Don't Mention the War. Or Churchill.
Discussion
Tempting as it may be to some you can't blame this one on lefties, cucks, betas, SJWs, Irish history or any of the usual suspects getting upset.
This one was based on a mob from India getting upset over what they perceive as a historical wrong, apparently based on some revisionist (and utter b
ks) history that makes everything that ever happened the deliberate fault of those evil colonists. All used as a way of stirring political support. At least it makes a difference from the usual religious or caste based mob stirring, plus no-one got killed.
This one was based on a mob from India getting upset over what they perceive as a historical wrong, apparently based on some revisionist (and utter b
ks) history that makes everything that ever happened the deliberate fault of those evil colonists. All used as a way of stirring political support. At least it makes a difference from the usual religious or caste based mob stirring, plus no-one got killed. gregs656 said:
Why? Why shouldn’t that be part of the conversation?
It can be but if you're going to view history through a lens of modern sensibilities you must at least recognise that the moral orthodoxy evolves. Speaking without reference to Churchill, we might find for example, racist historical comments totally unacceptable, which in their day everyone who we were ever likely to meet would find hilarious. Was the person who said these horrible things evil? In absolute terms possibly, otherwise not unless everyone else was evil too. This kind of moral absolutism shows a lack of self awareness IMO; like we are somehow the moral pinnacle of civilisation. Future generations might be absolutely disgusted that we slaughter and eat billions of animals a year; almost everyone you admire today would be judged as immoral animal murdering sociopaths. Context is important.irocfan said:
Vaud said:
irocfan said:
Let's put it another way- imagine a timeline with no Churchill from 1938 onwards
By 2010 we would have had an overly powerful European superstate that overly controlled most aspects of 300M peoples rules, regulations and sought increased harmonization/standardization on many, many levels.Oh, wait a minute.
Jonesy23 said:
Tempting as it may be to some you can't blame this one on lefties, cucks, betas, SJWs, Irish history or any of the usual suspects getting upset.
This one was based on a mob from India getting upset over what they perceive as a historical wrong, apparently based on some revisionist (and utter bks) history that makes everything that ever happened the deliberate fault of those evil colonists. All used as a way of stirring political support. At least it makes a difference from the usual religious or caste based mob stirring, plus no-one got killed.
I have seen these ideas quite a bit. 'Churchill was a mass murderer'.This one was based on a mob from India getting upset over what they perceive as a historical wrong, apparently based on some revisionist (and utter b
ks) history that makes everything that ever happened the deliberate fault of those evil colonists. All used as a way of stirring political support. At least it makes a difference from the usual religious or caste based mob stirring, plus no-one got killed. When asked for any kind of 'evidence' or 'Proof', the default answer seems to be 'He hated Ghandi', as if that is good enough.
There are many with this warped sense of history. (And that includes many, as you might say, 'SJWs' in the UK)
FF
Eric Mc said:
Jockman said:
Do you really think they are in decline Eric? Tested for sure....
We don't know for sure yet. I am very concerned the way things are going.What has exacerbated this is the infancy of the internet and the fact that we are still learning how to use it properly.
Agreed.
Churchill spotted the dangers to democracy that were on the rise in the late 1920s and 1930s. My query is would he be expressing similar concerns if he was around today?
I'm sure back then someone could have argued "This is all cyclical and will sort itself out" too. They would have been right, it did sort itself out, but only after over 60 million people had died in the largest conflict the world has known.
Churchill spotted the dangers to democracy that were on the rise in the late 1920s and 1930s. My query is would he be expressing similar concerns if he was around today?
I'm sure back then someone could have argued "This is all cyclical and will sort itself out" too. They would have been right, it did sort itself out, but only after over 60 million people had died in the largest conflict the world has known.
Eric Mc said:
And I'm not a "sad old man" - your use of the phrase, of course, does show another tendency of social media for a discussion to degenerate into personal insults.
I think you need to take a look at your post count, especially all those you have directed at the minutia of what people have posted, in a vain attempt to correct everything on the internet, and realise, that like me, you are a sad old man. Please - don't get personal. I like posting on PH - does that make me "sad"?
I have no interest in my "post count" although others seem weirdly fascinated by it and can't stop themselves raising it as some sort of "weapon" to use against me.
If you want me to cease posting on PH, maybe I will. It does seem that an enthusiastic PHers is also a despised one. Strange or what.
As regards the topic of this thread, Churchill is an interesting subject. I like discussing Churchill. He's a fascinating character.
I have no interest in my "post count" although others seem weirdly fascinated by it and can't stop themselves raising it as some sort of "weapon" to use against me.
If you want me to cease posting on PH, maybe I will. It does seem that an enthusiastic PHers is also a despised one. Strange or what.
As regards the topic of this thread, Churchill is an interesting subject. I like discussing Churchill. He's a fascinating character.
Eric Mc said:
Agreed.
Churchill spotted the dangers to democracy that were on the rise in the late 1920s and 1930s. My query is would he be expressing similar concerns if he was around today?
I'm sure back then someone could have argued "This is all cyclical and will sort itself out" too. They would have been right, it did sort itself out, but only after over 60 million people had died in the largest conflict the world has known.
I wouldn’t be expanding the cycle to this extent Eric. Churchill spotted the dangers to democracy that were on the rise in the late 1920s and 1930s. My query is would he be expressing similar concerns if he was around today?
I'm sure back then someone could have argued "This is all cyclical and will sort itself out" too. They would have been right, it did sort itself out, but only after over 60 million people had died in the largest conflict the world has known.
Since those events an American president has been impeached and an entire system of government has collapsed resulting in the reunification of an important European country.
The nature of modern warfare has changed too. You no longer even need to be present to attack an enemy.
For these reasons I remain confident not to be unduly concerned.
Jockman said:
Eric Mc said:
Agreed.
Churchill spotted the dangers to democracy that were on the rise in the late 1920s and 1930s. My query is would he be expressing similar concerns if he was around today?
I'm sure back then someone could have argued "This is all cyclical and will sort itself out" too. They would have been right, it did sort itself out, but only after over 60 million people had died in the largest conflict the world has known.
I wouldn’t be expanding the cycle to this extent Eric. Churchill spotted the dangers to democracy that were on the rise in the late 1920s and 1930s. My query is would he be expressing similar concerns if he was around today?
I'm sure back then someone could have argued "This is all cyclical and will sort itself out" too. They would have been right, it did sort itself out, but only after over 60 million people had died in the largest conflict the world has known.
Since those events an American president has been impeached and an entire system of government has collapsed resulting in the reunification of an important European country.
The nature of modern warfare has changed too. You no longer even need to be present to attack an enemy.
For these reasons I remain confident not to be unduly concerned.
As far as I'm aware the reprehensible orange man has not made any attempt to fundamentally change the constitution or abolish rival political parties. Yes, his actions and policies leave a lot to be desired, but ultimately he has, at best, 6 years remaining in office (and hopefully only 2). And so ultimately (and hopefully) he'll only be a minor blip in history.
Jonesy23 said:
Tempting as it may be to some you can't blame this one on lefties, cucks, betas, SJWs, Irish history or any of the usual suspects getting upset.
This one was based on a mob from India getting upset over what they perceive as a historical wrong, apparently based on some revisionist (and utter bks) history that makes everything that ever happened the deliberate fault of those evil colonists. All used as a way of stirring political support. At least it makes a difference from the usual religious or caste based mob stirring, plus no-one got killed.
Mate, there's lots of us from former British colonies who saw what a racket the whole thing was and live with the consequences daily. Get the resources, get troops for the next war, stuff the natives. All empires are like that. Nothing unique to the British one.This one was based on a mob from India getting upset over what they perceive as a historical wrong, apparently based on some revisionist (and utter b
ks) history that makes everything that ever happened the deliberate fault of those evil colonists. All used as a way of stirring political support. At least it makes a difference from the usual religious or caste based mob stirring, plus no-one got killed. B210bandit said:
Mate, there's lots of us from former British colonies who saw what a racket the whole thing was and live with the consequences daily. Get the resources, get troops for the next war, stuff the natives. All empires are like that. Nothing unique to the British one.
And then partition to cause long term civil war?I am reminded of Yes Minister:
This bother about St George's Island is getting to be a bore.
-We made the real mistake giving them their independence.
Wasn't that right? Wind of change and all?
-Yes, but not that way. We should have partitioned the island.
Like we did in India, Cyprus and Palestine? And Ireland?
-Yes, that was our invariable practice with the colonies. It always worked.
But didn't partition always lead to civil war?
As in India, Cyprus, Palestine and Ireland.
- Yes, but it kept them busy.
Instead of fighting other people, they fought each other.
-Yes, rather good. Saved us having a policy.
Vaud said:
Zetec-S said:
Yes, his actions and policies leave a lot to be desired, but ultimately he has, at best, 6 years remaining in office (and hopefully only 2).
Up to 7. Elections in Nov 2020 (with inauguration in Jan 2021), and then Nov 2025.
Surely the election would be Nov 2024 and inauguration in Jan 2025. So 6 years, 3 months...
B210bandit said:
Mate, there's lots of us from former British colonies who saw what a racket the whole thing was and live with the consequences daily. Get the resources, get troops for the next war, stuff the natives. All empires are like that. Nothing unique to the British one.
Colonial rule under, say, the Portuguese was a lot different to the British rule which in turn was different to the French or German models. As far as empires go you’re probably not far off the mark though I’m glad you left out religion.
Jockman said:
B210bandit said:
Mate, there's lots of us from former British colonies who saw what a racket the whole thing was and live with the consequences daily. Get the resources, get troops for the next war, stuff the natives. All empires are like that. Nothing unique to the British one.
Colonial rule under, say, the Portuguese was a lot different to the British rule which in turn was different to the French or German models. As far as empires go you’re probably not far off the mark though I’m glad you left out religion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff