Question Time as it happens...

[littlebabyjesus]

This 'he was a product of his time' argument is hogwash. For instance, the Communist movement within the British Empire in the 1940s, which was predominantly white, was committed to racial equality. There were white people in the colonies who despised the disgusting colour bar. There were white people in Britain who welcomed black people who arrived from the colonies during and after WW11. And here is a man right at the top of society espousing hateful, ignorant crap when he has much much less of an excuse to do so than his less privileged compatriots.

He was a nasty bigot. End of.

 

[DotCommunist]

pissheid as well

 

[littlebabyjesus]

pissheid as well

No doubt he came out with a lot of this crap when drunk. Certainly the quotes from his doctor are from private moments, not public ones. The Macmillan comment, made in 1960, is particularly revealing to me of a thoroughly unpleasant man. To agree that he probably wasn't a white supremacist is most certainly to damn him with faint praise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's never been an excuse for racist bigotry really. Here's Victorian explorer Mary Kingsley countering the 'scientific' racism of her day:

the black man is no more an undeveloped white man than a rabbit is an undeveloped hare

She was in a minority, yes, but she was not alone, and importantly, the racist views of many of her time – who were unashamed imperialists – were hugely self-serving. Racism has never done anyone any credit.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

shit excuse. churchill was a cunt. probably a cunt we needed at a certain point but a cunt nonetheless.

Were Churchill's views on race at odds with most other people's at that time?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

sorry but that is wishful thinking, there are so many other factors determining the success or not of any political movement, objectionable or not.

Conceeded, it takes more than just debate to stop a rotten political movement, but debate is an important factor and trying to control from on high where or when that debate takes place is likely to be counter productive.

 

[Corax]

I think I'm at odds with the board majority here.

People are the product of their environment. They absorb the opinions and influences around them. People like Mary Kingsley were the exception and should be lauded for their perceptiveness, insight and rationality, but I don't agree that the rest should therefore be condemned.

Fucked if I can find it now, but it was either on here or R4 the other day that an aging Lord recounted how he used to be racist but had realised the error of his ways as times moved on. People are people. People back in the day were no more inherently bigoted or evil than today, QED many of those racists would not be racist had they been born in modern times.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fucked if I can find it now, but it was either on here or R4 the other day that an aging Lord recounted how he used to be racist but had realised the error of his ways as times moved on. People are people. People back in the day were no more inherently bigoted or evil than today, QED many of those racists would not be racist had they been born in modern times.

I agree. It still doesn't reflect well on Churchill. He was an old-fashioned British imperialist of the kind that resulted in the racist colour bar of the colonies in the first place. There's lots to dislike about him. Were he still alive, he may well have changed his views, and I don't doubt that he would have held no truck with the BNP, but he was what he was. We're all products of our environments, and it's a larger question to consider how much we can hold anyone morally responsible for their beliefs, but if you are going to judge the man, you have to take his bigotry into account.

Thing is, for instance, Mary Kingsley said this when Churchill was still wearing dresses. There were other voices around and as an educated and well-travelled man, he will have had access to them. At very best, I think we're entitled to be disappointed by his ignorance.

 

[DotCommunist]

Wasn't he a war reporter during the Boer War as a young man?

Probably the attitudes of his fellows informed his prejudices.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He fought in the Boer War iirc.

ETA: no, you're right, he was a reporter.

 

[soulman]

Question Time always is a middle class wank fest though.

Yes it is, but apparently the format got changed on question time to spend everything but the last ten minutes allowing the London based middle class liberals to feel better about themselves.

I'm not a regular viewer of qt so I don't know if two seats in the european parliament means you get a programme dedicated to your views. Maybe that's how it works.

I would have preferred a programme where every contributor was questioned on their views about the current stuff.

I was disgusted by griffins views on the Gately question. I could see the madness in his eye.

 

[goldenecitrone]

all intectual wank fests are by definition wank fests. And thus middle class. My grandmother votes BNP the old twat

 

[Riklet]

Yeah, I was quite interested in Griffin's body language throughout most of it, just watched it now. He's a right worm, he really knows how to wiggle and seem rather passive, when you can see there's a lot humming away there (his jovial laughter, yeah right), he shifts posture a lot, and you can just tell there's a shit load of calculated angst he's got used to putting a smile on...

I thought he said a lot of objectionable stuff, mostly bollocks, but nothing which really made my jaw drop. Precisely his aim, I would presume, he was more moderate and used his appearance to attack the other political parties for their policies. I do actually think the show was too focused around him, it was very British and a bit pantomimey tbh. What it really exposed to me was the degree that the other politicians, just as much as Griffin were keen to wiggle and worm away from pertinent questions. The shadow whatever minister didn't want to delve into her objections to gay civil partnerships and the effect of "TEH GAYZ" upon family values etc. Straw, as usual was keen to bollocks on about the 30% in his constituency, being Asian, and less keen to answer whether New Labour had contributed to the "immigration" problem. Oh yeah, because the thousands of Afghan and Iraqi refugees trying to get into the UK from Calais are nowt to do with our governments' policies...

Anyway, I dunno if it helped or hindered the BNP really, probably a bit of both. On some level it didn't address the issues which are making "white working class people" (cringe term) vote for the BNP, generally because people are so fucking keen on booing and hissing they're keen to not actually have to confront any real issues about race and the questions that our society poses. It's no good just saying people are racist cunts, if there's not a conscious effort being made to educate being made.... nah, "dey tukkk ourrr.... council housing" isn't true, but if that's the impression people are getting, and starting to feel marginalised in their own areas, you end up with plenty of blame in the bucket. There'll always be some cunt, Griffin or who ever to scoop that out, cash right in, put a smile on it and cry some crocodile tears of sympathy. Just because his views are abhorrent doesn't mean there weren't a fair few issues raised by that question time which tbh are just being swept under the carpet.

Good the BBC aired it anyway, I don't see the logic of the people trying to stop it aired and tell the BBC what to show. You can't really have a liberal society if it fears and prevents debate which challenges it. Maybe that makes me naive thinking that? Dunno

 

[kenny g]

So we were a nation of cunts,

Are you calling my grand dad a cunt? Fuck off.

 

[Azrael]

Churchill's attitude to race seems to have been inconsistent and poorly thought out. He said in a 1932 visit to Germany, "What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth?" (Roy Jenkins, Churchill, pp. 469)

But He also said, "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." [1]

Worse, he was a supporter of the Mental Deficiencies Act, 1913[2], and eugneics in general. But so were a stack of socialists and self-appointed intelligentsia. This was, sadly, a prevalent and thoroughly progressive attitude at the time. Thankfully it wasn't shared by everyone.

It shows how ill-prepared Mr Griffin was that he didn't quote any of this. I'm glad he didn't, although it would have made the panel reconsider their dimwitted hagiography. Churchill was what he was. Stop trying to pin any modern cause onto him, and let this cult of personality die an overdue death.

 

[Azrael]

He fought in the Boer War iirc.

ETA: no, you're right, he was a reporter.

Technically he was, but the sort of reporter who dressed in military fatigues, took over command of a derailed armoured train, and packed a Mauser semi-automatic pistol.

 

[Corax]

Churchill's attitude to race seems to have been inconsistent and poorly thought out. He said in a 1932 visit to Germany, "What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth?" (Roy Jenkins, Churchill, pp. 469)

But He also said, "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." [1]

Worse, he was a supporter of the Mental Deficiencies Act, 1913[2], and eugneics in general. But so were a stack of socialists and self-appointed intelligentsia. This was, sadly, a prevalent and thoroughly progressive attitude at the time. Thankfully it wasn't shared by everyone.

We've got some medai types here haven't we? Piers Gibbon etc..

Wouldn't this make a pretty tasty expose documentary?

 

[butchersapron]

It's been done a million times. This stuff really is just standard mainstream historical knowledge.

 

[Corax]

It's been done a million times. This stuff really is just standard mainstream historical knowledge.

I'm not saying it's new info, just that I've never seen one of those shit populist primetime docos on it.

Churchill: The Bigot - was he really that different from Hitler?
Union flag slowly burning to reveal a swastika.
Man in KKK costume, removes hood - it's Churchill!

I think it could be fun!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's been done a million times. This stuff really is just standard mainstream historical knowledge.

Lots of stuff that is standard mainstream historical knowledge is not known by most people, who would have a very different idea of history if they knew about it. The Opium Wars, US training of Latin American torture squads, Churchill's shameful role in the 1942 Bengal famine, to take three examples more or less at random.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not saying it's new info, just that I've never seen one of those shit populist primetime docos on it.

Churchill: The Bigot - was he really that different from Hitler?
Union flag slowly burning to reveal a swastika.
Man in KKK costume, removes hood - it's Churchill!

I think it could be fun!

The relevance of Churchill's bigotry isn't in comparison to Hitler, but it strikes to the heart of the nature of the British Empire, which existed to make money for rich Britons, not to advance the lives of the 'natives'. I still hear people saying that 'we should stop apologising for the British Empire', but I would guess that a school history teacher who, for instance, had their students examining the actions and motives of the East India Company would be flamed for doing so.

 

[Corax]

The relevance of Churchill's bigotry isn't in comparison to Hitler

Of course it isn't, but that wouldn't stand in the way of pop-doco makers. You've seen the shite they put out surely? I'm not saying it would be of any worth, just that it would be entertaining to see the reaction the next day in the Daily Heil.

 

[stethoscope]

In case anyone hasn't seen it, cassetteboy's latest vid mash-up...

 

[Azrael]

The relevance of Churchill's bigotry isn't in comparison to Hitler, but it strikes to the heart of the nature of the British Empire, which existed to make money for rich Britons, not to advance the lives of the 'natives'. I still hear people saying that 'we should stop apologising for the British Empire', but I would guess that a school history teacher who, for instance, had their students examining the actions and motives of the East India Company would be flamed for doing so.

Agree with this. Ultimately, all empires exist to benefit the conqueror. The British Empire was better than most, in that it wasn't crude smash'n'grab, and many imperial administrators apparently came to believe their own PR, and seem to have been motivated by a genuine desire to be fair and just. These things exist on a scale. Compare what we did to, say, the Belgian Congo to see just how bad the alternative could be.

It did rest on a deeply unhealthy notion of our own superiority, though. Empires always do. Plus fanatical market dogma, which helped the bodies pile up in the Indian famine of the 1870s. Above all, it wasn't sustainable, unlike the vast and unacknowledged land-based empire of the USA.

But we can't take a balanced view until the imperial cult turns up its toes. And it won't do that until we come to terms with our reduced status, and stop using the triumphs of the past as an excuse to ignore the problems of today. If the people behind the Empire had wallowed in nostalgia, it wouldn't have lasted five minutes.