Posted on 02/11/2021 11:23:44 PM PST by knighthawk
The British Empire was branded ‘far worse than the Nazis’ during a controversial debate about Sir Winston Churchill’s legacy last night.
The wartime prime minister was also described by an academic as a ‘white supremacist’ who benefited from Britain’s ‘heavily skewed national story’.
The online discussion – held by Churchill College, Cambridge – on ‘The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill’ looked at his ‘backward’ views on empire and race and was held as part of a year-long ‘inclusivity’ review.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This academic sounds xenephobic against the indigenous peoples of England.
‘white supremacist’
Blah blah blah.
More antisemitism from the usual class. Denigrate the murder of millions of Jews as the equivalent of colonialism. Just the most recent iteration of centuries of Jew hating among the British upper class.
Insane. I’m no anglophile, but this is just crap.
We get to have these debates for now. They help to inform us of the direction of travel of these “academics”.
Soon we will not and it will simply become fact that Churchill was evil - perhaps more so than Hitler - and we start removing his great name from history.
We have had a president that removed the gift bust of Churchill from the oval office..... Can’t remember the prez’s name....anybody..anybody???
White people the new black
I guess Kunte Kinte, the so-called professor of Black Studies and anti-White Racism never read about Churchill’s fighting in the Boer War and covering events in Africa as a journalist (who actually risked his life several times in both endeavors).
What would you expect from a black Marxist racist pig who is living off the government’s money/Cambridge Un. money as an academic elite?
Cambridge, once the training ground for Soviet spies. Now the tenure place for black racists/Marxists. My how times have changed in Merry Old England.
Churchill was white, therefore, it follows that he was a white supremacist. Whiteness is now illegal. Critical race theory proves it. Get use to it.
I’m no fan of Britain, but they left their colonies in better shape for independence/self-rule than other colonizers. Their former colonies are a mess, but generally avoided the total chaos and mass murder seen in the former colonies of Belgium (Congo), France (Indochina), or Portugal (Angola/Mozambique). Britain had integrated more of their colonized people into the administration of the colonies, so they could have some chance of governing themselves.
Just to fantasize a little, what if Churchill wasn’t Prime Minister from 1940-1945? Let’s say a “Chamberlain-type” had been in office.
Britain would have been conquered by Nazi Germany in six months or less.
This discussion would not have taken place because the participants would either be dead or had never been born.
The British who remained would be slaves in fields and factories.
If this were the case, the U.S. might have thrown their full weight against Japan after 12/7/41.
Like I said, it’s fantasy. Critics are free to criticize.
Have at it.
Further, had Hitler succeeded against Britain, he would have been free to conquer the Middle East and... Africa!
And what would have been the consequence of that? More favorable treatment than Britain provided?
I doubt it.
Germany and Russia had signed a non-aggression pact in ‘41. If England had fallen, might that pact have survived a little longer? If Germany and Russia divided Poland, might they have done the same to Africa.
And what would have been the consequence of that?
The participants at this “discussion” are more racist than Churchill ever was. But no one will ever say that publicly.
I have predicted it years ago. The left will rehabilitate Hitler. The Nazis will be called good guys who fought the evil Zionists and British and American imperialists.
The leftists are getting to be as racist as Hitler was, the more and more they claim to be “anti-racist.” Really Orwellian.
They’ve always been that way. Mao, Pol Pot, Joe Stalin. Untold millions dead at their behest, supposedly for the greater good. And they get to define what is the “greater good.”
Google Jalianwala baag.
A bit of a mixed bag on this
1. Churchill was less a “white” supremacist and more an “English chauvanist” - he looked down upon the French, Germans, Poles, even the Americans. and he loathed Indians, etc
2. He was indirectly responsible for the Bengal famines in the 1940s by insisting on food being taken from Bengal
3. Yet the British empire cannot be compared with the Nazis. The longevity of that empire tells you that it wasn’t that virulent. In most places they ruled through intermediaries. The Brits learnt from their failures in the north American colonies and took a hands off approach.
not really. He doesn’t espouse hatred or fear for the current native populations of the UK.
His concept on the British empire is historically, factually false.
Human beings have struggled to advance the interests of their family, tribe, nation, from the beginning of time.
Any other motive is mental illness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.