Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

State of Emergency in Charlottesville


football forum

Recommended Posts

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I watched a show about Churchill a while ago which implied that he once dealt with a workers' strike by burning down the building they were occupying with them still inside it. It kind of skimmed over the whole episode and I haven't been able to find anything about it since. Can anyone shed some light on that?

Back on topic (sort of) I'd like to see the American South establish something like Budapest's Memento Park which allows their Communist statues to stand as reminders of the past, but not in a way that they can be celebrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difference between Churchill being celebrated and confederates being celebrated is that Churchill isn't celebrated for his scummy behaviour whereas confederates are very much celebrated as a symbol of white supremacy by white supremacists. Confederates should be remembered but not celebrated as they shouldn't be looked back on with the feeling of pride but with a feeling of shame. Genuinely no justifiable reason to celebrate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, True Blue said:

What did you really expect? Racist becomes the President by votes of the "white Americans". Basically his motto was Make America White again.

Trump received more Latino votes than any republican in history. Even though technicall a lot of Latinos are white, on the ballot it does make a distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

They deleted it pretty quickly but we've got ourselves a witch hunt. A pastor in Chicago is calling for Washington statues to be torn down 😂😂😂

IMG_3487.JPG

Some also want to destroy Stone Mountain in Atlanta. Now, I've never met anyone that has a negative thing to say about Stone Mountain and the park does a fantastic job explaining the history of the monument, even including the less-than-savoury KKK rallies that were held there. I think it is more important to have Stone Mountain a place that everyone can visit, ergo completely nullifying any sort of inherent meaning the monument used to have.  Make no mistake, it's a disgusting KKK funded monument (initially it wasn't but it they helped to finish it) but sometimes, I think these monuments can serve as reminders of the lengths that people's hate can dive to. I think it can strongly serve as a reminder of what Georgia was and what Georgia has become. Sometimes the wounds of the past need to reminded so we never go down certain roads again... already people have forgotten the horrors concerning a decade of Nazism in Germany, and eighty years of Communist oppression in Eastern-Europe.

Image result for stone mountain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weirdest thing to me about the monuments to Robert E. Lee is he said he didn't think there should be confederate monuments after the war. He said: “I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.” (source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/).

Lee is a historically weird figure though: Lee himself was conflicted about the core issues of his day. He was a slave owner who some say was cruel and a general who fought to preserve the institution. But he personally described slavery as a “moral and political evil” that should end. Before the war, Lee opposed secession, but once his native Virginia voted to leave the Union he declared he was honor-bound to fight for the Confederacy.

In a lot of instances, some of these monuments were erected well after the war and in opposition to the southern reconstruction (a political statement of defiance against the federal government, arguably innocent and not racist) and later the civil rights movement (definitely a political statement of defiance against black people having the same rights as them).

And there's nothing wrong with the US's south "remembering it's history" - I don't think anyone could have any possible opposition to museums about it. But I do think there's a certain amount of white washing of history - I've seen people argue online that it wasn't a war about slavery, but about states rights. And that's half true, but if you read the succession papers they're fighting for the right to own slaves. And the whole "War of Northern Aggression" thing, is silly considering who fired the first bombardment of the first battle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter) - and I do think the South has the right to be aggrieved about Sherman's march, which devastated the south's economy and ability to rebuild. And the North's reconstruction of the south did not bring in a new economic framework to successfully rebuild the south.

You have that go on for a century and more and it's no wonder there's a lot of problems with race and economic issues and feel left behind. I think it's been a problem that's been allowed to fester, rather than one that's actually been adequately addressed.

Personally, I feel like it's just something that has been a problem in America ever since the war was over and it's caused a lot of systemic problems that people have been concerned about - but it's just sort of been accepted as the norm. But five years ago the FBI released a report and it's concerns about terrorism in the US was concerned with far-right white nationalist groups and their rapid growth, just as much as they were concerned with Islamist terrorist: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB386/ 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing has very little to do with the history of the statues or their role in the community, that is just noise. The question is not why, it is why now? Racial tensions have gone through the roof in the last 5 years, leading to a mobilisation of militants and culminating in the election of an orange cunt who rightly or wrongly stands as a symbol of racism due to his chosen affiliations, awful choice of language and complete social instinct blindness.

But please, tell us again how Donald Trump's role and behaviour doesn't matter :ph34r:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

The whole thing has very little to do with the history of the statues or their role in the community, that is just noise. The question is not why, it is why now? Racial tensions have gone through the roof in the last 5 years, leading to a mobilisation of militants and culminating in the election of an orange cunt who rightly or wrongly stands as a symbol of racism due to his chosen affiliations, awful choice of language and complete social instinct blindness.

But please, tell us again how Donald Trump's role and behaviour doesn't matter :ph34r:

 

Because only black lives matter not orange ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2017 at 11:09 PM, Burning Gold said:

I watched a show about Churchill a while ago which implied that he once dealt with a workers' strike by burning down the building they were occupying with them still inside it. It kind of skimmed over the whole episode and I haven't been able to find anything about it since. Can anyone shed some light on that?

His role in creating the Bengal famine (man-made) was even worse. Close to 4 million starved to death, despite a great harvest -- all of which was diverted to England and Greece by Churchill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My great grandfather hated him and never forgave him for his role in the first world war. Many of that generation hated him. Churchill had a very scant view of the value of all human life. The debate should not be whether he is good or bad but whether a man who thought like that was necessary for victory or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

My great grandfather hated him and never forgave him for his role in the first world war. Many of that generation hated him. Churchill had a very scant view of the value of all human life. The debate should not be whether he is good or bad but whether a man who thought like that was necessary for victory or not.

Fantastic war time leader not so much in peacetime 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Nonsense. He was the mastermind behind the Gallipoli campaign

Never said he wasn't. The propaganda is that Australian and New Zealander troops were unequally treat by Brits. It doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. It is a post war propganada narrative to assert national identity and remove any obedience towards the centre of the empire. Thus shifting obedience onto a more local government instead. 

Many Brits died at Gallipoli of which my great grandfather lost friends which is why he never forgave Churchill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Tanksie said:

Winston was the retard behind the plan to attack Germany and Russia at the same time through Finland wasn't he? hahaha

 

Aptly dubbed Operation Unthinkable.

Although the plan was to attack the USSR after finishing off Germany, which would still have been absolutely retarded. I really find it hard to fathom how anyone thought a surprise attack against the USSR would work 4 years after Hitler tried it and failed miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

3 Neo-Nazi's arrested in Gainesville, FL for attempting to murder anti-Nazi protestors at a Richard Spencer organised rally. https://www.facebook.com/notes/gainesville-police-department/3-arrested-for-shooting-after-richard-spencer-speech/1481821918520731/

One of the 3 arrested said this: "Us coming in and saying we’re taking over your town, we’re starting to push back, we’re starting to want to intimidate back. We want to show our teeth a little bit because, you know, we’re not to be taken lightly. We don’t want violence; we don’t want harm. But at the end of the day, we’re not opposed to defending ourselves."

"We're not looking for violence, we're just showing up armed and trying to provoke an angry reaction so we can hopefully get to kill people and say it was self-defense."

Cunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/08/2017 at 0:28 PM, Panflute said:

Aptly dubbed Operation Unthinkable.

Although the plan was to attack the USSR after finishing off Germany, which would still have been absolutely retarded. I really find it hard to fathom how anyone thought a surprise attack against the USSR would work 4 years after Hitler tried it and failed miserably.

That’s surely why it may have worked it made no sense so they wouldn’t have expected it lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...