Twinkies!
I was thinking about this summers Republican convention....remember when Giuliani kept comparing Bush to Churchill? I just laughed about it at the time, but then I remembered: Oh yeah, Churchill was an ENORMOUS racist! And I don't mean that he was just a little down on minorities, he was an all-out white supremicist (and even had nice things to say about Hitler on occassion).
"They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.
But like President Bush, they were optimists... There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader. Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly."- Guliani
"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia...a stronger race, a higher grade race has come in and taken its place"- Churchill in 1937
Wonder why that wasn't in any of my history books growing up? Huh.
"They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.
But like President Bush, they were optimists... There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader. Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly."- Guliani
"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia...a stronger race, a higher grade race has come in and taken its place"- Churchill in 1937
Wonder why that wasn't in any of my history books growing up? Huh.
posted by Samwick @ 8:13 AM
9 Comments:
At 3:51 PM,
Samwick said…
Note to Guliani: if you want to appeal to red states in the future...avoids words like "gadfly". Seriously.
At 3:51 PM,
Samwick said…
Wait a minute, I live in a red state...are you saying I'm stupid?
At 3:54 PM,
Samwick said…
No, I'm not saying your stupid at all. I meant to imply it. Thanks.
At 3:56 PM,
Samwick said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 4:22 PM,
Christopher said…
Your reference to Churchill’s remark about “Red Indians” reminded me that Churchill, himself, had some “Red Indian” ancestry through his American mother, which I think he knew about, and didn’t deny.
Churchill, of course, presided over the British Empire, an empire based on “white” supremacy and “non-white” inferiority. And the sentiments expressed in Churchill’s remark were held by most “white” people of that time, who looked at all “non white” peoples as somehow inferior. Thus, in cartoons in American newspapers during World War 2, the Japanese were almost always depicted as ape-like, but the Germans weren’t.
Incidentally the then prevalent “white” view of “non-whites” was given respectability by the scientific establishment which, by means of dubiously constructed IQ tests and examination of shapes of skulls and facial contours, concluded that “non-whites” were genetically inferior. It was called “scientific racism”. In this connection, I recommend the book “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould.
Looking at the present, how true is it that “white” views of “non-whites” have changed? Think of all the impassioned public discussion about immigration, not only in the USA, but in the other “white” immigrant nations like Canada and Australia – where immigrants until quite recently were welcomed with open arms. Could the present furore about immigration have anything to do with the fact that immigrants now are almost all “non-white”?
Looking at what has happened in “non-white” Iraq, I couldn’t help noticing that the first countries to sign on and send troops to help the US in the Gulf War of 1999 were the British and Australians – Anglo-Saxon white boys all – who were also the first to come on board and send troops in the most recent invasion. And who has been George W’s most loyal supporter in his adventure in Iraq? Why, non other than a fellow Anglo-Saxon white boy, Tony Blair.
And why was George W so easily able to convince Americans that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror, and that Saddam participated in the planning for 9/11? Could it be that all too many Americans see “Arabs” as all being alike, so that all “Arabs” are terrorists, no matter who they are or where they live?
Could it be that “white” racism, in particular American racism, hasn’t disappeared, but has merely gone underground, to re-appear in a disguised form, like in the War on Terror?
At 4:41 AM,
Anonymous said…
Churchill was but then again, without wishing to appear an apologist, for I am not, so were most white people at the time and for many years before and since. His public prominence means his comments are noted in history but there were - indeed still are - many people who hold or held to those obnoxious views.
In short, Churchill 'didn't know better' or didn't have access to the information and education put out today about racism which we all have access to. The debates simply weren't taking place, the actions weren't being taken to counter those views, black people had yet to see the explosion of the civil rights movement....
I think we can look into history and while we can't excuse racism, we can at least understand its context - but what I can't grasp is those who hold to those views today or conduct themselves, at the very least, in a racist or imperialistic fashion.
I was happy that my own country had abandoned its imperial past - until the Falklands War and subsequent support of both Bush boys in their efforts to secure oil supplies for the future. Churchill belongs to history and is somewhat dusty; the likes of Bush and Blair know better, in many respects, and yet as a consequence come of as being much, much worse. To quote Churchill, one needs to be as careful as with any other historical figure. Before quoting him as a man set against evil, best to make sure he didn't hold to any views or take any actions we'd see today as evil, eh?
Another historical figure, Alexander the Great. The new film featuring the tasty Colin Farrell has Greek historians upset to the extent they want a disclaimer on the film basically saying he wasn't a poof. Unfortunately for them, he wasn't only one of the world's greatest ever military leaders and strategists but he was a screamer who liked to wear women's clothes as well. People like to take the past and use it, including the figures which inhabit it - to present dead people as anything less or more than who they were is, ultimately, to do them a disservice - Churchill, Alexander, whoever. And any form of revisionism, academic or political, is to be abhorred.
At 6:32 AM,
Samwick said…
Hey Christopher. I agree with you 100 percent. I view patriotism as being identical with racism, it's the exact same thing. Whenever a nation ramps up the patriotism it means that a non-white nation is about to be attacked. War is easy for Americans because the majority of us don't suffer from it and, more importantly, it's non-whites that do the vast majority of the dying. There's a colonial attitude at work here: it's okay for us to kill non-whites because we know whats best for them. Sure, we'll destroy their country but in exchange we're civilizing these backwards people. It's awful. I would just point out that after the first Gulf War American companies made a total of 100 billion dollars rebuilding Kuwait. If we didn't periodically destroy other nations our economy would be in the toilet.
Basically racism is what feeds this country, it's what keeps us going as a superpower. At no time has America ever sustained its economy based upon the labor of the white majority. If anyone disagrees with this...ask Wal Mart to close down every clothing factory that utilizes cheap minority labor. Ask Wal Mart to refuse to buy produce from under-paid South American farmers. Every major corporation employs low-paid non-whites throughout the world and if you remove this exploited labor...if American companies were to employ ONLY Americans at reasonable wages...there would be no America as we know it today, and all because we are more than willing to exploit non-whites.
Andy! Hey there. I just pick on Churchill because he is so universally beloved, I really hate the way we romanticize and simplify people who were flawed and complicated. I agree with your points though. He was a product of his time, whereas there really is no excuse for Bush. I mean, he wants to pat himself on the back and claim he's improved the lives of Iraqis. Meanwhile 3.8 million Africans have died during the conflict in the Congo. There's a genocide in Darfur. He employs a selective compassion that is fueled by racist attitudes. If we actually cared about humanitarian relief, Iraq would have been way down on the list of priorities. But, since it's millions of blacks dying, it's easy for us to ignore the problem.
At 11:37 PM,
Snave said…
Nice blog, Matt! I ended up here after checking out Ric O. and Georgina's blog "Release the Hounds", where your site and my site are listed as "bad" blogs. I figured that if we are both "bad" we may have some things in common... it appears we do. Come visit sometime! Your place is bookmarked, and I will come back to it!
At 11:15 AM,
Snave said…
A friend of mine once described the difference between patriotism and nationalism: Patriotism is a deep love for your country. Nationalism is "My country, love it or leave it."
If there's anything to that, I'd have to say I think there is a lot more nationalism being displayed in our country nowadays than patriotism. I don't know how helpful either is when it's in a rabid state.
Post a Comment
<< Home