CatRyan
Striker
I don't know and I care even less. I'm not here for public service of the non smutty kind
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
More erasing of history...
- Thread starter johnlights
- Start date
c032745y
Striker
It's the melodrama that folk take the p*ss out of "More erasing of history..." when all that has happened is the same thing that has been happening for years. There's a fake patriotism & uber Britishness about these types, wailing & moaning over "their England" being taken away. It's quite pathetic.
Churchill's many speeches would sound differently if he was trying to rally these gonks. None of them would've gone overseas to fight anyway, "cos it's forrin!!!"
Last edited:
Zen Den
Full Back
Changing to animals might not be neutral, but the animals are whereas historical figures aren’t - political ones like Churchill especially. Why not have imagery that all of us can identify with?
Sounds better that as a double negative.I don't know and I care even less. I'm not here for public service of the non smutty kind
Last edited:
CatRyan
Striker
Well... I initially wrote, I'm not here for public service and then had to tack the end on out of honesty
It's just a key word to get them worked up, like saying "sausages" to a dog
One or two the of the more intelligent ones can even repeat it back to you after you say it
CatRyan
Striker
It's like all of their petty hates... they can't explain what it is or why it is, just that Julia Hartley Brewer says it is hateful.
Zen Den
Full Back
It’s fair enough for people to offer counterpoints to traditional narratives around people like Churchill, but I also think denigrating past historical figures and the country as a whole for views and actions which were commonplace at the time is also foolish. The past is neither all good nor all bad - it just is - and it had nowt to do with any of us either way.
Last edited:
Martin F
Striker
Logon or register to see this image
Mousehold Mackem
Midfield
No one is denigrating them. It's a change of design. Nothing else. Only the right would describe it as denigration. It's crazy.
Locke's SAFC
Striker
Do you think more people identify with nature than they do history?
Zen Den
Full Back
Okay, yes, but I’m talking about the wider issue here than just the bank notes. There is definitely a cultural battle for the legacy of people like Churchill and of British history as a whole - and I think extreme positions in this debate are hard to justify.
johnlights
Central Defender
Its also incredible how many people ''don't care'' but pile in, times, regardless.
Zen Den
Full Back
Maybe not, but which history are we talking about? We all likely identify more with people than animals - just not the same people.
Mousehold Mackem
Midfield
That's cods M8. Which British figures are we talking about here? Not Churchill as anyone with an inkling of history by is aware of his good and bad sides.
Extreme positions are exactly that. Flag shaggers for example.
Last edited:
Locke's SAFC
Striker
Many people do not care about animals which is why we are one of the most nature depleted countries on this planet.
We have a lot of people who have dogs and cats but that's not the same as being animal lovers. I do speak to people who are walking their dogs and they do care about the animals and are interested in what's knocking about, but many dog walkers couldn't care less about animals.
You're imagining this scenario whereby there are loads of animal lovers out there and Churchill and the like are imposed upon us by a few people from a bygone age. That simply betrays your politics and how you'd like to things to be, rather than how they actually are.
Zen Den
Full Back
I think if you follow what I’ve been saying to different posters I’ve not betrayed anything of my political views at all - in fact I’ve taken a very balanced stance among all the name-calling and sloganeering. It is you who are revealing a political position - and a one lacking nuance.
It’s not about being an animal lover, but animals native to the country are a symbol that nobody can politically disagree with, whereas historical figures are.
Locke's SAFC
Striker
You're repeating yourself and I've answered this. What we're talking about here is what human beings want on the notes. That's not neutral.
Mousehold Mackem
Midfield
And it's clear where you stand. The voters said what they wanted on the notes. You disagree? Tough.
Zen Den
Full Back
That’s a straw man: I’ve already agreed with this aspect and explained what I mean by neutrality perfectly well. If you don’t agree that’s fine, but I’m happy with my logic and even happier to call it a day haha
Locke's SAFC
Striker
It's not a straw man at all. You ignored my response and retreated into something you'd already said and we'd discussed.
To recap, I said this:
You're imagining this scenario whereby there are loads of animal lovers out there and Churchill and the like are imposed upon us by a few people from a bygone age. That simply betrays your politics and how you'd like to things to be, rather than how they actually are.
Your argument that people can identify with animals but can't identify with historical figures who aren't to the liking of the left-wing, simply is not true.
You think I'm wrong? Put some meat on the bones, demonstrate it, back up what you're saying with some evidence, because at the moment it's a platitude with no grounding in reality. There are loads of people in this country who do not care about animals, many of them have pets such as dogs and cats, they have no idea what is going on with our animal species in this country because they've never bothered to think about it.
There will be a lot more people in this country who know more about Churchill than about animals, and that's because they're more interested in Churchill than they are in animals.
