Random History Thread

I don't see Maiden dropping Churchill's speech. It's been acknowledged for a long time that he was racist, imperialist and elitist (bascially almost as contemptuous of British oiks as he was of anyone Irish, otherwise foreign or not white), but he also symbolised British defiance, hope and national unity during the War. Statues of actual slave traders are a lot harder to defend.

He definitely needs to be known for what he was, but I hardly think a Maiden concert is going to get invaded for playing one of his speeches before a song about the War.
 
Frenetic Heretic said:
Run to the Hills, if taken out of context, could sound problematic to those seeking a problem
Click to expand...

Like many descriptive songs with a dark subject manner, Run to the Hills also is prone to being misinterpreted as glorification or endorsement - especially by people who have difficulty reading into nuances of writing tones. Slayer famously dealt with the same thing with Angel of Death, despite the presence of a few lines that clearly indicate that the band saw the acts described in the song as reprehensible (Harmless victims left to die, rotten angel of death flying free, etc.)
 
The Flash said:
Like many descriptive songs with a dark subject manner, Run to the Hills also is prone to being misinterpreted as glorification or endorsement - especially by people who have difficulty reading into nuances of writing tones. Slayer famously dealt with the same thing with Angel of Death, despite the presence of a few lines that clearly indicate that the band saw the acts described in the song as reprehensible (Harmless victims left to die, rotten angel of death flying free, etc.)
Click to expand...

Yes, you get my point. Those seeking to be offended will surely find offense in all but the most rudimentary of texts.
 
Wogmidget said:
I'd have thought that's a no-brainer; a man should be remembered by his actions rather than his opinions, and I think in this instance it's especially important given the sheer scale of change prompted by the second world war. Furthermore it's worth noting that in the early days of the war Churchill was one of few individuals in Westminster not willing to bend over backwards in the name of appeasing Hitler (although such appeasement is perhaps understandable given that the first world war was still fairly recent). I'd also like to add that it's a little unfair to judge historical figures through the lens of modern morality; given the rate of social change since the end of the war, I'm sure you could denigrate every single major figure in history given enough time and motivation
Click to expand...
Churchill's actions are quite racist, too, over the course of his life. You have to ask yourself the question as to whether or not his opposition to fascism was greater than those things. I think so, myself - but I also think we shouldn't cast him in the role of unrelenting hero.
 
LooseCannon said:
Churchill's actions are quite racist, too, over the course of his life. You have to ask yourself the question as to whether or not his opposition to fascism was greater than those things. I think so, myself - but I also think we shouldn't cast him in the role of unrelenting hero.
Click to expand...

I agree that he was hardly a saint, but equally he came from a historical context where the concept of racism didn't really exist as it does today, and certainly didn't carry the same overwhelmingly negative connotations.
 
Wogmidget said:
I agree that he was hardly a saint, but equally he came from a historical context where the concept of racism didn't really exist as it does today, and certainly didn't carry the same overwhelmingly negative connotations.
Click to expand...
Right, but I'm not talking about some casual racism, I'm talking about the immense callousness of the Bengal famine, for example.
 
LooseCannon said:
Right, but I'm not talking about some casual racism, I'm talking about the immense callousness of the Bengal famine, for example.
Click to expand...
Incredible callous and unnecessary, yes, but it seems to me that it was driven more by the war with Japan than any supposed hatred of the people of northeastern India (not that that makes much difference to the end result, I admit)
 
LooseCannon said:
How fascinating! Love or hate him, Bismarck was one of the greats. And it is always good to personalize the greats a little bit. It is important so that we remember they are human.
Click to expand...

I find Bismarck to be a bit problematic. For example, his views on the Poles were questionable at best. He also oversaw Germany’s foray into African colonialism, resulting in the deaths of 90,000 indigenous people in Namibia.
 
LooseCannon said:
Churchill's actions are quite racist, too, over the course of his life. You have to ask yourself the question as to whether or not his opposition to fascism was greater than those things. I think so, myself - but I also think we shouldn't cast him in the role of unrelenting hero.
Click to expand...

Churchill has one of the most complex legacies of a political leader ever. He was an avowed imperialist that saw Britain in an exceptionalistic, "world police" manner, not unlike the United States' Manifest Destiny. You could say there was good, altruistic intent in that in some respects, but there was an urge to design the world for non-altruistic, entirely ideological reasons, too, and the methods he supported weren't very defensible, even for the time. He was the most ardent advocate of keeping British troops fighting on the Greek side in the Turkish War of Independence, for example, that obviously had nothing to do with altruism or whatever. The Parliament eventually thought it not worthwhile to send British troops there for some Europhile fantasy that Churchill may have had.

LooseCannon said:
Right, but I'm not talking about some casual racism, I'm talking about the immense callousness of the Bengal famine, for example.
Click to expand...

I think it'd be unfair to Churchill to describe him as a racist in the way we understand racism nowadays. If his views were transported to the current day and given to a person, you could conclude he's a racist, because I think he was thoroughly Eurocentric with a particular exceptionalism toward the British, but he existed in a different context. He wasn't really someone that discriminated against people on the account of their race in the home country. The Bengal Famine could've been managed better and the War Cabinet did act in a callous manner, priotizing the interests of the Army. Context matters, though. Bringing in more grain supplies wasn't an easy task that Churchill simply refused out of disregard for the Bengali population, the war with Japan and the impending invasion in the European front had put an immense amount of stress on the Cabinet in terms of decision-making. War unfortunately forces people to make such tough calls. The Bengali population wouldn't be impacted by the war the way they were had they not been under British rule, they wouldn't had to have been a part of a consideration of favoritism at the behest of Britain, but they just were under British rule at the time.

I think mismanagement and callousness with regard to the Bengal Famine is only the second biggest taint on Churchill's legacy, however, the first has to be the Bombing of Dresden.
 
Wogmidget said:
Incredible callous and unnecessary, yes, but it seems to me that it was driven more by the war with Japan than any supposed hatred of the people of northeastern India (not that that makes much difference to the end result, I admit)
Click to expand...
The historical consensus on it is changing away from "a necessary evil" to "an evil delivered through inaction".

Frenetic Heretic said:
I find Bismarck to be a bit problematic. For example, his views on the Poles were questionable at best. He also oversaw Germany’s foray into African colonialism, resulting in the deaths of 90,000 indigenous people in Namibia.
Click to expand...
Right...? I guess you're trying to undercut me by quoting an 8 year old post? I certainly never said Bismarck was a perfect person. As a 19th century European imperialist, we can find all sorts of problematic stuff in his legacy. But as a worldshaper, he was absolutely one of the greats. Just like Churchill.
 
The Flash said:
I think it'd be unfair to Churchill to describe him as a racist in the way we understand racism nowadays. He wasn't really someone that discriminated against people on the account of their race in the home country. The Bengal Famine could've been managed better and the War Cabinet did act in a callous manner, priotizing the interests of the Army. Context matters, though. Bringing in more grain supplies wasn't an easy task that Churchill simply refused out of disregard for the Bengali population, the war with Japan and the impending invasion in the European front had put an immense amount of stress on the Cabinet in terms of decision-making. War unfortunately forces people to make such tough calls. The Bengali population wouldn't be impacted by the war the way they were had they not been under British rule, they wouldn't had to have been a part of a consideration of favoritism at the behest of Britain, but they just were under British rule at the time.
Click to expand...
That is indeed the conventional wisdom. A lot of the research that has come out in the last 5 years points not to a malicious form of racism, but to a whatever fuck it sort of racism. I find it hard to believe that if there had been a million Britons in danger of starvation that Churchill wouldn't move heaven and earth to feed them. Some scholars - primarily Indian scholars - have pointed to records of export as indicating that there were War Cabinet policies that removed food from Bengal when it was needed in the area, as well, though I'm not sold on the depth of that. In other words, Churchill & company didn't really care, they were focused on winning the war and viewed that population as expendable to the war effort. If that's not racism, I dunno what is.
 
LooseCannon said:
That is indeed the conventional wisdom. A lot of the research that has come out in the last 5 years points not to a malicious form of racism, but to a whatever fuck it sort of racism. I find it hard to believe that if there had been a million Britons in danger of starvation that Churchill wouldn't move heaven and earth to feed them. Some scholars - primarily Indian scholars - have pointed to records of export as indicating that there were War Cabinet policies that removed food from Bengal when it was needed in the area, as well, though I'm not sold on the depth of that. In other words, Churchill & company didn't really care, they were focused on winning the war and viewed that population as expendable to the war effort. If that's not racism, I dunno what is.
Click to expand...

I just don't think that's something we can fault the way we would a malicious form of racism, or a worldview that permits unethical actions toward different people groups for the benefit of the other. When left to choose between something that would potentially harm a people group that we are a part of and something that would potentially harm a people group that we are not a part of, we will naturally gravitate toward the former. That could be your family, people in your hometown, the nation that you belong to, whatever. Ideally, you want to avoid such cases and reduce the harm for everyone to the best of your ability, and not play favoritism. Outside factors sometimes push you into difficult choices, however, and wartime often does. Now, I do think that Churchill should've cared more about the suffering of the Bengali people more and tried harder to find alternatives. The level of callousness was not justifiable considering the level of suffering among the Bengali in a comparison with the state of the Army. Nevertheless I struggle do indict Churchill for racism as sharply as one might.
 
LooseCannon said:
Right...? I guess you're trying to undercut me by quoting an 8 year old post? I certainly never said Bismarck was a perfect person. As a 19th century European imperialist, we can find all sorts of problematic stuff in his legacy. But as a worldshaper, he was absolutely one of the greats. Just like Churchill.
Click to expand...

No, I just found it ironic when I saw it on the first page of this topic.

I mean, who was really “woke” back in 2012, anyway?

Should Germany topple all of their monuments to Bismarck In your opinion? I guess it’s a question of whether his achievement of unifying of Germany in 1871 and the aftermath of that accomplishment outweigh his racism.
 
Frenetic Heretic said:
Should Germany topple all of their monuments to Bismarck In your opinion? I guess it’s a question of whether his achievement of unifying of Germany in 1871 and the aftermath of that outweigh his racism?
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe that. I also do not believe that statues to Churchill should be removed. I believe that statues are a very limited form of history that should always be contextualized, and removed only when their problematic nature exceeds any other need. For example, a statue of Jefferson Davis has very little, if any, other historical purpose than to glorify the Confederacy, and should be removed. But other than those very obvious examples, the discussion should be open and honest and consider many aspects of history.
 
LooseCannon said:
No, I don't believe that. I also do not believe that statues to Churchill should be removed. I believe that statues are a very limited form of history that should always be contextualized, and removed only when their problematic nature exceeds any other need. For example, a statue of Jefferson Davis has very little, if any, other historical purpose than to glorify the Confederacy, and should be removed. But other than those very obvious examples, the discussion should be open and honest and consider many aspects of history.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most of the confederate monuments weren’t put up until the 20th century and served as segregationist propaganda during the civil rights movement. Stone Mountain would be difficult to eradicate, though.
 
LooseCannon said:
We'll see how long it lasts.
Click to expand...

Politically, it’s likely that the bas relief will be voted removed within the next few years. Stone Mountain has an ugly history and wasn’t created with any sense of social unity in mind. Logistically, it’ll be time consuming and expensive for the state of Georgia to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top