• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

More erasing of history...

Zen Den said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody's done that. He is a divisive figure but to many he was the right man at the right time. It's not compulsory to idolise him or mention his failings whilst recognising he was a brilliant wartime leader.

It's also a complete red herring because he's not being removed for any of the reasons that folk are citing, it's just that time...
 

Locke's SAFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I addressed this, very clearly in my past response. I agree with you: people generally identify more with people (this is so obvious it doesn’t need said). A good % of people in this country though might see issues with Churchill, and equally people on the ‘right’ might take issue with ‘left’ choices in the same way. Animals are neutral in that they are apolitical, unless you’re reading Orwell.
 
c032745y said:
I don't think anybody's done that. He is a divisive figure but to many he was the right man at the right time. It's not compulsory to idolise him or mention his failings whilst recognising he was a brilliant wartime leader.

It's also a complete red herring because he's not being removed for any of the reasons that folk are citing, it's just that time...
Click to expand...
I agree that in the case of the notes this may well be a red herring, but not sure what you mean in the first para: I agree with the view but I definitely think the discourse is about whether to idolise or denigrate.
 
Zen Den said:
I addressed this, very clearly in my past response. I agree with you: people generally identify more with people (this is so obvious it doesn’t need said). A good % of people in this country though might see issues with Churchill, and equally people on the ‘right’ might take issue with ‘left’ choices in the same way. Animals are neutral in that they are apolitical, unless you’re reading Orwell.
Click to expand...

This is a departure from what you were saying earlier. You were saying that people can identify more with animals. That's not true at all.

I agree that a decent number of people will have an issue with Churchill in one form or another, but that doesn't mean people identify more with animals.

You remain incorrect in your assertion that "animals are neutral". Human beings are putting animals on the notes and there is a human reason for that.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
This is a departure from what you were saying earlier. You were saying that people can identify more with animals. That's not true at all.

I agree that a decent number of people will have an issue with Churchill in one form or another, but that doesn't mean people identify more with animals.

You remain incorrect in your assertion that "animals are neutral". Human beings are putting animals on the notes and there is a human reason for that.
Click to expand...
I went back and read everything I’ve written (thank you for making me do this) and at no point have I ever said people identify more with animals. Obviously. Animals are less divisive than people though. I can’t see left and right tearing strips off each other because a red squirrel’s on a fiver.
 
Zen Den said:
I went back and read everything I’ve written (thank you for making me do this) and at no point have I ever said people identify more with animals.
Click to expand...

Aye, fair enough, I've just gone to the post that I thought I'd read it but you're right.

Zen Den said:
Obviously. Animals are less divisive than people though. I can’t see left and right tearing strips off each other because a red squirrel’s on a fiver.
Click to expand...

The point is that some people don't want animals on the notes, they want historical figures, and that makes it divisive. They see it as attempting to brainwash people into thinking that this is a part of our history that must be ignored.
 
Zen Den said:
I agree that in the case of the notes this may well be a red herring, but not sure what you mean in the first para: I agree with the view but I definitely think the discourse is about whether to idolise or denigrate.
Click to expand...
No it isn't... its about someone getting apoplectic over a change that happens on a schedule with a vote and especially for me it is about anyone suggesting history can be erased especially by something so silly
Cockney Mackem said:
If pictures of animals can brainwash people, imagine what kind of damage you can do with the Countryfile nature calendar
Click to expand...
Filth
 
I've just had a bit of a fall out with the wife about this. He's only been on the fiver since 2016 - they've changed the notes regularly over the years.
Everybody wants to be enraged about everything these days and it's pretty tiresome.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
Aye, fair enough, I've just gone to the post that I thought I'd read it but you're right.



The point is that some people don't want animals on the notes, they want historical figures, and that makes it divisive. They see it as attempting to brainwash people into thinking that this is a part of our history that must be ignored.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, marra - I respect you for acknowledging this.

Tbh if you were coming on saying Churchill was an evil figure who needs whitewashed from history I’d take issue with that too, so I’m not saying you don’t have a point in the wider debate.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
:lol:

Here come all of the "progressives" patting each other on the back and telling each other how special they are.
Click to expand...
What is the nature of your issue? Are you using progressive as a synonym for woke?

The thread has popped over the idea you can erase history by keeping to a schedule of rotating the images on bank notes.
 
CatRyan said:
No it isn't... its about someone getting apoplectic over a change that happens on a schedule with a vote and especially for me it is about anyone suggesting history can be erased especially by something so silly

Filth
Click to expand...
The discourse goes beyond bank notes - and in that sense there definitely is a battle between glorifying and denigrating British history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top