1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

What Churchill means to us

Discussion in 'News' started by Corvuscorax, Jun 14, 2020.

  1. Corvuscorax

    Corvuscorax Star commenter

    As a carer and an educator, Churchill has for decades been held up to me as an example of historic british deliberate class based attachment disorder.

    He is a very well known case study of the damage of disrupted early caring relationships, and the later consequences in an intelligent adult.

    The traditional british upper class boarding school culture was designed to produce "leaders" - as in military leaders with a confidencein their own superiority and a lack of empathy that made them ruthless and efficient. This was an attachment disorder that created men who were able to comand armies, but would struggle form what we would consider to be normal interpersonal relationships. It was self perpetuating too, as such men would often desire their own sons to be equally "manly" "brave" and "stiff upper lippish", and huge cost to the mental health and well being of not only the men who were put through this "training" but also of the women in their lives.

    Churchill was a brilliant man. He was also a product of this system.

    No one is saying he wasn't brutal, calculating, prejudgediced and lacking in empathy. He was the first to admit he suffered severe mental health problems.

    We should be able to celebrate his war leader ship, while seeing him clearly for what he was.

    And part of what he was has lead to him being an inspiration to children with attachment disorders that I have cared for, ( children of all ethnic origins) and to people who suffer from depression ( again, of all ethnic origins)

    That statue should stay exactly where it is. Or if necessery, moved to the safety of a museum, and replaced with a cheap replica, which can be replaced with another cheap replica as often and as many times as necessery
    ACOYEAR8, Jonntyboy and agathamorse like this.
  2. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Lead commenter

  3. sidaji

    sidaji New commenter

    Thugs who try to damage his statue need shooting. Yet media try to blame the footy lads for defending the statues.

    there is only one winner in this, that’s the media. They got what they wanted, the divide between races getting bigger and bigger. It’s sad.
  4. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Lead commenter


    Spot the difference? No me neither.
  5. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Lead commenter

    Hardly, I have never seen so many white and black people joined together to fight the scourge of white supremacy and racism. The sooner we get these racist relics of the past out of our city centres the better.
  6. sidaji

    sidaji New commenter

    Look at the comments online, look at the massive fights between 2 groups. 99% of the people from both groups are decent people but the media only highlight the 1% of thugs to try bring more hate to each other. The media have done their absolute upmost to create divide between races. They must be having a party right now.
  7. DonutBoy99

    DonutBoy99 New commenter

    Remind me again, who are the 'decent people' on the racist side?
  8. sidaji

    sidaji New commenter

    Who do you mean by the ‘racist side’, BLM or footy lads? The media already successful in brainwashing you. There is no racist side, there is a small minority of racist thugs on both sides.
  9. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    Both sidesism worthy of Trump.
  10. install

    install Star commenter

    A question already answered by anyone who raises the very question may be regarded by some as blinkered and driven by a possible biased agenda imho.

    According to the Independent:

    ‘Many historians have tried to make sense of the man and his times. “Churchill was a racist” is part of the truth about the man, but only a part of it.’

    It is highly possible that Churchill was racist - as were many in his day. Maybe a plaque needs to go on the statue detailing more - but taking it down when he led the fight against an oppressive state seems too soon to me.

    Churchill was no Hitler in my view, but he was incredibly imperialist and old fashioned in his thinking. My mate tells me she has met many Winstons in her lifetime all from different races which seems to suggest a possible sense of admiration imho.

    Indeed Churchill with all the nation behind him and with all its cultures defeating the Nazis does sound commendable in my view. All those soldiers who died and all those dead victims all over the world I think are all heroes of they fought against Hitler in their way.

    I wonder if some people today have forgotten what war is like, and even one as recent as World War Two?
    Corvuscorax and agathamorse like this.
  11. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    Yeah but you do have a certain agenda to push don't you. The fact is Churchill is remembered for leading this country through five years of war. He was this country's leader and provided inspiration at a vey dark time which is why he is commemorated. Why do you wish to focus on the negative side of him? Does it it give you some kind of pleasure? Please try to grasp the fact that the vast majority of the population would like the statue of Churchill to be left unmolested exactly where it is. Does it cost you anything to accept this?
  12. install

    install Star commenter

    I think this man knows the difference between Churchill and Hitler , but then it seems some in our society might simply see him as racist because Churchill was the PM then :

    ‘ A 99-year-old war veteran has been left "speechless" after raising more than £23m for the NHS.

    Capt Tom Moore originally aimed to raise just £1,000 for NHS Charities Together by completing 100 laps of his garden before his 100th birthday.

    The Duke of Cambridge hailed him as a "one-man fundraising machine".

    His daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore said: "There are no words left to say. We cannot believe people's generosity and he's just floored by it."
    agathamorse likes this.
  13. install

    install Star commenter

    Perhaps it’s too soon to forget imho that our present day freedoms are due in part to Churchill. He was imho racist but he also secured our freedom as a democracy to be able to call him that too:

    Last edited: Jun 14, 2020
    agathamorse likes this.
  14. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    There are some who are only able to see life through one set of blinkers. This may be due to some form of brainwashing as they grew up, and so it may well not be their fault. Some of these may contribute on this forum.

    I think we must, if we can, gently try to suggest other, rational, measured viewpoints, but as those who are or have been in education know, it can be a hard, and at times disappointing, slog.
  15. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    If winning WW2 is sufficient to wipe out any other concerns about character or behaviour for Churchill what are we to make of Stalin? He made a far bigger contribution to the allied victory than Churchill. It seems a lot of the defence of Churchill is of the "he may have been a ******* but he was our *******" type.
  16. sidaji

    sidaji New commenter

    No concerns about his behaviour. He is a hero and the best leader this country has ever had.
    agathamorse likes this.
  17. install

    install Star commenter

    Stalin didn’t lead Britain the last time I checked .. And society isn’t still anywhere near perfect.

    We have our British democracy today and the desire for a more equal society as result of the freedoms fought for by Churchill and others imho.

    That includes freedom and equality for women too by the way, not just men in my view.
    agathamorse likes this.
  18. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    Stalin and Churchill - no difference? So how come Churchill accepted the democratic decision of the ballot box in 1945? I don't recall Stalin being much interested in democracy or holding any elections. Clung on to power until wrested from his cold hands by death didn't he?
    agathamorse and hhhh like this.
  19. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    I didnt mention, winning or triumphalism of any kind. He provided leadership when frankly this country was in grave danger of falling. He gave the country belief and self-respect and enabled it to get through those years of misery.
    anniesue777, agathamorse and hhhh like this.
  20. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    I didn't say there was no difference, only that both were allied leaders who helped ensure victory in WW2. In Churchill's case that seemed to be enough for some folk to play down or even erase his bad points, but for Stalin it appears otherwise. If democratic change of power is your benchmark for being able to turn a blind eye to racism and the devastating results of his government's policies in Bengal, to Gallipoli and so on then that's useful to know.

Share This Page