http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/1/churchill.htm
so basically i was in this hindu forum (im not hindu though) and most of them were slagging off winston churchill calling him a racist and sh*t after they saw this link.
http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/1/churchill.htm
wats ur view on this?
Originally Posted by PrivatePyle
apparently it was 30 million indians that starved to death during the 1800's
im quite sure he did more good than bad, the guy basically spawned new liberalism and of course all the business is WW2.
I think you do have to put this information in the context of the age. Racism was the norm at that time. That's not to say it is acceptable now, but it was (and expected, TBH) at the time.
I'm not certain that had an awful lot to do with Winston Churchill (b. 30 November 1874)...
thats true, but someone was blaming churchill for some strange reason lol. if only i could find that forum again it was quite interesting.
Well, I just spoke to someone about it and in those times, every white person was pretty much racist to a certain degree.
Also, it's from a Hindu website, so the views are biased anyway as well as having no source.
In the same way that Blair agrees to go to war killing innocent people everyday?
In the same way that so many countries are full of famine, starvation and other general things which cause the people of the country to die and yet the government turn their backs on it and leave it to third party organisations to handle?
Anyone with more than a cursory understanding of British history will realise that Churchill was a deeply flawed individual as well as a peerless war leader.
However, I personally think that Hindus should make a real effort to get their own house in order before they start criticising anyone else.
I would have to agree with Schmunk, at the time, racism was acceptable and so were a lot of things that in todays society we would find outrageously unacceptable. And to fit in with society people would accept this. I imagine over the next 50 years there will be another set of changes and our current policies will look decidedly stoneage. You could pretty much find fault with any historical figure, and you always will be able to.
Nox
Raciism wasnt just aceptable it was taught as a science, it was called eugenics. Its quiet funny that those Hindus call Churchill a racist when the caste system is very similar if not worse. Honour killings are still being carried out due people marrying or having relationships below their caste, one was recently prosecuted around here. Its very easy to judge people by modern standards, and to assign blame. Could Churchill have stopped starvaton in India, possible yes, but he would have handed Britain, Europe and most of the rest of the world to the Germans.
I think you need to look at the context of said famine. - Britain was at war with the Nazi's and Japan, spending vital money and food on aid for peasants who would do nothing for the war effort is stupid. Even today you could claim that we should help out in every famine but it's simply not possible even with todays large aid infrastructure and modern transport methods.
There were no Hurcules aircraft in the 1940's, no jumbo jets, no massive ships (all tended to be doing something to do with the war) and I'm sure that roads in India are ten times worse then than they are now, so logistically it would have been impossible.
Having read Churchill's biography by Roy Jenkins (critically accliamed as one of the best) and others I think I have good grounds to comment.
You have to remember that Britain were colonial masters and one of the worlds superpowes in the early 20th century. The sophistication of the average indian was pretty low, in fact it still is in rural communities - children are married to dogs, recently a man who was beleived dead, returned to his village, only to be told to get lost by his family because they believed he was a ghost. I still see these types as little more than savages. That's not a racist statement, it is a statement based on fact when comparing our (my) civilisation with theirs. I have rational thought and do not believe for one moment the beliefs of these people. I'm sure that in 200 years people will think that we are savages, it's simply progress that opens our minds.
The same would have been true of Churchill. Here is a man who is fairly widely travelled, educated, well read and brought up in the Christian faith who sees an awful mass of humanity (india) and subsequently comments on it. Anyone who has been to the subcontinent will certainly understand the distain held. This does not then transform into "to hell with them, let them starve" attitude, it is one more of pity.
Churchill often spoke of his dislike of other people and peoples, however to do so is not racist. Racsim is seeking to disadvantage someone becasue of their colour, religion, creed. Making a speech that is not policy and does not seek to disadvantage someone is simply that, a speech. It does not matter whether he was the PM or whether he cleaned shoes for a living.
We now live in an age where we think that Britain is soley run by Mr Blair - he does everything. It is not the case and never has been. It's simply politics is driven through the media of television and therefore government now is defined by it's leader more than ever.
Winston Churchill's cabinet was a cross party affair put togther so as best to resist the Nazi's. Politically there were a number of struggles over policy within this cabinet over it's lifetime. Whislt Churchill could be the most overbearing of men, cabinet government was still the method that decided policy. Churchill would not recognise the workings of Blair's government. It is therefore incorrect to say that Churchill and Churchill alone is responsible for the deaths of 3 million Indians. People seem to think he could wave a magic wand and everyone would do his bidding. It's not true. In fact he had lots of battles with cabinet members and cussed them for doing so. He did not always win.
The reason Churchill is held in such high esteem is that he acheived so very much at a time when this country needed a "Churchill" figure at the head of government. His political skills (better than his military ones) saved this country from fascism. If only he was listened to in the 30's by those who accused him of being a war monger, we may have avoided the rise of fascism and world war two by acting sooner.
I'd also like to point out that the WW2 cost the lives of an estimated 50 million people. The soviets lost 20 million. Would Britain have suffered the same fate as Poland or the Soviet Union if we hadn't had Churchill? A man who knew the dangers and acted accordingly when in power. Should he have spent more time on aid for Indians rather than ensuring the proper defense of this country in a time of war? Like all PM's, his duty is to the people of the UK first, not a dependent.
Have some idea of the scale of the struggle involved and do not allow politically correct views to obscure what this man did for Britain or the way he said things. Churchill was one of the greatest orators this country has seen. Read up on him and understand that language was much richer and diverse and had different meaning than today.
People who believe they were hard done by will always seek redress. These Hindu's are simply venting their spleens on something that happened before they were born and fail to look at the wider context i.e. Japans domination of India and south east Asia. If that had happened more than 3 millions Indians would have been killed.
Yes, Churchill had many faults, he himself acknowledged grudgingly his fables, but if you can stand up and honestly say that you have achieved 1% of the good that this man did then I'd like to here it.
P.S sorry for the War and Peace post but I can't stand 21st century politically correct blame culture especially when it's so misdirected.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Good post
After Gallipoli Churchill took responsibility, resigned, then left for Belgium and enrolled as an infantryman. Well, not so much enrolled as turned up in the trenches and took over some badly beaten up Belgian units. He stayed there until his whereabouts was discovered and he was convinced to come back to where he could do most good instead of throwing his life away. Can you see Blair and co taking that kind of responsibility? The lessons for D day were learnt largely from the debacle of the Dieppe landings. Though I'm sure Gallipoli had it's part to play.
He also rode as a cavalryman in the battle of Omdurman and was captured by, and then escaped from, the Boers.
Institutionalised racism was the norm. Have a look at the history of the Dum Dum round. Whilst trying to stop it from being banned by the Hague convention. It was argued (by the British whose invention it was) that is was ok to use the Dum Dum against savages and tribesmen but not against 'civilised' armies. It was actually banned outright. This was brought up by the Germans just before the first world war.....wonder why?
Churchill also sacrificed thousands of seamen in the Atlantic war to preserve the greater good of the intelligence we had about the U boats. He was inded a tough cookie. Flawed, for sure. Brilliant, no doubt. He came to power when prominent cabinet figures such as Lord Halifax promoted capitulation rather than get embroiled in another war. A time when Petain (savior of Verdun) capitulated with a million men in the field because he couldn't face the thought of another war like the last on French soil.
In 1943 we had only just got the German forces out of North Africa, the Russians had only just got the Germans out of Stalingrad and we didn't stop the Japanese at Kohima (which just happens to be in India, Nagaland) until 1944. It could be said he had more pressing matters to hand.
As a footnote, I worked in India a couple of years ago. They still have starvation. But they don't have food shortages. Sort their own house out? They really need to before pointing fingers at a statesman at war when his own nation was rationed, the children were being evacuated for their safety and any success by the U boats would cause starvation at home. While I was in Mumbai a sweatshop was closed and a group of children freed. Rural parents had assumed that the kids had just wandered off and died. This wasn't in 1943 this was in 2003. Not a lot has changed. Except they don't have an English statesman to blame.
Last edited by RVF500; 18-01-2006 at 02:36 AM.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Sorry if this seems a bit off topic, but I'm curious about something here. Most of you seem prepared to accept that Churchill wasn't all good, that he had bad points, but that overall, his influence was positive. What I'm curious about is how many of you view Hitler as being the exact opposite of this, and I mean the exact opposite. How many of you think of Adolf Hitler as being someone who wasn't all bad, who did some good, even if his overall influence was about as negative as they come??
No one can argue Hitler's personal courage. A decorated infantryman from the first world war. Nor can they deny that Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of the 20th century. His regime turned Germany around. From a bankrupt state to a world power. However, that turnaround was only ever geared to one thing. Revenge and the fulfilment of a twisted dream. The autobahns were created much as the Romans created their roads. To facilitate the passage of military transport. Conquest, slavery and extermination were to follow.
Flawed is one thing, perverse is something different. Sacrifice of the few for the many is a tough choice. Mass murder for a prejudicial concept cannot be likened to it.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
He was on the winning side though. Despite starting on the other side. He also had a bunch of 5 year plans......now where have I heard that recently?
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
