Churchill, a British Hero?

i think you have to be a confused person to mix up nationality with race..

You told me a couple of weeks ago that race, nationality and culture were inextricable.

Funny, that.

yes, since i all identified them as three seperate things that were inextricable.

Ethnic origin can be distinct from nationality, a passport is a mere legal document confirming only the latter. This was pointed out earlier. Also, I really would like for you to explain to me who these people are you referred to earlier? The Indians who wouldn't appreciate that very much, that is. I know the language and culture at least as well as an educated native. So, do explain?? I'm particularly interested as I've never encountered people who would 'not appreciate' what I had said, and I've er...some across a fair few Indians in my time, from a very diverse range!

Incidentally, the post was not intended as a wind up.

probably best not to admit that.

so your Indian and British? i know a few Indians who wouldnt appreciate that too much.

if they're inextricable (an obvious fallacy in itself) then why on earth make a big deal out of whether discrimination is based on one or the other?

very strange.

Vienna, You didn't elaborate on your earlier comment, about those particular Indians not appreciating very much...then again you have ignored all else too, so at the very least it's consistent. Incidentally, the post was not intended as a wind up.

There were many other sources available that quoted Churchill, however, I used the Guardian deliberately. I knew you'd reply to the post and also it was quite clear that rather than address the content itself, you would dismiss is on the grounds that it was found within the pages of the Guardian. It's the paper quoting the great man himself, rather than an editorial This of course is why people consider you to be narrow minded. Nice empirical experiment! Very amusing, very predictable

where did i dismiss this as it being nonsense based on the fact it was in the Guardian? it was clear they were quotes, of which there was very little to suggest that he was racist. it was alot of accusation over some very old quotations taken out of context.

what has seeing the value of these quotations got to do with being narrow minded? you have different ideas so naturally im the narrow minded one..now that is consistent and naturally, predictable.

what exactly was your hypothesis in this 'ingenious' experiment of yours, other than proving the pathetic depths to which you would go to get a quick kick out deliberately staging arguments against me...

what does that mean?

read the post it quotes.

where did i dismiss this as it being nonsense based on the fact it was in the Guardian? it was clear they were quotes, of which there was very little to suggest that he was racist. it was alot of accusation over some very old quotations taken out of context.

what has seeing the value of these quotations got to do with being narrow minded? you have different ideas so naturally im the narrow minded one..now that is consistent and naturally, predictable.

what exactly was your hypothesis in this 'ingenious' experiment of yours, other than proving the pathetic depths to which you would go to get a quick kick out of deliberately staging arguments against me...

It's narrow minded not because it differs from mine, there are very many sophisticated people with well thought out views that differ from mine, it's narrow minded indepedent of that.

Replies by anyone else would also be welcome. I'm very curious.

(V)"thrifty, energetic and superior stocks". at the beginning of the 20th century there was a massive divide in power between the nobility and the working class. the liberals who came into power in those first few years of that century were implementing all manner of reform to redistribute this wealth and power. Churchill in writing to Asquith, a personal letter, clearly saw that it was this nobility and the structure of the patriarchal political system of which the monarchy was the figurehead, that had not only defined the British from the other colonial powers but had actually given Britain its strength during the time of the empire, a time which Churchill felt was obviously coming to an end. hence is mention of the feeble classes and the fact that he believed certain families and 'stocks' were better suited to run the country. Reform would as many feel now constitute a threat to the nation and the British 'race' as Churchill puts it.

You've really underplayed what he's said in a major way. The claim isn't that he believed certain families and 'stocks' (i.e. descendants of a common ancestor) were merely better suited to run the country at all. Why not look at the quote, they are deemed to be feeble minded and insane, their proliferation is 'unnatural'. Due to these characteristics, they constitute a ‘race danger’. It's not about leadership of a country, he is stating that this stream of madness be 'cut off'. This is far stronger than suggesting that they’re merely not suited to lead the country, your claim is preposterous! I didn’t think we had to ‘cut off’ the stream of the inferior stock of people that were not leadership material in any given country, so I do not see how you believe this is what Churchill had actually meant. He is openly implying that certain inferior people have proliferated and that this ought to be prevented. I am assume these people have continued their ‘rapid growth’ after Churchill’s death, so who/where are they now? This works on the same level as racism, infact the narrow-mindedness here is even greater. According to Churchill there are superior categories, or superior stock even within ‘his own’ people, what chance have all others?

Well, the answer to this isn’t so far away either…

Lets again qute the Great Man: I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place.

So for Churchill not only were the people that brutalised, tortured and raped these groups of their livelihood superior, but there were also superior people amongst them too!


(V)colonisation came about because of the differences between civilisations. many of the colonised lands were severely under developed in comparison with their European counterparts and many of these countries and peoples benefited from colonisation.

Yes, and as a consequence they are all well developed now, lets all thank the British Empire for this. Ever been to the British Museum and wondered why in the hell it's called the 'British Museum' when it predominantly contains goods stolen from its former colonies? Was that how the British sought to 'develop' their colonies, or was that 'payment' in return for British 'services' i.e. the massacre in Amritsar? It could only be that your definition of 'benefit' radically differs from what I had in mind. Infact, I would be quite interested to hear more about this.


(V) in much the same way as we refer to africa being underdeveloped today, these countries were seen as 'inferior' for having drastically feeble economic, political and social structures. the term uncivilised was common at that time because it had been so appropriate since European man had brought civilised society to the world.


If 'inferior' and 'underdeveloped' essentially mean the same thing, we do we not use the two interchangeably in this day and age? The two do not mean the same thing, and I cannot see how they ever did. People of that age meant something entirely different by 'inferior' as opposed to what Amartya Sen talks about in development discourse.

The claim that European man has bought cilivilised society to the world is perhaps the most absurd comment I shall face, that is until your next posting, I am sure. If that is the commonly held view of British people, it's depressing. So, through the Holocaust, the Russian Revolution and it's reign of terror thereafter, it's colonial endeavours, the massacres that followed, the slave trade, it's butchering of indigenous tribes across the continents, European man set an example to the rest of weaker, lower grade races (you may be aware as to where I got that latter part from). Incidentally, I am not claiming that atrocities of comparable nature have not been committed by non Europeans, it's just I fail to see how the Europeans bought civil society to the rest of the world, it's not as though they're any worse, but they're certainly no better!


(V)David Davis advocates the death penalty in the 21st century and you are deeming Churchill evil because he suggests that gas may be the best option of defence some 100 years earlier, he was certainly a practical man. a little sensationalist, bearing in mind what practices were taking place at the same time, elsewhere in the world.

Firstly, the premise of the argument is pathetic. Lets see, if David Davis is advocating the death penalty in the 21st century, then poisonous gas was justifed in Churchill's era? He is talking of the gassing of uncivilised tribes. Now, you've stated that this is a form of self defence. If that's your argument, then he's not talking of bringing the death penalty to those who have been tried and convicted as criminals (not that I agree with David Davis anyway). Infact, he's talking of a tribe, of course he MUST be a tribe of criminals that have received 'British justice'. Perhaps he's referring to low grade types that belong to the colonies, the sort of people to whom European man needs to bring civilisation.

I think I may have missed your reasoning here, it has after all been a long day. Well, at the very least a certain US sponsored then Iraqi dictator agreed on that. Well, it would seem as though he's in good company.