Those two wouldn't be good in the same press conference. Gandhi was a huge racist.

this man knows his history

I'll humour you.

Winston Churchill was a far worse racist.

Now tell me why Ghandi was a racist.

Can't comment on Churchill being racist, but he wholeheartedly believed in eugenics. Before he became prime minister he tabled several eugenics bills for consideration in Parliament. So not racist, just a massively discriminatory almost nazi o.the whole nine yards, castrate those with disabilities, ban others from having children, lock up anyone with any of several hundred conditions etc.

It's unlikely Churchill was worse than Gandhi although I acknowledge he is far from perfect he has nothing to do with this and I don't know why you've brought him up. Gandhi's own writings and behaviour mark him out as a bit of an extremist towards africans.He saw them as animals. Referred to them as "Raw kaffir", objected to sharing a cell with them, leading to his time in south africa to protest about africans being allowed into indian areas of Johannesburg. He fought for the rights of the indians - but he saw them as superior to the africans, which makes him a racist in my book, don't know about yours.

Undeniably he did his fair share of good for his people but he's no saint.

Anyway, I encourage you to do some research, we're way off topic so I'll leave it there.

Yes we know the ' game ' is great , pity nobody wants to pay to watch it though

Kaffir, from the Arabic for impious... not necessarily signposting racism...

You I suspect took your reference from this quote?
" Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." (Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on Sept. 26 1896 (CW II p. 74)). Perceptions and attitudes were different 115 years ago. Just a thought

Tim Cahill is a big RL fan. He played it while growing up in Sydney and regulary goes to St Helens games. Apollo Perelini is his cousin.

Rather than promoting RL, I'd prefer Joey Barton to come and PLAY Rugby League, so we can see if he really is the big hard man he seems to think he is.

Na, I think you will find Gandhi was more on an Aussie rules kinda guy.

Gandi was a Nationalist - now please explain the difference between the two.

Churchill was an Imperialist - now explain the difference.

Gandi's relentless pushing of the Hindu cause and thus partition led to countless millions being killed. For his many faults Churchill has nowhere near that amount of blood on his hands - now please explain how Churchill is a far worst (if you can have such a thing) racist.

Wonderfull recreation of history. Yes it's hugely fashionable for the lefties to debunk Churchill no matter how fantastic or twisted the claims. It's easy to poke at things from a different era, an era when Eugenics was considered a legitimate science. This attempt to pin modern ideals on people who existed in different eras is futile, pathetic and cheap. Churchill by the standards of the day and relative to the background he came from was a great leader. If he was around today with the same views he'd not be quite so great ditto Gandi - just leave it at that.

No-one was as bad as Stalin.

Which is what you are about to do.

Most of them are well documented, Churchill was an extremely flawed character.

Legimate by who? Sterilisation in the UK was never legal, it was not considered mainstream science and only
two Higher Education Institutions offered curses in Eugenics. Also the brand of Eugenics popular in the UK
was based on social groups rather than Race. Churchill's own views on eugenics were highly controversial and did not have
acceptance in mainstream politics or public commentary. Most countries that practiced eugenics attempted to keep the practices
out of the realms of the general public which would suggest those practices were not considered "legitimate science".



Not modern ideals they were ideals contemporary to the time, Eugenics in the UK received little funding and approval of
of pro-eugenics legislation. Several countries outrightly rejected eugenics


He was directly involved in the bombing of refugees, using tear gas on the Kurds, formalised a plan that
could have kicked off world war three, had great admiration for the conduct of Mussolini, his involvement in some
of the unsavoury practices putting down revolts and protests during the waning of the British Empire is hardly something
to be proud. This is before his own personal views are taken into account regarding people who are not WASPs.


This is not what happened though, he never supported the scheme for partition blaming him for this is like blaming
Churchill for the 'Final Solution'. He was in favour of the Muslim League and Indian congress working together over Indian
independence unfortuntely rather like what happened in the Middle East the British Empire gave little regard for
the consequences.


Of course he does one was a pro imperialist intent on administering an empire at the end of a gun barrel who
believed mass destruction was acceptable if it achieved the required outcome the other was a person who
firmly believed and stuck to non violent protest and non co-operation to achieve the required outcome.

Who'd have thunk that Joey Barton would have led to a thread which would have graced the Sin Bin at its peak. Excellent stuff everybody. The VT rulz!