Boris Johnson blasts attacks on Winston Churchill statue as 'absurd and shameful'
- Total Posts: 663
London faces it’s own set of problems this weekend. I do like what Churchill’s granddaughter suggested about removing the statue and placing it in a museum simply because Churchill was a large part of their history.
ByMichael MoranAudience Writer
19:34, 12 JUN 2020Updated20:04, 12 JUN 2020
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has issued a statement condemning protesters who seek to tear down statues of historical figures because they are now perceived as racists.
He said it was “absurd and shameful” that the statue of a of wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill had been target by anti-racist protesters.
The statue in London’s Parliament Square was boxed-in with a protective wooden shell ahead of a Black Lives Matter protest in Westminster this evening.
June 14, 2020 at 2:33 AM #326583Nick XylasParticipant
- Total Posts: 194
No surprise that a man who once wrote about “picaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” would praise a man who put 150,000 “blackamoors” into concentration camps in Kenya.
“The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” -Julius Nyerere
June 14, 2020 at 2:46 AM #326587Ohio BarbarianModerator
- Total Posts: 21,767
At the time both men were being educated, it was scientific certainty that white people were genetically superior to all others, with blacks or Africans being the lowest of the low. It was called eugenics, but was really Social Darwinism, and it was largely unquestioned until the horrors of the Holocaust exposed the Great Lie for what it was.
I can make an argument either way for Churchill’s statue. Without him, Britain might have made peace with Nazi Germany. That’s just a fact, and it would have been disastrous for the rest of the world. OTOH, he was a war criminal who ordered poison gas dropped from aircraft on Iraqi rebels, and he was utterly convinced of Anglo-Saxon supremacy.
I am content to let the British people decide, just as the people of Virginia decided to take down Robert E. Lee without needing any well-meaning Brits telling them what they should do.
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs
You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton
June 14, 2020 at 4:31 AM #326601Cold Mountain TrailParticipant
- Total Posts: 12,932
Churchill’s policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study
Food supplies to Bengal were reduced in the years preceding 1943 by natural disasters, outbreaks of infections in crops and the fall of Burma – now Myanmar – which was a major source of rice imports, into Japanese hands…. But the Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen argued in 1981 that there should still have been enough supplies to feed the region, and that the mass deaths came about as a combination of wartime inflation, speculative buying and panic hoarding, which together pushed the price of food out of the reach of poor Bengalis.
More recent studies, including those by the journalist Madhushree Mukerjee, have argued the famine was exacerbated by the decisions of Winston Churchill’s wartime cabinet in London… the cabinet was warned repeatedly that the exhaustive use of Indian resources for the war effort could result in famine, but it opted to continue exporting rice from India to elsewhere in the empire.
Rice stocks continued to leave India even as London was denying urgent requests from India’s viceroy for more than 1m tonnes of emergency wheat supplies in 1942-43. Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive.
Mukerjee and others also point to Britain’s “denial policy” in the region, in which huge supplies of rice and thousands of boats were confiscated from coastal areas of Bengal in order to deny resources to the Japanese army in case of a future invasion…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.