Churchill's Secret Apartheid

theworriedwell

M0nica

You cannot past judgement on a past time by the standards we have now. Slavery is abhorrent to us now - and was to many people at the time. Racism is abhorrent to us now. It was not in the past for so many reasons. That is just how it was.

Expressing moral outrage now about how people behaved in the past is ridiculous. Where does it stop? Anglo-Saxon child slaves were sold in the slave markets in Rome. uman sacrifices permeate every culture at some point.

That was then. This is now, Get over it.

Where does the past start? Yesterday? Was racism OK then? The 1940s is not comparable to the Anglo Saxon period, people are still alive who were subjected to racism in the 1940s, history to you but living memory to them.

As to "That is just how it was." Only for some, not everyone was a racist.

Was just going to write this. We are talking about very recent history, our parents generation, and for many, our own. And as for Apartheid in South Africa, VERY very recent history- our own ACs generation. In our case, my OH's family history and the reason they left for the UK in 1948.

In the 1960s I worked and socialised with people from Asia, and the Caribbean and I saw and heard the grossly offensive words and actions they were subject to and the dreadful living conditions they lived in.

The fact that some people were not racist then does, not conflict with the knowledge and experience that society as a whole then was institutionally racist and that ran throughout society. The experience of racism that people experienced came from ordinary people on the street, in hospitals, shops, factories, the police, landlords. The immigrant population had little or no contact with the higher echelons of society, so didn't need to worry about their racism.

I am half Irish and before the commonwealth immigrants, which nearly all were in the 1960s, it was the Irish immigrants who filled the place at the bottom of society and were treated with exactly the same contempt and discriminated against in just the same way. My mother can remember signs saying 'No Irish, no children, no dogs' .

My mother was fortunate, her mother, with an obviously Irish surname had the sense to marry a man whose surname was thoroughly English, so she was spared the gratutious insults thrown at Irish people as her name did not give her away.

Right now, you, and I and others on GN and in the country espouse views and attitudes that will disgust people alive 100 years from now. Views we thoughtfully and consciously see no harm in or believe to be virtuous, I do not know what they are - and neither does anyone else, but right thinking as we think we are, to our descendents we will be very wrong thinking. It bears giving some consideration to.

Nannarose, your family history sounds similar to mine. We had the Rochdale pioneers and co-op to influence mill workers
Cotton workers in the north west refused to work slave picked cotton
They supported Ghandi when he came to talk about the poverty of cotton workers in India.
A small town in the north west has its market hall with the image of a freed slave who came to explain the horrors to people here

Viewing the past through today's eyes is always a bit of a grey area. However, we also know that many people and their ideas & views are 'hidden from history'.
My father (born 100 years ago) would pull up anyone who showed signs of what he called 'prejudice' or any derogatory words for people of colour, or women. He was from an ordinary working class background.
My great-grandparents and their (grand)parents, through the Co-operative and Socialist movements condemned slavery and Empire. Some of them were illiterate, but they knew right from wrong.
I might accept that several hundred years ago, things were different; but I think that if ordinary working people 200 years ago (my knowledge of my family goes back that far) knew judging people by the colour of their skin was wrong, then I rather think that the ruling class should have had an inkling.

M0nica

You cannot past judgement on a past time by the standards we have now. Slavery is abhorrent to us now - and was to many people at the time. Racism is abhorrent to us now. It was not in the past for so many reasons. That is just how it was.

Expressing moral outrage now about how people behaved in the past is ridiculous. Where does it stop? Anglo-Saxon child slaves were sold in the slave markets in Rome. uman sacrifices permeate every culture at some point.

That was then. This is now, Get over it.

Where does the past start? Yesterday? Was racism OK then? The 1940s is not comparable to the Anglo Saxon period, people are still alive who were subjected to racism in the 1940s, history to you but living memory to them.

As to "That is just how it was." Only for some, not everyone was a racist.

David49

“Do you seriously think we'd have just surrendered without Churchill?”

Without doubt if it hadnt been for Churchills leadership Britain would have surrendered or at least been neutral, whatever that would have involved in practice. We stood alone and fought on against the odds, many wanted to give in but it was Churchill that persuaded Britain to fight.

As for racism, yes it was much more prevalent, 60 yrs ago all sorts of discrimination was normalized, it doesn’t diminish Churchills legacy, he is easily the most significant Briton of the 20th century.

Total rubbish. For a kick off we did not stand alone, are you seriously suggesting that the British singlehandedly won the war? Have a look at the casualty rates for other countries, you could start with countries that are now in the Commonwealth then British colonies. I think my Polish uncle who fought with the Free Polish at Monte Casino would take exception with that, so would my Canadian FIL, as the war went on the numbers grew. Churchill wasn't leading them all.

Churchill was a war time leader, one of many, it does not excuse his racism.

👏👏👏

We should learn from history and try not to repeat it.

Sadly, slavery still goes on today.

You cannot past judgement on a past time by the standards we have now. Slavery is abhorrent to us now - and was to many people at the time. Racism is abhorrent to us now. It was not in the past for so many reasons. That is just how it was.

Expressing moral outrage now about how people behaved in the past is ridiculous. Where does it stop? Anglo-Saxon child slaves were sold in the slave markets in Rome. uman sacrifices permeate every culture at some point.

That was then. This is now, Get over it.

Oh dear.
My turn.

Doodledog

Allira

Doodledog

I don't understand how criticising Churchill's racism, sexism and classism is remotely conflicted with appreciating his leadership or being grateful to those who fought to save us from the far right nightmare of Nazism. Can someone please explain, as I have asked twice to no avail?

If you don't understand therd is no other way of explaining.

Why not? I'm not an idiot. If someone tries to explain I will try to understand - I usually do understand what is explained in English, even if I don't agree with it.

If you don't understand that people can be a mixture of good and bad traits, and we can admire the good ones whilst criticising the bad, am I wasting my time trying to explain that to you?

This is the 'rude remark verging on a personal attack' to which you refer.

You responded with an arrogant 'Whatever' and a shrug, and are now saying that it is 'best to brush [the comment] off.

I responded in kind to your remark that I am hard of understanding. I was polite, not personal, and pointed out that it is perfectly possible to make a case, if you have a case to make. Clearly you don't.

Fair enough, but please do not accuse me of being rude or personal by being rude and personal yourself?

I was neither. I will leave others to judge your response.

Ever read 'Mudbound' to see what happened to heroes when they returned to the USA. Black ones.

Could Churchill influence USA home politics?

It's easy for people to be critical of Churchill and the UK if your country was not involved in fighting Hitler and the Nazis.

Fleurpepper

Allira

🤷‍♀️
Whatever

Are you a teenager? How rude!

How else to answer rude comments verging on personal attacks?

Best to brush them off.

Iam64

Yes paddyann we are all familiar with your feelings about Churchill and by extension, The English

Well said.

Fleurpepper

Churchhill was not a nice man. He took an enormous gamble and won- but could easily have lost too.

Ever read 'Mudbound' to see what happened to heroes when they returned to the USA. Black ones. The norm? So that makes it alright then. The norm to be antisemite too- like in Germany or some parts of UK with Moseley. The norm?

Yes but Churchill did win, the big risk withe making peace with Hitler was betrayal, as Russia found out, his word was not to be trusted. With Britain as an ally the Third Reich could still rule Europe today, there would have been no way for Europe to be liberated.

Hitlers only mistake was to invade Russia, Napoleon before him failed, if the had invaded us in 1940 he would have won. Eventually the US did commit to liberation and Hitlers fate was sealed.

“Do you seriously think we'd have just surrendered without Churchill?”

Without doubt if it hadnt been for Churchills leadership Britain would have surrendered or at least been neutral, whatever that would have involved in practice. We stood alone and fought on against the odds, many wanted to give in but it was Churchill that persuaded Britain to fight.

As for racism, yes it was much more prevalent, 60 yrs ago all sorts of discrimination was normalized, it doesn’t diminish Churchills legacy, he is easily the most significant Briton of the 20th century.

Allira

🤷‍♀️
Whatever

Are you a teenager? How rude!

Churchhill was not a nice man. He took an enormous gamble and won- but could easily have lost too.

Ever read 'Mudbound' to see what happened to heroes when they returned to the USA. Black ones. The norm? So that makes it alright then. The norm to be antisemite too- like in Germany or some parts of UK with Moseley. The norm?

Allira

theworriedwell

Allira

Tall Poppy Syndrome began in Australia and New Zealsnd but seems to have spread here.

Is it now a part of the British psyche to demonise those who were regarded as heroes or saviours of the nation after their deaths? Not just Churchill, but many others.
It seems to be done with relish.

Do people think through the alternatives of what life would be like now were it not for these people?

I think more about the people like my late father and late father in law who were actually out there fighting and risking their lives. As far as I'm concerned their contribution was every bit as important as Churchill's and without the racism.

You don't have to point that out to me.
Some never came back.

Thst is a red herring anyway.

Red herring? Do you mean awkward when you want to make a racist a hero? The real heroes weren't in London in underground bunkers when bombs fell they were fighting and losing their lives or risking their physical and mental health.

Do you seriously think we'd have just surrendered without Churchill?

Caleo

DeeDa, I am impressed by the balance of views as set out in the programme. Churchill did right as a politician despite the nasty American apartheid being wrong on principle. It was Churchill's job to stop the Nazis but it was not his job to preach morality to Americans.

It was also heart warming to see archive material that demonstrated British hospitality and freedom of speech and assembly.

When my late MIL and FIL married in 1943 they had a weekend together before he was shipped off overseas, he was black she was white. The hospitality they experienced was being thrown out of a church on the Sunday morning as the locals were affronted to see a mixed race couple. British hospitality at it's finest.

Allira

Tall Poppy Syndrome began in Australia and New Zealsnd but seems to have spread here.

Is it now a part of the British psyche to demonise those who were regarded as heroes or saviours of the nation after their deaths? Not just Churchill, but many others.
It seems to be done with relish.

Do people think through the alternatives of what life would be like now were it not for these people?

Here.

I asked a simple question. You said you couldn't explain as you can only think of one way of doing so (and presumably don't want to do that, for some reason). I ask why, and get a teenage response.

I'm sure many posters are capable of more nuanced thought, and can understand that people are rarely all good or all bad, but 'Whatever 🤷‍♀️'

🤷‍♀️
Whatever

Allira

Doodledog

I don't understand how criticising Churchill's racism, sexism and classism is remotely conflicted with appreciating his leadership or being grateful to those who fought to save us from the far right nightmare of Nazism. Can someone please explain, as I have asked twice to no avail?

If you don't understand therd is no other way of explaining.

Why not? I'm not an idiot. If someone tries to explain I will try to understand - I usually do understand what is explained in English, even if I don't agree with it.

If you don't understand that people can be a mixture of good and bad traits, and we can admire the good ones whilst criticising the bad, am I wasting my time trying to explain that to you?

Doodledog, I think it's because some can't understand that doing the right thing depends on what the aims and intentions are.
Churchill's aims were political and his personality may have happened to suit the job the Allies required him to do.

Doodledog

I don't understand how criticising Churchill's racism, sexism and classism is remotely conflicted with appreciating his leadership or being grateful to those who fought to save us from the far right nightmare of Nazism. Can someone please explain, as I have asked twice to no avail?

If you don't understand therd is no other way of explaining.