Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Churchill removed from Google

216 replies

DivGirl · 14/06/2020 07:15

But they've left Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.

If you Google "British prime ministers" you'll get them all, along with images but Churchill's photo has been replaced with a holder (they've also forgotten his first term).

Google world war two leaders and Churchill's picture is still gone, but Hitler et al. are still up.

AIBU to think this is nuts?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
andyoldlabour · 14/06/2020 13:44

user1471565182

"Half of that post are also complete lies, especially the bit about Greece"

Really, thanks for trying to erase history. Maybe some other source would be more to your liking? That atrocity and others masterminded by Churchill are easily verified - IF YOU WANT THEM VERIFIED.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret

www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/british-perfidy-in-greece-story-worth-remembering/

Springisintheair2 · 14/06/2020 14:01

Huge supporter of BLM, the protests etc. But that's... Actual erasure of history. Someone has been a bit overzealous there

OrangeCinnamon · 14/06/2020 14:05

It's not erasure of history because it didn't happen @springisintheair

elgreco · 14/06/2020 14:30

I just checked the women murdered. The first 3 hits are men who identify as women.

kmc1111 · 14/06/2020 14:47

This thread is hilarious. Imagine getting this worked up because you don’t understand that there isn’t a person at Google carefully curating search results for ‘British Prime Ministers’.

araiwa · 14/06/2020 14:52

I too like to get outraged at things i dont understand even though it has already been explained to me

user1471565182 · 14/06/2020 14:58

Communists tried to take over the new greek government, the government shot back at them (the british didnt do the shooting, outright lie) and somehow its the british soldiers who've just liberated the place who are responsible. Begins to seem just a bit of a pisstake after a bit, why did they even bother.

Meanwhile, the british have to leave Poland for the red army and the communists take over, and they're blamed for that as well.

1066vegan · 14/06/2020 15:09

Just googled British Prime Ministers and checked the images.

Nothing for 1940 - 1945 but Churchill is there for 1951 - 1955.

There's another blank 1964 - 1970 when Harold Wilson was PM but Wilson does have his photo up for 1974 - 1976.

Simple explanation: Google is showing dates and images for Prime Ministers' final terms in office.

The paranoid right wing conspiracy nuts really are out in force on this thread.

PerkingFaintly · 14/06/2020 15:12

So now we have African-Americans and black South Africans at Oxford courtesy of his generousity, how the old boy would have hated that, who want his statue down on principle but whose principles do not extend to paying back his bursaries or donating them to appropriate charities.

If you're a black South African at Oxford courtesy of a Rhodes Scholarship, I'm pretty sure you are an “appropriate charity”.Grin

(Not actually a charity, I should add in case anyone takes that literally.)

I think it's wonderful the old bastard's ill-gotten dosh is being used to completely subvert his intention of producing leaders for his white supremacist project, to instead produce leaders for democratic South Africa. I also don't see why this should generate eternal gratitude to Rhodes himself: his wealth was built on the labour of those whose lands he pillaged. He didn't even deprive himself of a penny but left the money after his death.

Not sure why you think the Rhodes Scholarships were just about Anglo-American relations, Mockers? Unsurprisingly, he founded scholarships in the countries where he'd been active, viz South Africa and of course Rhodesia-as-was.

PerkingFaintly · 14/06/2020 15:16

Oxford scholars reject hypocrisy claims amid row over Cecil Rhodes statue
www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/12/cecil-rhodes-scholars-reject-hypocrisy-claims-amid-row-over-oriel-college-statue

Nearly 200 international students at Oxford University have signed a statement saying that the prestigious Rhodes scholarship they share “does not buy [their] silence” over the legacy of Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist who endowed the fund.
[...]
“There is no hypocrisy in being a recipient of a Rhodes scholarship and being publicly critical of Cecil Rhodes and his legacy – a legacy that continues to alienate, silence, exclude and dehumanise in unacceptable ways. There is no clause that binds us to find ‘the good’ in Rhodes’ character, nor to sanitise the imperialist, colonial agenda he propagated.”

They added that many among them – particularly those of colour, or female, or of African descent, from southern Africa or the former colonies – took a Rhodes grant as a form of reparation, “knowing that Cecil Rhodes did not intend it for us when he wrote his will. Nor did he intend for any of us to use the scholarship in a way that was explicitly antithetical to the pursuit of empire and white supremacy.”

PerkingFaintly · 14/06/2020 15:17

This is a thread for people who argue with sat navs.

Grin
Bluemoooon · 14/06/2020 15:59

The paranoid right wing conspiracy nuts really are out in force on this thread.

Apparently Harold Wilson sent arms to the Biafran War, contributing to the killings.

Clavinova · 14/06/2020 16:17

andyoldlabour
Maybe some other source would be more to your liking? That atrocity and others masterminded by Churchill are easily verified - IF YOU WANT THEM VERIFIED.

The articles in your links are co-written by the same two journalists - they are not two different sources.

Under the photograph in your first link is another link -

"This article is the subject of a column by the readers’ editor."

"The strong allegation that British troops fired on demonstrators was based on recollections, recounted as fact."

"The Observer Magazine headline was arresting: “Athens ’44 Britain’s dirty secret” it announced in big black type, alongside a stark photograph showing sprawling bodies surrounded by stunned and frightened demonstrators.“The day that changed history,” read the caption.“Unarmed protesters shot by the police and the British army in Athens on 3 December 1944.”

"In 6,500 words, spread over nine pages, the piece reflected not only on that terrible event but also on the controversial theory that Churchill’s efforts to stem communism in the Mediterranean had sown the seeds for the rise of the far right in modern Greece. But on the demonstration it included this unequivocal statement:“This was the day...when the British army, still at war with Germany, opened fire on–and gave locals who had collaborated with the Nazis the guns to fire on–a civilian crowd demonstrating in support of the partisans with whom Britain had been allied for three years."

Seven Greek historians protested.They said the British had not fired on the crowd, but that Greek police certainly had, and that to present the December confrontation as one fought between the British alongside supporters of the Nazis against the partisans was “a gross misrepresentation.”

"They claimed that the security battalions and special security branch of the Greek police were never integrated into the German SS, as the article had said.They also attacked the reported recollections of 92-year-old former resistance fighter Manolis Glezos and his account of attempts to blow up the British HQ."

"The following week, I ran a clarification, noting the protest by the seven and pointing out that Greek police were also likely to be among those who shot the 28 protesters. I recognise now that it was plainly inadequate in addressing concerns about the article."

"Then last month [2015], a leading historian quoted in the piece, André Gerolymatos, held a conference in British Columbia on the issue, inviting one of the co-authors of the piece and some of the academics who had protested to the paper. When it was over, he sent me his analysis, based, he said, on British and American archival sources as well as memoirs and secondary accounts."

"He wrote: “Did the British open fire on the demonstrators on 3 December 1944? The answer is no, but that reality is filtered through perceptions clouded by a day filled with violence and considerable confusion." ... ...

"So, the Observer’s strong allegation that British troops fired on demonstrators was based on the recollections of men now late in life who, at the time, might well have been influenced by the many factors listed above.The paper’s mistake was to report those recollections as fact, rather than attribute the assertions directly to those who were there on that fateful day. Such are the lessons of history."

www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-on-athens-44-british-army

TheVoiceOfReasonableness · 14/06/2020 16:55

@PerkingFaintly

The Rhode Trust Deed that sets up the scholarship made it plain from the beginning that no-one should be disqualified from being awarded the scholarship due to race or religious opinion. That was Rhodes wish.

Perhaps he can be accused of sexism as he wished for the scholarship to go not just to bookworms but also those who excelled in “manly pursuits” such as on the sports field.

He explicitly forsaw that his foundation would benefit People of Colour.

On the news I heard one student at the march refer to him as a slave trader. Given he was born in 1853 long after the slave trade was outlawed this would have been tricky.

He was accused of using slave labour in the diamond mines. Actually it was convict labour of all colours. British courts can still sentence people to Unpaid Work. Is this slavery?

When he was Prime Minister of Cape Colony he specifically rejected Afrikaner demands that the franchise be removed from Black Africans. Apartheid only started in 1948 when the Afrikaner Nationalist Party came to power.

History isn’t black and white. It’s a million shades of grey.

TheVoiceOfReasonableness · 14/06/2020 16:56

m.youtube.com/watch?v=87Xkr8z3lEo

As for the Churchill haters- I can see quite a few People of Colour paying tribute at his funeral.

user1471565182 · 14/06/2020 17:00

And like I said before, the lie about greece, the lie about 'gassing indians' is already out and will be repeated half remembered by how many people? its infuriating. If you have to make up atrocities about a country that isnt even your own, you may have issues.

OrangeCinnamon · 14/06/2020 17:08

@user1471565182

And like I said before, the lie about greece, the lie about 'gassing indians' is already out and will be repeated half remembered by how many people? its infuriating. If you have to make up atrocities about a country that isnt even your own, you may have issues.
Dont be ridiculous not everyone who supports antiracism wants Churchill 'erased' it is being massively blown out of proportion...for those who want to take he bait

Whose country is 'even their own' eh?

Goosefoot · 14/06/2020 17:15

The deeper point here IMO is that people, even those not so into conspiracy theories, find the idea that Google, or Wikipedia etc, are fiddling with what they see as plausible.

The reason is, they know that is actually possible and plausible. They have been known to do that kind of thing. And people know that it isn't transparent, and whatever Google tweets about it that users really could't tell if its a lie or not.

They also know that there are plenty of idiots that might try and do something so silly without giving a shit what people overall think.

PerkingFaintly · 14/06/2020 17:49

@TheVoiceOfReasonableness, Rhodes specified that, in nascent South Africa, the scholarship be awarded to students at four boys' schools, which were all white.

Of course this was before the Bantu Education Act which gutted black education from 1953 onwards, but even in 1902 Rhodes had no expectation that these schools would ever admit black students or that they'd receive the scholarships. I'm not sure on what you base your claim that he intended to benefit black people after his death – bit of a break from his practices during his life!

More here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship#Exclusion_of_black_Africans

Also, the franchise in pre-apartheid South Africa was subject to jockeying along several axes. A major axis was English-speaking white people vs Afrikaners, with each trying to gerrymander voter-eligibility in order to ultimately benefit their own group.

Rhodes was certainly not interested in protecting the right of black people to democratic representation!

Re the black franchise in South Africa:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
In 1890, Rhodes became Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. He introduced the Glen Grey Act to push black people from their lands and make way for industrial development. Rhodes's view was that black people needed to be driven off their land to "stimulate them to labour" and to change their habits.[26] "It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of them will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better."[26]

Given the growing number of enfranchised black people in the Cape, Rhodes raised the franchise property requirements in 1892 to counter this preponderance. The change had drastic effects on the traditional Cape Qualified Franchise.[27] By simultaneously limiting the amount of land which black Africans were legally allowed to hold and tripling the property qualifications required to vote, Rhodes succeeded in disenfranchising the black population. To quote Richard Dowden, most would now "find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold".[28] In addition, Rhodes was an early architect of the Natives Land Act, 1913, which would limit the areas of the country where black Africans were allowed to settle to less than 10%.[29] At the time, Rhodes would argue that "the native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism, such as works in India, in our relations with the barbarism of South Africa."[30]

andyoldlabour · 14/06/2020 18:02

user1471565182

I actually think the statues should remain and a true account - warts and all - will remain as their legacy.
The atrocities happened - Greece, Iraq, Iran, India, Ireland, Russia (Churchill used chemical weapons against the Bolsheviks).
As an English person born of an Irish mother, I think Churchills (and every other "national treasure") crimes should be acknowledged.
You obviously are under the impression that Churchill did nothing wrong.

www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

Clavinova · 14/06/2020 18:44

andyoldlabour
I actually think the statues should remain and a true account

Fair enough, but the journalist in your link is not giving a true account by missing out the rest of the quotation;

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum" - should read;

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

Also from your link - "He [Churchill] criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

"He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."

In view of the above, Churchill's note doesn't really sound like 'black humour' if he is referring to gases causing milder effects.

TheVoiceOfReasonableness · 14/06/2020 18:48

It was in his will, clear as crystal-

“no student shall be qualified or disqualified for on account of race or religious opinions".

If he hadn’t intended people of colour to be educated, why feel the need to mention it at all? In 1902 it’s not as if he had to placate any pressure groups!

PerkingFaintly · 14/06/2020 19:13

Oh heavens! There were plenty of what you, in modern parlance, call "pressure groups" in (what is now) SA in 1902! But perhaps not lobbying for whatever you're thinking of in your post.

But that aside, the word "race" at the time was frequently used to refer to English, Scottish, Afrikaner, Jewish... There is no reason to think that Rhodes was referring to skin colour.

And as shown above, he had absolutely no concept of black people being equal to white people. He did not think they had rights to land ownership or the vote. He could not have imagined any black South African having the opportunity to complete a sufficiently high quality and prolonged school education, including instruction in Latin and Greek, in order to pass the Oxford entrance exam.

Not dissimilar to the de facto removal of the vote, by the sleight of hand of changing the land ownership requirements.

PerkingFaintly · 14/06/2020 19:27

According to this wikipedia article, the first calls to remove Rhodes' statue from the University of Cape Town came in the 1950s from Afrikaners!

Like I said, no lack of "pressure groups" throughout SA history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Must_Fall

TheVoiceOfReasonableness · 14/06/2020 19:39

@PerkingFaintly

I imagine the Afrikaners wanted his statue removed because he wasn’t racist enough for them.

It was only after the Afrikaners gained power in 1948 that Apartheid started to be official government policy, and in fact South Africa was booted out of the British Commonwealth (as it was then known) as a result.

They thought the British were too soft with policies that only indirectly discriminated against Africans...

Swipe left for the next trending thread