over. It’s just madness. In a month’s time these sort of conversations won’t be happening - the world will have moved on to something else to rant about.

History is what it is. Discussing it won't change it. Take down every statue, they're just statue's. Problem solved we can all get on with our lives in peace and equality....Oh wait.....

This doesn't change a damn thing!