Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The cenataph is a war memorial remembering those who died in both world wars. The monarchy and political Leaders gather round it once a year to pay respects.  It was graffitied with ACAB last week, and someone tried to burn the flag. Some soldiers in civilian clothing went to clean it off the next day and were given all sorts of abuse. This ignited alot of anger in the veteran community, who have lost friends In various conflicts. So they made a stand to defend it as it continued to be graffitied, they don't want drawn into a political/racial debate thats essentially started in America. The veterans protested peacefully at the cenataph without trouble.

The "football fans"... Err Britain first/EDL, far right were counter protesting in parliament Square at the Churchill memorial. They were wanting a fight but never got one as the BLM protest was in Hyde park. They got a bit loud with the police and then went to Hyde park looking for a fight to find a few people having a picnic.

Now we're all offended at statues that for decades no one's giving a shit about. 

Oh and everyone probably has Corona virus

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Says you? Your entire argument seems to revolve around fish and getting fucked up the arse! You’re the political equivalent of a Led Zeppelin after show party.  

Posted Images

11 hours ago, soon said:

Thanks for filling me in. I remember it from a Pink Floyd song now, lol.

Yeah, stuff like that is complex. Because it is, in part, a memorial to the racist colonial and imperial expeditions which still leave immense misery and destruction in their wake. But its also a memorial to the those who sacrificed their lives and limbs fighting fascism. Not to mention the class implications, and the constrained choices leading towards enrolment, of many soldiers.

But to me all that could be explored about the complexity is actually secondary to the idea that people are willing to get their heads kicked in and/or careers ruined over symbolism. Fucking symbolism, really?? Smh

Defending it, when it can easily be cleaned of graffiti, is still far dumber than attacking it imo. But strategically theres really not much meat on the bone to attacking it (unless its a cleaver rouse to get Right wingers arrested and into the system).

 

I agree. The problem is that people can attribute any meaning they want to these monuments regardless of what the person who erected it meant it it mean. They might have meant it to mean a tribute to people who died in wars but concepts, meanings and ideas flow into people's brains in different ways so what's sacred to some is an insult to others. 

The cenotaph is in actual fact a lump of concrete. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 "qurantine raves" last night with about 6k people between them in Manchester.

At least 1 dead of an od and 3 others stabbed. Though at least they all got to "test their eyesight".

Edited by AtariLegend
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 4:08 PM, MillionsOfSpiders said:

There have been gatherings like that all over the UK to defend memorials and statues. I don’t get it personally, to me it just looks like a bunch of hooligans looking for a fight. I bet most of them don’t even know what they’re defending.

I thought it was great when the people pulled down the Colston statue and jumped all over him, then rolled him into the river. I don’t know how anyone can watch it and think it’s vandalism. 

The UK doesn’t want to face its colonial past - when I was at school the history of the British Empire was taught like it was all good for everyone and a massive achievement. 

That doesn't ring true to me. That may be true in Japan where they literally couldn't give two shits about apologizing for their empire days. But even American students get a view of the British Empire as an achievement but one that was more on the evil side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/06/2020 at 10:08 PM, MillionsOfSpiders said:

The UK doesn’t want to face its colonial past - when I was at school the history of the British Empire was taught like it was all good for everyone and a massive achievement. 

It was though. Until the slave business dried up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

The product of British's education system.

She's a leading London activist and local police advisory committee member.

 

Yeah, us "British's" should really be ashamed of our education system. :lol: 

Edited by Dazey
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Yeah, us "British's" should really be ashamed of our education system. :lol: 

There is no "British" education system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Graeme said:

There is no "British" education system.

No American one either if Silent Jay is to be held up as an example. :lol: 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, soon said:

Well, also there no country called America. So... yeah :lol:

 

Piss off you fucking hippy! :lol: 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Piss off you fucking hippy! :lol: 

Hahaha, you're married into a Mexican family, in my experience they're generally not fans of the United States being called "America" :P .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/06/2020 at 9:07 PM, MillionsOfSpiders said:

Yes. Morons who turned up to defend the cenotaph against BLM and are pissed off they weren’t allowed through by police so started on them. 

The football lads out for trouble because they’ve nothing better to do. 

You’d think they’d be on the copperses side, I mean they’re there to protect the statues too more or less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

That doesn't ring true to me. That may be true in Japan where they literally couldn't give two shits about apologizing for their empire days. But even American students get a view of the British Empire as an achievement but one that was more on the evil side.

Yeah, I don’t find it to be true at all, I did my GCSEs in the late 90s and they were teaching about India and Gandhi was like the hero of the piece, if anything it was kinda weighted in favour of the Indians seeking independence, though it did speak of benefits of British Rule, certain judicial/infrastructure benefits etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

People  who say they hate Nazis,deface a guy who took down the actual Nazis and prevented them from speaking German.:lol: 

Congrats Lefties you played yourself.

 

 

 

 

Fck the lefties.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

People  who say they hate Nazis,deface a guy who took down the actual Nazis and prevented them from speaking German.:lol: 

Congrats Lefties you played yourself.

Yeah, it's almost as bad as people "defending" Churchill's statue whist giving Nazi salutes to the police. :lol:  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

People  who say they hate Nazis,deface a guy who took down the actual Nazis and prevented them from speaking German.:lol: 

Congrats Lefties you played yourself.

 

The argument is that his role as wartime Prime Minister is used to present him as a shining paragon of virtue that nobody can question - despite him expressing some pretty abhorrent views on racial superiority/inferiority that really aren't too different to those of the Nazis:

e.g.

“I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

“I hate Indians…they are beastly people with a beastly religion.”

"The Aryan stock is bound to triumph."

It's not exactly ideologically inconsistent that people who hate the Nazis' views on race and eugenics would also be against the ideas expressed above and would reach the conclusion that Churchill opposed the Nazis mainly to defend Britain's independence, rather than because he was a great egalitarian who was morally offended by their classification of non-Aryans as "untermensch".

As such, it's entirely possible to hate what the Nazis stood for and to be equally critical of Churchill's views on race and his role in colonialism.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

People  who say they hate Nazis,deface a guy who took down the actual Nazis and prevented them from speaking German.

Typical right wing gobshite. You lot are always at it with the “you’d all be speaking German” waffle. Is it actually Nazi Germany you have a problem with or simply an aversion to having to learn a second language? :lol:

 

 

Edited by Dazey
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Graeme said:

The argument is that his role as wartime Prime Minister is used to present him as a shining paragon of virtue that nobody can question - despite him expressing some pretty abhorrent views on racial superiority/inferiority that really aren't too different to those of the Nazis:

e.g.

“I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

“I hate Indians…they are beastly people with a beastly religion.”

"The Aryan stock is bound to triumph."

It's not exactly ideologically inconsistent that people who hate the Nazis' views on race and eugenics would also be against the ideas expressed above and would reach the conclusion that Churchill opposed the Nazis mainly to defend Britain's independence, rather than because he was a great egalitarian who was morally offended by their classification of non-Aryans as "untermensch".

As such, it's entirely possible to hate what the Nazis stood for and to be equally critical of Churchill's views on race and his role in colonialism.

Agree but the lefties also want to see the evil only.  He was still a product of his time everyone is flawed. But Churchill saved Europe  and England from utter destruction and domination by the Nazis.

12 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Typical right wing gobshite. You lot are always at it with the “you’d all be speaking German” waffle. Is it actually Nazi Germany you have a problem with or simply an aversion to having to learn a second language? :lol:

 

 

Well yes if you know anything about Nazis they were intolerant to anyone who wasn't an Aryan and German.

Edited by Gibsonfender2323
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Agree but the lefties also want to see the evil only.  He was still a product of his time everyone is flawed. But Churchill saved Europe  and England from utter destruction and domination by the Nazis.

Typically in the history classroom and the media we hear nothing but the 'great leader who defeated the Nazis' bit - I think it's fair that attention gets drawn to the other side of him too, and if that means knocking him off his pedestal (as it were) then so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...