Topic: Churchill

[Sangria]

From the rest of your post it seems you were taught a fairly good range of history. Maybe the war bits, for whatever reason, were the only ones that really stuck with you?

It's a shame when that happens. There's so much more to British history. Even the interwar years, which you'll have been taught, if you were also taught about the First and Second World Wars, are extremely interesting. Pity you don't remember studying them!

And learning doesn't stop with teaching. The most valuable lesson I got from my formal history lessons was how to assess and use sources. Most history I know I've learned from reading on my own initiative. I'm able to form a decent picture of that, and on politics, because of what my teachers taught me about historiography.

[Yorkykopite]

And learning doesn't stop with teaching. The most valuable lesson I got from my formal history lessons was how to assess and use sources. Most history I know I've learned from reading on my own initiative. I'm able to form a decent picture of that, and on politics, because of what my teachers taught me about historiography.

Yes. I have limited sympathy for anyone who complains that all they were taught was Nazis and Tudors. Even if that were true it shouldn't stop them correcting the problem later in life. History writing remains one of the glories of English letters. Hundreds of books are published every year on everything from the Phoenicians to history of modern day Iran.

[jillcwhomever]

I agree the history curriculum is rubbish. I remember my school history education basically revolving around Tudors, Nazis, Tudors, Nazis with the occasional other topic of interest thrown in. I remember Industrialisation was taught as if Britain were a vacuum, with little to no mention of the Empire that funded it. We did learn about some other important moments, like the history of Ireland from the 17th Century to independence.

However we were never once taught about the English Civil War/War of the Three Kingdoms or the Act of the Union, which were pivotal moments in British history. We learnt very little about 20th Century British history outside of wartime. History was the one subject I really genuinely enjoyed, so many of the useful things I learned about it I learnt off my own back.

I also really think this countries obsession with 'the war' has really held us back.

I'm amazed you were not taught anything on the industrialisation of Britain and outside. That was a huge part of my history classes all the way through Secondary School. In fact we didn't do anything much on the two World Wars, maybe a bit on the First but that was all. It was mainly from the early Battle of Hastings, mid-history with the plague, fire of London, Civil War etc. Then obviously a lot was done on the Tudors and the Victorian Age. I always loved history at school, still do now, but sometimes other lessons kind of linked up with it. The most fascinating aspects I learnt about Victorian Britain was through reading Charles Dickens. Not only was he a great storyteller but also someone who brought the age alive through his stories. Especially the way he wrote about the exploitation of children in that age and also the way they handled debt which was just shocking.

Sorry, just realised a bit away from the subject of this thread. Maybe we need a history thread. 

[Indomitable_Carp]

Yes. I have limited sympathy for anyone who complains that all they were taught was Nazis and Tudors. Even if that were true it shouldn't stop them correcting the problem later in life. History writing remains one of the glories of English letters. Hundreds of books are published every year on everything from the Phoenicians to history of modern day Iran.

If this was a sly little dig at me, like I said most of my history knowledge is off my own back.

I'm amazed you were not taught anything on the industrialisation of Britain and outside. That was a huge part of my history classes all the way through Secondary School. In fact we didn't do anything much on the two World Wars, maybe a bit on the First but that was all. It was mainly from the early Battle of Hastings, mid-history with the plague, fire of London, Civil War etc. Then obviously a lot was done on the Tudors and the Victorian Age. I always loved history at school, still do now, but sometimes other lessons kind of linked up with it. The most fascinating aspects I learnt about Victorian Britain was through reading Charles Dickens. Not only was he a great storyteller but also someone who brought the age alive through his stories. Especially the way he wrote about the exploitation of children in that age and also the way they handled debt which was just shocking.

Sorry, just realised a bit away from the subject of this thread. Maybe we need a history thread. 

Like I said I do remember classes on industrialisation. However it was taught as Britain in a vacuum. The Empire that industrialisation was fuelled by was largely left out of it bar a few footnotes. It was more about the social effects (very important also of course - Dickens included)


I was taught about both Nazi's and Tudors twice on seperate occasions (once each in school and once each in Sixth Form). Civil War wasn't taught unfortunitely. 1066 definitely got in there in the early school days though.

[TepidT2O]

Meh, they’ll come around in time.


History fads are cyclical. 

[Mutton Geoff]

Meh, they’ll come around in time.


History fads are cyclical. 

Ah yes but

 'if you want a better future you need to remember your history and learn from it.'

[Indomitable_Carp]

Meh, they’ll come around in time.


History fads are cyclical.

Aye well that was a long time ago now so I'd like to think they've come around since. I remember Gove getting a bit of stick for his stance on the history curriculum though, so I don't know what effect he had as Education Secretary.

As a side note, our history curriculum blows that of Australia out of the water. Most of the Aussies I spoke to in my time living there were completely ignorant (and admitted as such) of their own history, let alone the wider worlds.

[TepidT2O]

Ah yes but

 'if you want a better future you need to remember your history and learn from it.'

It’s true, but which history?

I was taught about the industrial revolution and reforms in public health and education.  Very much a history of the Victorians.  I didn’t touch WWI or II (which is odd when I look back at it).  In some ways I think thee are fewer lessons to learn from that than the grander political themes of the tudors, and WWI & II.

Personally I’d teach them about the Roman Empire. Every single issue still pertains today.  Trump as Nero? I could see it.

[Sangria]

It’s true, but which history?

I was taught about the industrial revolution and reforms in public health and education.  Very much a history of the Victorians.  I didn’t touch WWI or II (which is odd when I look back at it).  In some ways I think thee are fewer lessons to learn from that than the grander political themes of the tudors, and WWI & II.

Personally I’d teach them about the Roman Empire. Every single issue still pertains today.  Trump as Nero? I could see it.

Even more relevant than the Roman Empire would be the episode where Gaius Gracchus lost the tribunate. His rival, backed by the aristocratic faction, promised all sorts to the poor, without any intention of keeping those promises. His rival won, Gracchus lost, and Gracchus was killed in subsequent events. After which the aristos turned their backs on the promises made to win the election.

[afc tukrish]

It’s true, but which history?

I was taught about the industrial revolution and reforms in public health and education.  Very much a history of the Victorians.  I didn’t touch WWI or II (which is odd when I look back at it).  In some ways I think thee are fewer lessons to learn from that than the grander political themes of the tudors, and WWI & II.

Personally I’d teach them about the Roman Empire. Every single issue still pertains today.  Trump as Nero? I could see it.

So much of the Classics would be so pertinent to a modern audience...

Must be the way the Classics were taught across Western educational curricula, being de-emphasized or outright eliminated all over the place stateside...

Opportunity missed better to educate the respective populi...

[Qston]

He was quite racist of course ...but without him history could well have been very different

Oh I agree in many respects.  He was a flawed man who did and sanctioned many questionable things. However it is easy to take cheap shots and make glib comments at someone who, by any measure, was a towering figure of the 20th century. I just get angry at people who make comments without a grasp of historical context. For the most part the debate on here is well informed and reasoned debate. I have no issue with people's views who construct them on genuine knowledge.

I find churchill a fascinating character

[Lush is the best medicine...]

But Churchill isn't the only one who writes history. And, obviously, your claim was much bigger. It was that history is always written by the winners. It's simply not true. We wouldn't be here discussing British concentration camps in South Africa if it were.

whats the narrative around him, I mean you go onto the street and ask random people about Churchill and the vast majority talk of ww2 and what he did then, stuff like Tonypanda is something very few would know about

Any answer other then ‘hero’ would have created the same reaction I would suggest.

say he’s a hero for world war 2, would have saved him lots of hassle, this can get filed next to the Ira honours comments from 15 years ago

[west_london_red]

he’s a hero for world war 2, would have saved him lots of hassle, this can get filed next to the Ira honours comments from 15 years ago

That’s a good answer to be fair but he was asked the question on the spot. If I had been asked the question I don’t think my instinctive answer would be hero, although that would probably be the right answer.

[So… Howard Philips]

Even more relevant than the Roman Empire would be the episode where Gaius Gracchus lost the tribunate. His rival, backed by the aristocratic faction, promised all sorts to the poor, without any intention of keeping those promises. His rival won, Gracchus lost, and Gracchus was killed in subsequent events. After which the aristos turned their backs on the promises made to win the election.

But the lessons of appealing to the poor were used by both Clodius and Julius Caesar, both of whom were assassinated by the aristos.

[Sangria]

But the lessons of appealing to the poor were used by both Clodius and Julius Caesar, both of whom were assassinated by the aristos.

My point is that conservatives outbid Gracchus by promising even more, and the voters accordingly voted for the ones who promised them the most. After Gracchus had been disposed of, the conservatives went back on their promises. Gracchus and Caesar (and Clodius to some extent) kept their promises to the poor. Gracchus made sure his promises were realistic, unlike his opponents, and lost the election.

[Yorkykopite]

whats the narrative around him, I mean you go onto the street and ask random people about Churchill and the vast majority talk of ww2

It would be odd if they didn't!

[Yorkykopite]

Churchill has always been a controversial figure amongst organised labour, maybe today Tonypandy is not well known but within my lifetime I remember being told about Churchill and his role in attacking trade unionists, because the young turks on Rawk haven't heard of Tonypandy today doesn't mean that has always been the case. if you go back to my father's generation loads of trade unionists would be aware and have a position on the contradiction between Churchill the war leader and Churchill the politician, my father hated him like many of the South Wales Miners during the Miners strike did, 1945 a whole generation could untangle Churchill s war role from his domestic politics defeating him and his party by a landslide.

Yes.

Arthur Cook, leader of the Miners Federation, in 1926: "We'll never submit to tyranny. The grass will grow on the pulleys of the winding gear before we go back."

Winston Churchill, Chancellor of Exchequer: "And I'll make you eat it."

[Djozer]

I'm amazed you were not taught anything on the industrialisation of Britain and outside. That was a huge part of my history classes all the way through Secondary School. In fact we didn't do anything much on the two World Wars, maybe a bit on the First but that was all. It was mainly from the early Battle of Hastings, mid-history with the plague, fire of London, Civil War etc. Then obviously a lot was done on the Tudors and the Victorian Age. I always loved history at school, still do now, but sometimes other lessons kind of linked up with it. The most fascinating aspects I learnt about Victorian Britain was through reading Charles Dickens. Not only was he a great storyteller but also someone who brought the age alive through his stories. Especially the way he wrote about the exploitation of children in that age and also the way they handled debt which was just shocking.

Sorry, just realised a bit away from the subject of this thread. Maybe we need a history thread. 

This.

There was the Pyramids thread for a bit, but it got a bit, er, sidetracked. Vaguely remember a few history threads on various themes, people, or events, but a dedicated general history thread would be pretty sweet.

[west_london_red]

Yes.

Arthur Cook, leader of the Miners Federation, in 1926: "We'll never submit to tyranny. The grass will grow on the pulleys of the winding gear before we go back."

Winston Churchill, Chancellor of Exchequer: "And I'll make you eat it."

That’s the thing for me, if you blank out 1939 to 1945 he literally represents everything I personally despise. He ticks every box, a Tory, Imperialist, racist, sexist, a bully, aristocratic, privileged (and made use of that), anti Labour, the only thing missing is as far as I know he wasn’t a Manchester United supporter.

[So… Howard Philips]

This.

There was the Pyramids thread for a bit, but it got a bit, er, sidetracked. Vaguely remember a few history threads on various themes, people, or events, but a dedicated general history thread would be pretty sweet.

I enjoyed Andy Hunters' wrestler related Egyptology reports.

[Yorkykopite]

That’s the thing for me, if you blank out 1939 to 1945 he literally represents everything I personally despise. He ticks every box, a Tory, Imperialist, racist, sexist, a bully, aristocratic, privileged (and made use of that), anti Labour, the only thing missing is as far as I know he wasn’t a Manchester United supporter.

I don't think he knew football even existed. But there again football was a dirty big working-class secret until 1966.

I'll give a couple of admirable things about Churchill besides 1939-45.

1. His role, as a Liberal cabinet minister, in supporting Lloyd George on social policy and the introduction of National insurance and Old Age Pensions and the humanising of the Poor Law. These were the first serious steps towards creating a welfare state in Britain and Churchill helped to make them.

2. His support for Irish Home Rule at a time when the Conservative opposition was quite prepared to plunge not just Ireland, but the whole of Britain into a civil war to stop it.

3. His freedom from anti-semitism at a time when it was worn like an ornament by most members of his class.

These are not small things. I agree that they have to be put alongside some intense prejudices, some catastrophic errors and some terrible snobberies. On the whole, as I say, the case against him is stronger than the case for him. But the hysterics who want us to treat Churchill on a level with Hitler, Mao and Stalin are just plain mad - and a little disingenuous too since it soon becomes apparent the hysterics quite like Mao and Stalin. 

[So… Howard Philips]

This.

There was the Pyramids thread for a bit, but it got a bit, er, sidetracked. Vaguely remember a few history threads on various themes, people, or events, but a dedicated general history thread would be pretty sweet.

I've started a RAWK History Channel in The Boozer for those interested.

[jillcwhomever]

I've started a RAWK History Channel in The Boozer for those interested.

Great idea.

[Djozer]

I've started a RAWK History Channel in The Boozer for those interested.

Good on ya.

And I too enjoyed Andy Hunter's "history according to WWE personalities" thread.

[shook]

Shook,if you're going to c&p from articles,you have to link to those articles.
And less of the typical British response shite,we would be banned if we gave it the typical Irish,Indian,French etc,etc response.

https://archive.org/details/FamineCommission/page/n2
i doubt Late Victorian Holocausts is available online

[Yorkykopite]

https://archive.org/details/FamineCommission/page/n2
i doubt Late Victorian Holocausts is available online

Somehow Hitler and the Luftwaffe didn't get the message.

[Zeb]

"The British colonial government deliberately set out to kill Indians by starving them to death. Here is the report where they set out proposals to avoid deaths from starvation to prove that."

[shook]

Somehow Hitler and the Luftwaffe didn't get the message.

The thing about the constant British argument about Churchill's heroic efforts during the war, is that while it is absolutely true on its own, it doesn't extend beyond the war. After all, does anyone lionize Stalin? The Russians were the primary reason the Nazis were defeated, but fortunately we do not hear and see (including via movie propaganda) nonsense lionizing him. Churchill, on the other hand, was also responsible for genocide (he was less prolific in his murder than Stalin was), yet his direct responsibility in the starvation of millions, is vilely glossed over by hagiographers

And since you bring up the Nazis, I again point to the fact that the British Empire's rationing was WORSE than Buchenwald. Hitler was the British Empire on aggro, since the British at least had some lulls between their genocides.

[shook]

"The British colonial government deliberately set out to kill Indians by starving them to death. Here is the report where they set out proposals to avoid deaths from starvation to prove that."

Yes, the British strategy was simply to have reports outlining proposals (So that Minions could point to their 'efforts') while the higherups simply ignored the sound advice when it mattered.
As I have said before, certain British administrators knew how to fix the famines, and wrote as such, but the British Empire preferred greed, and did not mind killing brown natives through famine (and of course, white ones in Ireland).
Even though the style is different to Hitler and Stalin, it remains genocide.

[shook]

"The British colonial government deliberately set out to kill Indians by starving them to death. Here is the report where they set out proposals to avoid deaths from starvation to prove that."

And there were numerous famine commissions undertaken, but it was only after 100+ years of British rule that India settled into chronic undernutrition rather than famines, the long lull until Churchill in Bengal

[Zeb]

Yes, the British strategy was simply to have reports outlining proposals (So that Minions could point to their 'efforts') while the higherups simply ignored the sound advice when it mattered.
As I have said before, certain British administrators knew how to fix the famines, and wrote as such, but the British Empire preferred greed, and did not mind killing brown natives through famine (and of course, white ones in Ireland).
Even though the style is different to Hitler and Stalin, it remains genocide.

You're conflating different things. Genocide is a word used for deliberately setting out to murder people. If the British were so effective at it during the well recorded famines, there's some freakishly long gaps between them happening, isn't there?

[Yorkykopite]

The thing about the constant British argument about Churchill's heroic efforts during the war, is that while it is absolutely true on its own, it doesn't extend beyond the war. After all, does anyone lionize Stalin? The Russians were the primary reason the Nazis were defeated, but fortunately we do not hear and see (including via movie propaganda) nonsense lionizing him. Churchill, on the other hand, was also responsible for genocide (he was less prolific in his murder than Stalin was), yet his direct responsibility in the starvation of millions, is vilely glossed over by hagiographers

And since you bring up the Nazis, I again point to the fact that the British Empire's rationing was WORSE than Buchenwald. Hitler was the British Empire on aggro, since the British at least had some lulls between their genocides.

You're very boring and very misinformed, and also you don't take the slightest bit of notice of what other posters say. I think Churchill has been done to death on this thread myself. Whatever nuance is in the thread - and it's quite a lot - you simply squeeze out. Night night.