The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Left-wing activists storm "racist" Churchill-themed cafe

Sources:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5444978/boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn-winston-churchill-blighty-cafe-finsbury-park/

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/29/winston-churchill-themed-cafe-stormed-by-left-wing-protesters-7270147/

SOAS SU (one of the protestors is a officer of the SU) releases statement in solidarity with the protestors:

https://soasunion.org/news/article/6013/You-will-never-make-colonialism-palatable/

Views?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Wōden
Wōden
15
The protesters are utterly pathetic and really ought to be doing something better with their time than attacking a harmless, British themed cafe.
Wow.

Churchill massively contributes to Britain winning WW2, only for the "tolerant" left to do this.

Uneducated idiots.
'Stormed'. Lol.
Cringe.
Let's be honest, Churchill was a massive racist, and his continued veneration into 2018 is nothing short of embarrassing.
Reply 6
Avatar for iodo345
iodo345
20
Left wing indoctrinated uni students with worthless degrees
Reply 7
Avatar for gjd800
gjd800
20
Their definition of 'storm' is apparently different to mine.
Reply 8
Avatar for Dez
Dez
20
Churchill hardly lead a blameless life, then again I doubt the cafe decor includes a monument to the Bengal famine. Protest is one thing but vandalising and terrorising staff is obviously beyond the pale.
These silly, vapid, attention seeking little kids would be speaking German, and unable to protest about anything without ending up in a concentration camp, but for Churchill.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Let's be honest, Churchill was a massive racist, and his continued veneration into 2018 is nothing short of embarrassing.


So what do you think we should do with all these enormous figures from history who had what are by modern standards character flaws?

Do you think they should be acknowledged at all, primarily understood in the context of their achievements, or of their flaws?
Original post by Iridocyclitis

SOAS SU (one of the protestors is a officer of the SU) releases statement in solidarity with the protestors:

https://soasunion.org/news/article/6013/You-will-never-make-colonialism-palatable/

Views?


Then shut down SOAS. SOAS is just about the most Imperialistic and Colonialist institution in the country. It came about to provide education for people who were going to go out and run the Empire. Why take down a couple of statues when you can take down the whole university?



Let's face it, SOAS Union only exists to be a cosplay of student radicals. They look back on students from previous generations who protested about the bomb, Vietnam, Mrs Thatcher and just about everything else - and they want to continue that tradition. But they're so self-absorbed and so hypocritical (much more than previous iterations) that they have no clue what they're doing - so they just end up being a tribute act - a karaoke of protest.

This latest Churchill thing happens. It's dumb, it's ridiculous and part of me is extremely suspicious that it might be a marketing stunt - but what does SOAS Union do? Issue a statement of solidarity.

I mean - wow. If these Imperialist cafes keep stepping up their oppression, in a few months time, they might be writing an open letter. Then we'd really have trouble.
Original post by Trinculo
So what do you think we should do with all these enormous figures from history who had what are by modern standards character flaws?

Do you think they should be acknowledged at all, primarily understood in the context of their achievements, or of their flaws?


To "understand" Churchill, as you say, you'd need to learn about his deep racism.

Churchill didn't lead us against Nazi Germany out of any disgust of Nazism. Why don't we celebrate people who actually did? It isn't like there aren't many of them to choose from.
As far as I know all these left-wing idiots should be rounded up and thrown in prison for a good 7 years, none needs people with an IQ below 50 around them.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 14
Avatar for Ezra98
Ezra98
1
Churchill made a mistake going to war with Germany
Original post by AngeryPenguin
To "understand" Churchill, as you say, you'd need to learn about his deep racism.

Churchill didn't lead us against Nazi Germany out of any disgust of Nazism. Why don't we celebrate people who actually did? It isn't like there aren't many of them to choose from.


Who cares? What you need to know about Churchill is that he was our PM in a time when we fought against annihilation. An actual existential crisis, where everyone in Britain could have been killed or enslaved - not a modern existential crisis like a few quid less for the NHS.

Is Churchill's background relevant? Not really unless you are studying him really deeply. It doesn't excuse what he did or thought - but it just has no real substance.

Like Gandhi. He was an awful racist - but no one cares. We know about Gandhi in the context of Indian Independence and non-violent protest. That's his schtick - his racism isn't really relevant to how we understand him.
That cafe owner has committed an atrocity.

:

:

:

The cafe’s signature dish is ‘The Winston’ – a traditional full English breakfast with Cumberland sausage and Yorkshire black pudding.
Original post by Iridocyclitis


Complete idiots. The man is a hero, for he went to a war against the most racist and violent state in the modern history (if not ever), and before then, he opposed cruelty towards the Boers.

Original post by AngeryPenguin
To "understand" Churchill, as you say, you'd need to learn about his deep racism. Churchill didn't lead us against Nazi Germany out of any disgust of Nazism. Why don't we celebrate people who actually did? It isn't like there aren't many of them to choose from.


You seem to completely ignore the era in which Churchill lived. In comparison to other politicians, Churchill was much more tolerable by modern standards. He publicized and criticised cruel treatment of Boers in British POW camps, which already places him over the average standard of the era.
He also decided that Britain must give a stand to IIIrd Reich. Whatever motivations, the man did more to fight racism than these kids will probably do in their entire life.
Original post by Trinculo
So what do you think we should do with all these enormous figures from history who had what are by modern standards character flaws?

Do you think they should be acknowledged at all, primarily understood in the context of their achievements, or of their flaws?


In general I think using modern values to lay judgement on historical figures, or to judge their moral character at all, is a pointless exercise.

Churchill believed in a racial hierarchy and eugenics. Ford was a raging antisemite. Gandhi was a sexual deviant who did questionable things with children.

These flaws don't undermine their achievements, nor do their achievements necessarily mean they're upstanding human beings in every respect. History should primarily be about the study of ideas and forces and events, not about individuals.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
To "understand" Churchill, as you say, you'd need to learn about his deep racism.



Everyone born in 1874 was racist. So what?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you