Quote: Thoth "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.'"
love it.
Just as a matter of interest how do you think the West rose to power to give you the privileged life you now have, by being nice? I suppose you think the world would be better run by Gandi or Mandella I suppose because it's only white Christians who seek power and dominance - yeah right.
If you can't accept what people like Churchill did to keep us as a nation free was so bad how a about a year with the Taliban or a recreation of life with the Hitlers or life on the dole in Gandi's India would suit you more.
The world moves on as does humanity, you simply cannot impose modern ideals on previous generations. People react to the conditions of the day and the world of the 1940's was a very different and dangerous place. I'm more than happy we no longer have an Empire, doesn't mean I have to apologies for what previous generations did for what they felt were the right reasons at the time. In fact I'm very proud of the British Empire that in the opinion gave the world far more positives than negatives, but hey why not moan for the sake of it.
I'll tell you what let's all seek reparation from the Zulu's - they were a rum lot of barbaric, imperialistic, Fascist, genocidal nutters - or would you say innocent, peace loving little chaps just defending themselves against the great white queen. I await your collection of left wing cliches.
People like some on here never spot the irony that thanks to people like Churchill they are in the position to be able to criticise people like Churchill.
Joey Barton would love this
