SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Oh, there is a lot on Churchill being a racist - I know. Much of it lacking context, judging Churchill by today's moral climate, and some of it just fabricated (and descending to bizarre conspiracy theories and utter gibberish). Churchill has become a sort of an magnet for (internet) Anglophobia. Andrew Roberts' book and the official biographies debunk much of these claims. I wrote a reply to your above but it is lost as my internet had conked out. But in brief, the things you point out, ''proud history'' worship and disliking competences going to Brussels, are not uniquely British. That's too bad. I am sure there are similarities. What I am more interested in, though, is your claim that the article "reiterated numerous Churchill fallacies - debunked by serious historians". What are those numerous fallacies? You have already objected to Churchill being a racist, and I have to say it certainly looks like he might have been. What else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsOfSpiders Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I don't think many of you literally wants you to become an empire again, but with a glorious history like yours I can understand there would be some resentment about becoming just another union state with power moved to Brussels, among some Brits. I think it can help to explain some of the sentiment. I find it only natural that with your proud history, coming to grips with mediocrity might be more challenging and can add to the desire to leave the EU. Most of us have only ever known England as a “mediocre” country, we can only read about what was in the history books now. I do think some people cling to the past industrial greatness a bit too much. Take the steel industry in Sheffield for example, it’s dead and it won’t be coming back but some people can’t accept it and want the government to do something to restore it. Those people would vote leave for sure. So I do get your point - but just speaking about where I’m from the vast majority of people in Sheffield have accepted it and moved on. I don’t think it’s a major influence over the Brexit voting. It feels a much more complex thing than some Brits being unable to accept mediocrity. Edited October 13, 2019 by MillionsOfSpiders 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 24 minutes ago, MillionsOfSpiders said: I don’t think it’s a major influence over the Brexit voting. It feels a much more complex thing than some Brits being unable to accept mediocrity. It is much more complex. It is also the EU not living up to people's expectations, a desire to govern oneself, frustration with the free movement, bitterness over past grievances, lies, and, I suppose, a belief that Britain is destined for greater things than just being another state in a union. And probably lots more that I am ignorant about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 33 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Oh, there is a lot on Churchill being a racist - I know. Much of it lacking context, judging Churchill by today's moral climate, and some of it just fabricated (and descending to bizarre conspiracy theories and utter gibberish). Churchill has become a sort of an magnet for (internet) Anglophobia. Andrew Roberts' book and the official biographies debunk much of these claims. Sorry to pop in but you seem to be blurring the line between ‘his attitudes were commonly held’ and ‘therefore it’s not racism.’ just because certain aspects of racism held power in mainstream thought does not in anyway make something not racist. it would also be wrong to only give credence to the voices of those dinosaur racists because I’m sure those suffering their racism would disagree and really round out that narrative seems it would be more honest to acknowledge the racism as such which in no way stops you from painting the picture of how normalized racism was among the establishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 26 minutes ago, soon said: Sorry to pop in but you seem to be blurring the line between ‘his attitudes were commonly held’ and ‘therefore it’s not racism.’ just because certain aspects of racism held power in mainstream thought does not in anyway make something not racist. it would also be wrong to only give credence to the voices of those dinosaur racists because I’m sure those suffering their racism would disagree and really round out that narrative seems it would be more honest to acknowledge the racism as such which in no way stops you from painting the picture of how normalized racism was among the establishment. I didn't say that. I said that Churchill has to be considered in the context of his own time. Returning to the article Soul posted, I have problems with affiliating the Tories with ''empire''. In actual fact quite often in British history it was the Whigs who provided the impetus for empire, not the Tories, e.g., ''Palmerstonean gunboat diplomacy''. Victorian imperialism was driven by evangelical Whiggery, anti-slavery, Christianity and free-trade. Further, the article does not understand the Conservatives today, one-nationism and Thatcherism. It seems to believe the Tories were merely ''the party of John Bull'' and have consequentially lacked an image or role. This is erroneous. In actual fact the reality is often the opposite of what is proposed in that terrible article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Returning to the article Soul posted, I have problems with affiliating the Tories with ''empire''. In actual fact quite often in British history it was the Whigs who provided the impetus for empire, not the Tories, e.g., ''Palmerstonean gunboat diplomacy''. Victorian imperialism was driven by evangelical Whiggery, anti-slavery, Christianity and free-trade. Further, the article does not understand the Conservatives today, one-nationism and Thatcherism. It seems to believe the Tories were merely ''the party of John Bull'' and have consequentially lacked an image or role. This is erroneous. In actual fact the reality is often the opposite of what is proposed in that terrible article. You fail to convince me that many tories long for the past but I couldn't care less about that, what I am more interested in, though, is your claim that the article "reiterated numerous Churchill fallacies - debunked by serious historians". What are those numerous fallacies? You have already objected to Churchill being a racist, and I have to say it certainly looks like he might have been. What else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 PS Just to highlight how more complicated it is than set forth, until c.1988 the Conservatives were the party that supported EU integration (Labour were the Eurosceptics)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SoulMonster said: You fail to convince me that many tories long for the past but I couldn't care less about that, what I am more interested in, though, is your claim that the article "reiterated numerous Churchill fallacies - debunked by serious historians". What are those numerous fallacies? You have already objected to Churchill being a racist, and I have to say it certainly looks like he might have been. What else? I cannot very well be expected to go through every claim, and besides the article is unsourced, but I recommend Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership (2003) by Andrew Roberts if you are interested in this subject. It debunks most of the anti-Churchill rhetoric which gets thrown around including the charges of racism and some of the wackier conspiracy theories (''Churchill knew about Pearl Harbour'', etc etc). Martin Gilbert's magisterial biography is also well worth reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketfoot Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 hours ago, SoulMonster said: A really interesting article on England and its failure to come to a closure with its past as an empire: "The United Kingdom is currently reminiscent of a team that has crashed into the OBOS league, but stubbornly claims it belongs in the Champions League. Boris Johnson's Brexit strategy is to scare the EU into accepting his terms because his powerful and large countries can live without a deal, but the EU cannot. The United Kingdom is an example of countries that are unable to relate to their own past, can't have a future. British voters are now sandwiched between the empire nostalgia of Boris Johnson or old man socialism of Jeremy Corbyn. Neither of the dominant political parties in the UK can handle the present, both longing for a bygone era. The irony is that the UK is perishing because of exaggerated thoughts of its own greatness." Source: https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/i/70JjVK/det-britiske-imperiet-er-doedt-men-det-lever-videre-inne-i-hodet-til-boris-johnson-ketil-raknes The EU is likely to be fucked when we leave, that's why they're so desperate to keep us in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 The article eulogises the German economy, yet isn't the Germany economy entering recession? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I cannot very well be expected to go through every claim No, of course not, just list the "numerous Churchill fallacies" you found in the article and which stopped you from finishing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketfoot Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, DieselDaisy said: The article eulogises the German economy, yet isn't the Germany economy entering recession? Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketfoot Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Here's the entire article, translated using google translate: "The British Empire is dead. But it lives on inside Boris Johnson's head. | Ketil Raknes Stopped reading there, what a load of shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Quote The British...comforts themselves with World War II hero stories. In films such as Dunkirk and Darkest Hour, the mythological notion that Britain is at its best when the country stands alone against the world is cultivated... Dunkirk and Darkest Hour (2017) were international co-productions (Netherlands, UK, France, United States the former, UK and US the latter) which contained international cast and crews, and were aimed (besides the United Kingdom market) at far more lucrative international markets elsewhere such as China and the USA. Edited October 13, 2019 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, bucketfoot said: Stopped reading there, what a load of shite. I cannot recall Boris ever discussing the empire! His general persona is of this Mr Pickwick character who isn't a very imperialistic character haha. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Dunkirk and Darkest Hour (2017) were international co-productions (Netherlands, UK, France, United States the former, UK and US the latter) which contained international cast and crews, and were aimed (besides the United Kingdom market) at far more lucrative international markets elsewhere such as China and the USA. Doesn't in any shape or form negate the claim that the Brits comfort themselves with World Word II hero movies, but I am still more interested in the "numerous Churchill fallacies" you found in the article and which stopped you from finishing it. Why won't you name them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Diane Abbott has blocked Hartley-Brewer. 'Tis war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Doesn't in any shape or form negate the claim that the Brits comfort themselves with World Word II hero movies, but I am still more interested in the "numerous Churchill fallacies" you found in the article and which stopped you from finishing it. Why won't you name them? Looks like you Norwegians do the exact same thing, Pertaining to Winston, I have pointed you in the right direction, covering as it does the racist allegations in some detail. PS I watched the first and last of those recently and confirm there is evident Norwegian patriotic sentiment in both haha! Edited October 13, 2019 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, DieselDaisy said: Pertaining to Winston, I have pointed you in the right direction, covering as it does the racist allegations in some detail. You claimed there were "numerous Churchill fallacies" in the article. You have already mentioned the claim that Churchill was a racist. We have to just disagree on that one, he definitely was a racist. But that's just one our of "numerous" fallacies - where are the others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SoulMonster said: You claimed there were "numerous Churchill fallacies" in the article. You have already mentioned the claim that Churchill was a racist. We have to just disagree on that one, he definitely was a racist. But that's just one our of "numerous" fallacies - where are the others? You are getting into one of your linguistic games here I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Looks like you Norwegians do the exact same thing, We definitely like our war movies, and I wouldn't for a second dismiss the possibility that our efforts in WWII (small as they were) that are glorified in contemporary movies contributed to our decision to not join the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: You are getting into one of your linguistic games here I'm afraid. Absolutely not. You said the article contained "numerous Churchill fallacies" that have been debunked by historians. I am just asking you to point them out. So far the only think you have been able to do is claim Churchill wasn't a racist. Well, that might have been "debunked" by some historians, but others would definitely agree he was. Be that as it may. But where are the other of these "numerous" fallacies? You must have so many to choose from, them being numerous and all, so just mention a few. After all, they stopped you from reading the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketfoot Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 17 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I cannot recall Boris ever discussing the empire! No, me neither. All this British Empire stuff is just more gibberish spouted by remoaners, for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SoulMonster said: We definitely like our war movies, and I wouldn't for a second dismiss the possibility that our efforts in WWII (small as they were) that are glorified in contemporary movies contributed to our decision to not join the EU. There is no doubt about it that the British have a bee in their bonnet about World War Two (indeed, I have joked about this in the past) - the prevalence of reenactments/living history testifies to this - but then there is an assumption in this article that the EU represents progress whereas being outside the EU represents backwardness. The United Kingdom will be able to make bilateral trade deals with the world, and open our doors to migrants from outside the EU based on skills criteria. This seems to me far more liberal minded that the bureaucratic and thoroughly prohibitive Single Market/Customs Union. Besides, it is not an irrelevant argument that ''World War Two'' means something. During World War Two, whilst the continent fell to the Third Reich, Britain survived and used her maritime power/reach to pursue an alliance with the Commonwealth/United States. This is not something that should be disregarded pertaining to the British psyche. Continental Europeans look more towards each other. Geo-political borders are what shapes continental history. Britain looks to the seas. 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Absolutely not. You said the article contained "numerous Churchill fallacies" that have been debunked by historians. I am just asking you to point them out. So far the only think you have been able to do is claim Churchill wasn't a racist. Well, that might have been "debunked" by some historians, but others would definitely agree he was. Be that as it may. But where are the other of these "numerous" fallacies? You must have so many to choose from, them being numerous and all, so just mention a few. After all, they stopped you from reading the article. I have told you the exact sodden books to read!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I have told you the exact sodden books to read!!! Why do you insist I read books to find out what the "numerous Churchill fallacies" in the article are? You claimed there are "numerous" such fallacies in the article, it is only right that you tell us what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.