Turn on thread page Beta

Churchill, a British Hero? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    From what you've quoted I wouldn't say he sounds racist - but there is a nasty eugenic streak displayed in those quotes which I personally believe to be far worse, it's not so much about being prejudiced against other/certain races but placing value judgements on peoples right to exist/life based on a very subjective view point (albeit a common way of thinking back in the times quoted...even now eugenics is still approved of and actively pursued by some people :spit: )
    based on the context, there is no reason to believe Churchill held vastly different opinions to the men of his time. history took its course and Churchill proved himself to be a man at the heart of that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    take up history. there is no racism, and your views on European history is unsuprisingly onesided. but that was after all the very intent of the thread.
    You didn't answer the post, just a declaration that I take up history. Seeing as though you know absolutely nothing about me, you are in no position to comment on that.

    It wasn't one sided, I quote:

    "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! "

    There was no racism, it simply didn't exist, right?

    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.

    Although you could just address the previous post in it's entirety.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    You didn't answer the post, just a declaration that I take up history. Seeing as though you know absolutely nothing about me, you are in no position to comment on that.
    dont kid yourself. i doubt you have either any sufficient experience of European history from personal sources or from the failed education system.

    It wasn't one sided, I quote:

    "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! "
    see my point above.

    There was no racism, it simply didn't exist, right?

    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.

    Although you could just address the previous post in it's entirety.
    many would agree with the point he raises, i would. no matter what happened, he is merely pointing out that it is folly to regret the developments of man and the events of history that have led us to our present states. that is a view taken by most historians and politicians today.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    based on the context, there is no reason to believe Churchill held vastly different opinions to the men of his time.
    Like I said "albeit a common way of thinking back in the times quoted".

    I'm afraid I don't find that a valid excuse - the opinions expressed are still irrational and abhorrant.

    Although at the same time I wouldn't say that holding those opinions lessens his achievements, he did do some good things regardless of the motivation behind his actions.

    I agree with JS though that before words like hero get bandied around *all* aspects of a persons achievements and personality should be taken into account - good and bad. I personally don't understand hero worship, no person is perfect and to idolise someone living or dead requires a very thick pair of rose tinted glasses. I prefer not to delude myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Like I said "albeit a common way of thinking back in the times quoted".

    I'm afraid I don't find that a valid excuse - the opinions expressed are still irrational and abhorrant.

    Although at the same time I wouldn't say that holding those opinions lessens his achievements, he did do some good things regardless of the motivation behind his actions.

    I agree with JS though that before words like hero get bandied around *all* aspects of a persons achievements and personality should be taken into account - good and bad. I personally don't understand hero worship, no person is perfect and to idolise someone living or dead requires a very thick pair of rose tinted glasses. I prefer not to delude myself.
    his opinions regarding some societies being better than others? the distinction between civilisations?

    you deem those opinions to be irrational and abhorrant, based on your contemporary value system, reducing Churchill and everyone before your generation to your values. is that not disrespectful and irrational in itself?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    based on the context, there is no reason to believe Churchill held vastly different opinions to the men of his time. history took its course and Churchill proved himself to be a man at the heart of that.

    It's probably true that his views weren't 'vastly different' from his contemporaries. Really depends on how much weight one assigns on the word 'vastly', and just how bigoted one considers the British of that era as being. However, a sign of greatness is to be ahead of your time, to not carry the prejudcies of your collegues and countrymen, or to do so to at least a lesser extent. If that's the criterion, Churchill fails.

    Also, you've stated that my views on Euro History are 'unsurprisingly' one-sided. As I've stated, I disagree on this. Of course you do not know my views on 'European History', you only know what I have stated within the confines of a few messages on this board. Furthermore, I'm curious as to how you can be unsurprised or even surprised by my views. One is surprised at behaviour when it's a deviation from the past, and unsurprised if it's a continuation, for you to be either you must have a very good amount of my past. Have you been investigating me?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    It's probably true that his views weren't 'vastly different' from his contemporaries. Really depends on how much weight one assigns on the word 'vastly', and just how bigoted one considers the British of that era as being.
    in relation to what? compared to?

    However, a sign of greatness is to be ahead of your time, to not carry the prejudcies of your collegues and countrymen, or to do so to at least a lesser extent. If that's the criterion, Churchill fails.
    that is not the criterion.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    his opinions regarding some societies being better than others? the distinction between civilisations?
    Yes - better is a value judgement...society and civilisations cannot be quantified or defined to place one above the other and present that opinion as fact I find deplorable.

    you deem those opinions to be irrational and abhorrant, based on your contemporary value system, reducing Churchill and everyone before your generation to your values. is that not disrespectful and irrational in itself?
    The idea that any person is qualified to make a value judgement on another persons right to life i deem irrational, otherwise intelligent people who think it wise to make those judgements I find abhorrant.

    Of course like every opinion mine subjective, but then my opinion will never be used as the rationale behind a holocaust.

    I reduce noone to my values but I refuse to accept that "everyone else was doing it so why can't I" is a valid excuse for holding irrational opinions.

    The principles of eugenics are misplaced and destructive, reducing the gene pool and deciding that some genes are "better" than others is foolish from any time point and likely to end in destruction short term and long term.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    in relation to what? compared to?



    that is not the criterion.
    That is my criterion, that's if it's ok with you. Incidentally, about being unsurprised, there doesn't seem to be a response. As for in relation to whom, you answered that yourself. I quote "is no reason to believe Churchill held vastly different opinions to the men of his time", in relation to 'men of his time'. As for what you meant my 'vastly different', that's just subjective. You see, as this point you made supports, he was a man of his time, no more. He was not someone ahead of his time, that's for sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)

    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.
    He really said that!?

    It is sad that they turn away ships with persecuted asylum seekers, and at the same time repress the native people of the country their ancestors colonised (they still do so in less obvious ways).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    deciding that some genes are "better" than others is foolish from any time point
    despite being the fundamental point of life on planet earth...?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    That is my criterion, that's if it's ok with you. Incidentally, about being unsurprised, there doesn't seem to be a response. As for in relation to whom, you answered that yourself. I quote "is no reason to believe Churchill held vastly different opinions to the men of his time", in relation to 'men of his time'. As for what you meant my 'vastly different', that's just subjective. You see, as this point you made supports, he was a man of his time, no more. He was not someone ahead of his time, that's for sure.
    so we've reduced racism to 'not ahead of his time'...that'll do for me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Yes - better is a value judgement...society and civilisations cannot be quantified or defined to place one above the other and present that opinion as fact I find deplorable.


    The idea that any person is qualified to make a value judgement on another persons right to life i deem irrational, otherwise intelligent people who think it wise to make those judgements I find abhorrant.
    you are in the very small, and some would say, wrong, minority. i know its always nice to take the moral high ground and win some equality brownie points but it doesnt really wash at this level.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    despite being the fundamental point of life on planet earth...?
    Evolution isn't about *better* it's about adaption and niches...and human beings stopped evolving millenia ago (and I would argue that there is no fundamental point to life on planet earth - just a succession of chances to presume a point is presumptuous whether you believe in god or not).

    "We wiped out you're civilisation so therefore we have a greater right to exist" is hardly demonstrating your society to be better only stronger - unless you think that stronger/aggressive==better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He was not someone ahead of his time, that's for sure. - J.S.

    Originally Posted by J.S.

    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

    Its called social Darwinism and it was believed in at the time and still holds partially true today. It is possible to argue that certain civilisations beniffited from colonialism as some have a higher survival rate now. It is regretable that whole cultures and ways of life have been eradicated but that happens. Who lambasts William the Conqueror for amalgamating the Anglo Saxons with the French.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Evolution isn't about *better* it's about adaption and niches...and human beings stopped evolving millenia ago (and I would argue that there is no fundamental point to life on planet earth - just a succession of chances to presume a point is presumptuous whether you believe in god or not).

    "We wiped out you're civilisation so therefore we have a greater right to exist" is hardly demonstrating your society to be better only stronger - unless you think that stronger/aggressive==better.
    evolution is precisely about being better. you exist by being better than your neighbour, that principle holds from micro-organisms to mammals. dont bring metaphysics into this.

    a civilisation acquired strength because it had political, social and technologically superiority. there is no question of rights, it is a question of the the facts of history and accepting what happened. you are in a position to say it cannot be right, but Churchill cannot say it was not wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    He was not someone ahead of his time, that's for sure. - J.S.

    Originally Posted by J.S.

    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

    Its called social Darwinism and it was believed in at the time and still holds partially true today. It is possible to argue that certain civilisations beniffited from colonialism as some have a higher survival rate now. It is regretable that whole cultures and ways of life have been eradicated but that happens. Who lambasts William the Conqueror for amalgamating the Anglo Saxons with the French.
    i agree. we must respect that past, since it has given us what we now experience.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    evolution is precisely about being better.
    If that is what you base your arguement on then there is no point in arguing as you have completely missed the point of evolution (honestly - trust me on this I had to study the bloody process for 4 years).
    a civilisation acquired strength because it had political, social and technologically superiority. there is no question of rights
    You are the person who equated stronger with better - please don't try to move the goalposts
    you are in a position to say it cannot be right, but Churchill cannot say it was not wrong?
    I have made *no* judgement on the rightness or wrongness of past events...I have said that justifying past events using the misguided and ilogical reasoning of eugenics should not be forgotten when considering Churchill's character as a potential hero.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    If that is what you base your arguement on then there is no point in arguing as you have completely missed the point of evolution (honestly - trust me on this I had to study the bloody process for 4 years).
    forgive me for having read numerous books and formulating my own opinion. existence is about competing to be better than your neighbour not being better than the enemy.

    You are the person who equated stronger with better - please don't try to move the goalposts
    im not, you mentioned it. im saying that historical events, including war and defence are the sign of a strong society. weaker civilisations are generally less developed.

    I have made *no* judgement on the rightness or wrongness of past events...I have said that justifying past events using the misguided and ilogical reasoning of eugenics should not be forgotten when considering Churchill's character as a potential hero.
    but if your unwilling to make judgement then what difference does it ultimately make?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    forgive me for having read numerous books and formulating my own opinion. existence is about competing to be better than your neighbour not being better than the enemy.
    I forgive you - but I'm not going to argue with you - it's a waste of both of our time. IMO (and as I say I don't want to argue this I'm only stating so that you know exactly why I think arguement with you on this subject is pointless) existance isn't about competing - it's about adapting to a niche where competing is unecessary, and adapting out of that niche and into another one should circumstances change

    im not, you mentioned it. im saying that historical events, including war and defence are the sign of a strong society. weaker civilisations are generally less developed.
    (Original post by PQ)
    (Original post by vienna95)
    his opinions regarding some societies being better than others? the distinction between civilisations?
    Yes - better is a value judgement...society and civilisations cannot be quantified or defined to place one above the other and present that opinion as fact I find deplorable.
    You equated better with more powerful/stronger...as I say I do not believe something as complex as a person or a society can be quantified and deemed "better".

    And again you are equating "stronger" with "better". Stronger can be quantified - obviously the conquering society is always stronger. Better cannot - it is a value judgement.

    but if your unwilling to make judgement then what difference does it ultimately make?
    This is clever - if I judge then I'm guilty of judging if I don't I'm guilty of wasting your precious time ?

    I'm not judging past events - as you say it's hypocritical at the very least to judge - hindsight is always 20:20 etc etc.
    I am personally saying that I judge him on his opinions...specifically opinions which I feel are beneath him as an intelligent man and IMO make him (and everyone else who isn't perfect) unworthy of the title hero.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.