Mbeki attacks 'racist' Churchill

[emad]

British imperialists ravaged Africa, says leader

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Wednesday January 5, 2005
The Guardian

President Thabo Mbeki has made a withering attack on Winston Churchill and other historic British figures, calling them racists who ravaged Africa and blighted its post-colonial development.
The South African president was addressing the Sudanese assembly, and he was criticised for not dealing with the government's human rights violations in Darfur.

He said British imperialists in the 19th and 20th centuries had treated Africans as savages and left a "terrible legacy" of countries divided by race, colour, culture and religion.

He singled out Churchill as a progenitor of vicious prejudice who justified British atrocities by depicting the continent's inhabitants as inferior races who needed to be subdued, and pointed out that Kitchener and Wolseley had waged ruthless campaigns in Sudan and South Africa.

"To some extent we can say that when these eminent representatives of British colonialism were not in Sudan, they were in South Africa, and vice versa, doing terrible things wherever they went, justifying what they did by defining the native peoples of Africa as savages that had to be civilised, even against their will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1383331,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

1. Good lord yes, Churchill was VERY racist.

In 1910, in the capacity of Home Secretary, he put forth a proposal to sterilize roughly 100,000 "mental degenerates" and dispatch several thousand others to state-run labor camps.

Two years later, Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented;

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes,"

Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937:

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

And he's bush's hero. Figures.

[AP]

23. Yikes. That's pretty sick.

[LynnTheDem]

25. Uh huh. That's why I chuckle every time idiot bush says he wants to be

just like his idol, Churchill. :D

[Swamp Rat]

76. ... while he 'secretly' tries to emulate someone else.

[ThePlumber]

100. Gotta post warnings

You gotta post a warning before you put up a picture like that.

I almost spit a mouthful of water on my (very expensive) laptop. My wife would have killed me and you would have blood on your hands.

BTW, the expression is what really makes it funny to me.

[goforit]

36. AND....Churchill was not a very good student (very disruptive).

[w4rma]

55. He was a Royalist, too. But at least the guy knew enough to fight

the Nazis instead of cowering like Blair.

[Vidar]

62. Racist: yes. Imperialist: yes. Dirty tricks: yes. Saved the world: yes.

A nice guy like Neville Chamberlain couldn't have defeated Hitler. It took a real scrapper. Churchill's virtues loom so much larger than his admittedly real faults as to render this condemnation ludicrous.

[IrateCitizen]

70. Well stated, Vidar.

Churchill, like most other major figures in history, had incredible strengths that were countered by horrible flaws. However, his contribution to history in standing against the Nazis when nobody else would is undeniable.

[Vidar]

72. Thank you. Agreed.

[Raskolnik]

89. Have you ever read John Lukacs'

Five Days In London: May 1940?

It is about the best book I've read that really illustrates how without Churchill, the war would almost certainly have been over in 1940. Recommend it highly.

Its rare that history comes down to one man's will against another's, but for that brief time, Churchill saved all our asses from the Nazis.

[Vidar]

118. I read some fictional account of Hitler winning WWII, but not that one.

[Raskolnik]

119. This one isn't fiction.

Its an extremely detailed account of the War Cabinet during the fall of France.

I always knew that things came down to a razors edge during those days, but this book really does a fine job of selling that point.

(Although the author is a very reputable historian, he is a bit, *ahem*, old fashioned in his political views. It doesn't detract from the writing, however, if you go into it with open eyes)

[Vidar]

120. Oh, I see.

[TheKingfish]

77. Same would go for Stalin?

His contribution to defeating Germany in WW2 dwarfs Churchill's.

[IrateCitizen]

84. Stalin signed the 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler...

The aim of that document was not to give the Soviets time to gear up for a war with the Nazis -- Stalin had personally decimated the army by purging almost all the top officers -- but rather as a naked power grab to carve up Poland and Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR. Russia only stood up against Germany when it was forced to by Operation Barbarossa. Churchill had the foresight to warn against Hitler's plans as far back as the mid 1930's.

The sacrifices of the Russian country should not be minimized in standing up to Germany. After all, they lost at least 20 million people. However, the Russian people had much more to do with this than the brutal and power-hungry Josef Stalin. Churchill personally LED the resistance to the Nazis, pulling the British people along with him and his formidable will and personality.

Churchill's will was the source of many of his faults. It was also the source of his greatest triumph as well -- leading British resistance to Nazi Germany when nobody else would.

[JVS]

109. Come on we all know who the real bad guy who saved the world is

The Russians did the heavy lifting in that war

[CatholicEug]

2. I think it's wrong

to judge a person by today's standards. Better to judge Churchill by the standards of his day. I won't deny that Winston sounds venomously racist here. I remember what he called Gandhi.

Still, there was something great and good in the man that he was able to hold his nation together, execute a defense and rally a people.

[David__77]

6. Churchill WAS racist by his era's standards.

He was a staunch partisan of British imperialism, one of the most evil empires to have ever existed. Africa was set back a century by the hand of Britain alone. If it weren't for FDR and Stalin's insistance, the empire would never have ceded India and other colonies in the post-war period. If Churchill had his way, they would still be colonies. FDR was example of someone, who while effected by the common white chauvinism, was relatively progressive on race issues. Churchill was not at all.

[emad]

11. I think that's called "revision".

Churchill was a realist. If you read any of his private papers or those archived by historians you might change your opinion on his 'staunch partisanship of British imperialism".

In particular his exchange of correspondence between FDR and then later with Harry S Truman - quite an eye opener.

Churchill's pubished views on empire viz "the colonies" make interesting reading.

His support of Truman's stance on challenging racists and segregationists in the US Democratic Party is a matter of record.

[David__77]

15. His failure to condemn British atrocities is enough evidence for many.

I think that his defense of the legacy of the empire is enough for most Africans to realize his ideology. Britain's crimes are truly towering, in the same league as Hitler's Germany.

[emad]

16. I think that his correspondence with Harry S Truman on this

subject shows just how much his views moved on. His staunch support for Truman's fight against racists and segregationists in his own party is archived in the UK.

Don't know if the Harry S Truman Memorial Library and Museum holds any of these papers because the copyright belonged in the UK to Churchill family members who sold them on to UK museums and Oxford University library as well I believe.

[AP]

28. You have any citations? Quotes?

[emad]

39. I'll have a look at the Bodleian Library site where much of the

Churchill papers are stored and the National Archives in Kew which also holds a fair amount.

In the meantime the best quote I can remember personally was from when Harry S Truman came to Churchill's funeral in London in 1965. At the drinks reception after the requiem at Westminster Abbey, Truman made a brief address and told Clementine that the greatest benefit to civilisation that her husband had made was his unerring perception of human character and his unapologetic, scathing warnings about the spread of Soviet "malaise" in the developing world. His words were something like "stirring up hatred in far flung shores is more effective than the plague"....

[emad]

40. Now that is definitely revisionist! Nothing but nothing compares

as Nazi Germany.

Maybe you have forgotten that it was Chuchill who fired the first shots against Hitler and the Nazis' after they had invaded Poland.

The Brits went it alone against Hitler before any other country in the world.

The US didn't even join the War until after Pearl Harbor.

Just WHERE did you learn your version of European history?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

82. Gosh, that's a silly post

Britain helped save the world from Nazi Germany, some of the worst evil the world has ever known.

[Bill Lumbergh]

116. Yeah... that's ridiculous

Comparing Britain's empire crimes to the Holocaust.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Hmmmm....

FDR was relatively progressive on race issues? Ever hear of Executive Order 9066?

[David__77]

21. This is a stain, of course.

But I do think that he was progressive on balance, as represented by equal opportunity in employment decrees. He could have done a lot more, true. But he did take an important stand against colonialism in the third world, and for nations' independence and economic development.

[DoNotRefill]

54. Heh.

Yup, if you just overlook the concentration camps for US citizens based upon race, he was quite progressive on race issues.

Somehow, that sounds strange....

[Charon]

64. This is a stain, of course

President Roosevelt was able to forge a political block which included most Southern Democrats. The result was the New Deal. He understood the political implications for the New Deal if he pressed the issue of Race relations/equal rights. The cost would have been the witdrawl of Southern Democratic suppport for his legislation. It would also have probably meant his defeat in 1938 elections as the Souther states would not have supported him.

[AP]

27. FDR was a pretty good judge of fascist imperialism.

He may not have seen empire in terms of race. But he probably did see it in terms of being fascist and anti-democratic and anti-labor.

His wife, however, was a different story. She REALLY understood the issue of race. I heard a great story about her getting a letter from someone complaining about how the soldiers at an army camp were allowed to use a neighobring country club's pool, but the country club wouldn't allow black soldiers in the pool. Eleanor interceded and requested the army to no longer accept the country club's invitation to use the pool unless they wouldn't discriminate against the black soldiers.

She was pretty cool.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. The lesson here, ladies and gentlemen, is:

NOTHING is black and white.

Write that 1,000 times on the blackboard.

[GarySeven]

8. Reagan and Churchill were very similar in this regard

Good as a patriotic symbol, horrific as a right wing extremist.

[frankieT]

9. Hitler too was able

to hold his nation together, execute a defense and rally a people.

[CatholicEug]

12. Weak argument

Stalin was able to rally a nation, defend a people, etc. Why invoke Hitler here? Are you saying there's no difference between Churchill and Hitler? Please.

[LynnTheDem]

29. Strong argument.

YOUR post:

Still, there was something great and good in the man that he was able to hold his nation together, execute a defense and rally a people.

Well, HITLER and STALIN etc ALSO did all 3 of those things; does that mean "there was something great and good" in them for this, too?

[Jesus H. Christ]

33. Can we call Hitler a racist?

Or is that revisionism too?

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. Yes, but to what purpose?

The country almost reduced to rubble, decimation of its menfolk; the rape of hundreds of thousands of its women (in Prussia sometimes followed by their crucifixion to doors by the Tartar troops, etc), including even by French troops in Stuttgart; and the enduring shame of the concentration camps and the monsters who ran them. Ironically, it was the British in S. Africa, who invented concentration camps, for the Boers.

Churchill had been as arrogant and degenerate as that whole class had been early in the century, yet seemed to mellow and grow wiser in his estimation of the people belonging to what he would have considered the "lower orders", with the experience of his extraordinarily intense and eventful old age. Well, what most of us would consider to be old age! To say that, for the British people and the rest of Europe, he was a man of destiny would be something of an understatement. His courage, vision and toil during the war years, and indeed in the lead-up to it, was heroic, epic, momentous, unique.

Post-war, many of the upper and upper middle classes have married outside their class, usually, I think with working-class people - with whom ironically they generally seem to have more in common than with the "respectable" and ambitious middle-class types.

The idea of our beggars on horseback of the far-right, the Thatchers, Blairs, etc, fancying themselves as modern-day Churchills could scarcely be more grotesque. They look at everything like Lloyd-George said Chamberlain looked at foreign policy - through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[AP]

24. Mark Twain called the imperialists racists back then.

I'm willing to judge everyone of any era by Mark Twain's standards.

[GarySeven]

53. Don't forget Mark Twain actually knew Churchill

There's a funny story about the two of them disappearing for awhile to have a conversation. Twain's friends wondered if Twain could get a word in while the excited, talkative Brit rambled on and on with his obscure defenses of British colonialism. When Churchill reappeared they asked him if he had enjoyed his convo with Twain; quite a lot, he replied, then left. When Twain reappeared the friends asked for his version of the conversation. "I have had a nice cigar," he replied.

[AP]

56. I LOVE Mark Twain.

[LynnTheDem]

26. He was still a racist.

And he gassed the Kurds.

Hitler held his nation together and rallied a people, too. And Castro's been doing that for decades.

And Churchill was still a racist.

[Just Me]

3. Guess who just loves to spew "Churchill" at every turn?

Yup. You guessed it. American imperialists -> the neoCONimperialists.

[HamdenRice]

4. Ironic: ravaged the white people of Africa too...

This line in Mbeki's quote caught my eye: "Kitchener and Wolseley had waged ruthless campaigns in Sudan and South Africa."

Mbeki of couse knows his South African history, and when he refers to Kitchener's campaign, he is talking about the Boer War. In that nearly genocidal war, the British Empire came close to exterminating the Dutch speaking white people of rural South Africa, not the African tribes.

Wonder if Mbeki is trying to score some points with Afrikaner voters?

[KurtNYC]

5. Trying to score all the points he can

Mbeki called Desmond Tutu "a liar, charlatan and poser." ?!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1366852,00.html

Does Mbeki think he is going to fix today's racism by picking a fight with a dead guy?

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Nonsense

The Boer War was not a genocidal one. The camps, awful though they became, were not intended to exterminate the Boers but rather to eliminate the farms that enabled the guerillas to keep fighting. One may condemn the crowding of Boer women and children into detention camps, as many in England in fact did, but the intent was not genocidal.

Moreover, the Boer population in the Cape province, who were not generally affected by the war, greatly outnumbered the Boer population of the two warring states, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In fact, they even outnumbered the English residents of the Cape at the time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. That does sound plausible,

because the surgeon-general at the time considered thouands of men to be too malnourished to be inducted into the army, so infinite was the greed and callousness of the monied people of the country. As Wedgie-Benn remarked, The British working class are the last of the colonies.

Nevertheless, no-one should seriously feel able to question the hideously arrogant and cruel master-race mentality of the British people at the time. Indeed, if there is a white man's burden, it is precisely that, since it has persisted in considerable measure right up to the present day. We were told, of course, that we Brits won the war. Which of course was ever so slightly overstating the matter. We are the pariahs of Europe, especially when our football fans visit the lesser breeds!

[DavidDvorkin]

57. Well, the lesser breeds should learn to speak English better!

Harrumph.

I read somewhere that around the time of the Boer War, public sentiment in Britain turned strongly against expanding or even having an empire. I can't remember where I read that, unfortunately, or how the writer knew what public sentiment was at that time. Assuming it's true, I wonder if the stories coming out of South Africa had something to do with that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. That, too.

sounds plausible. I know there was consternation in the British Establishment that the Boer's elusive guerilla chief had actually become something of a folk hero here (a bit like Rommel).

I saw film on cable about street hawkers selling match-boxes or some such, purporting to contain something belonging to the guerilla chief, and when the customer opened the box there was nothing in it, but a joke about his nibs having escaped again! I've probably got it very garbled, but, as I recall it, it was something along those lines.

[HamdenRice]

68. Boer War

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Boer Wars
in South Africa (1880–1881 and 1899–1902)
Boer (not Afrikaner) and other historians feel that the second war of the British Empire against the Boer (not Afrikaner) Republics of Transvaal and Orange Free State were a definite form of genocide: because the Boers protested English plans to annex their Boer Republics, they declared war against the British.
The English rounded up Boer civilians, placing them in concentration camps. Until the Boers surrendered in May 1902, at least 27,000 Boer (not Afrikaner) civilians had been killed.
These figures are more accurately reflected as follows;
24,000 Boer Children, nearly half of the Boer child population had died. 3,000 Boer women also died.

I'd say killing half of the children of a population is "near genocidal".

Obviously the intent was not to exterminate the Boers, but the effect nearly was. The strategy was to deny the Boer guerillas the resources to continue the war by destroying their farms and rounding up the non-combatant women and children. Pol Pot did not intend to kill millions of Cambodians but the effect was genocidal nevertheless.

Also it is obvious that the Boer war was fought in the South African Republic (Transvaal) and Orange Free State and not in the Cape and Natal, except for a few raids by guerillas into the northern Cape.

At any rate, my main point was that in the Boer War, the British imperial policy had the ironic effect of inflicting on a white population the kind of brutality they usually inflicted on indigenous people.

[DavidDvorkin]

75. You have demonstrated my point

The camps were not designed as death camps. The deaths were from disease, mostly, and lack of proper nutrition and medical care. To say that the children were killed imples something that wasn't so. The camp death rate caused an uproar in England, in fact.

Yes, the war wasn't fought in the Cape or Natal provinces. The huge Boer population in the Cape was not attacked and continued to live in peace and prosperity during the war. Clearly, the English were not conducting a genocidal campaign against the Boers. They weren't even conducting ethnic cleansing within the Transvaal or Orange Free State. (By the way, the legal name of the Transvaal was the South African Republic, but no history teacher of mine in South Africa ever referred to it that way when talking about the Boear War. It was always the Transvaal. And that was in a school in the Transvaal.) When the war was over, the Boers returned to their lands.

[HamdenRice]

85. South African Republic !?!?!?!?

It was actually the Zuid Afrikansche Republik!

I lived in the Transvaal for about two years, doing human rights research in the late 1980s. Are you still there? Or when did you leave? Are you a transplanted South African to the US?

[DavidDvorkin]

91. Former S. African, now in the U.S.

I've been here for decades, ever since I was a teenager. I lived in Rustenburg, by the way.

To an English South African, it was the South African Republic, harrumph. :)

[HamdenRice]

103. Holy Cow -- What a small world!!! I did my research around Rustenburg!

I was researching land ownership in the late 19th and early 20th century by the Tswana communities in the area. The Bakwena Ba Makgopa, the BaPong and the BaKgatla near Sun City. Even though it was an Afrikaner town, Rustenburg was kind of liberal because of the through traffic to Sun City.

BTW, I'm a black American, so it was always a little scary going into western Afrikaner Transvaal towns -- but Rustenburg was OK. I had a truly bizarre experience when my car broke down in Zeerust and got kind of adopted by an Afrikaner farmer for the day!

[DavidDvorkin]

106. Wow, that's pretty cool.

It's so often the case that people are fine as individuals. It's when they behave as a group that ugliness can emerge.

As both an English South African and a Jew, I encountered prejudice from Afrikaners in Rustenburg (especially as a Jew), but at the same time, there were many Afrikaner kids I was good friends with. I guess it's more than the group thing I mentioned above, it's also the individual vs. the abstract. They may have hated "the Jew" in the abstract, but they considered me okay as an individual. I ran into similar feelings in Indiana, after we moved to the U.S.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frankieT]

10. true -eom-

[Just Me]

13. Ya' think? Hmmmm. n/t

[frankieT]

52. sorry if it bother you.

for who lived in Africa and knows the political arguments there, accusing past colonialism is a tactic used mainly by corrupt leaders playing the nationalist song to make people forget about present looting.
it doesn't diminish the true horror of colonialism and "civilized" racism.

[starroute]

18. British colonialism had terrible effects on its colonies

Three that come to mind are:

- Deliberate destruction of local industries (such as the Indian cotton industry) in order to turn colonies into mere exporters of raw materials.

- Sending the most promising local kids off to be educated in England to make sure they would become alienated from their own people and be unable to become strong local leaders.

- Drawing borders between colonies where it was convenient for the colonial administrators (often along rivers), with no regard to existing tribal territories, thereby insuring endless border wars when those colonies became nations.

From what I've heard, French colonialism had certain abuses of its own but was in many ways less destructive than the particularly arrogant form practiced by the British.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. Building railroads and water systems and schools

in Africa. Leaving behind a parliamentary system, a trained and educated civil service and middle class. Awful.

Of course there were abuses and evil deeds. But there was far more to the British imperial system than that.

[LynnTheDem]

30. "abuses and evil deeds"??? How about the largest genocide in human

history???

Between BE and the US, we slaughtered more millions than Hitler or Stalin ever dreamt of.

[AP]

32. Those railroads just greased the skids of shipping

the wealth of Africa off to London, Amsterdam, Paris and Brussels.

The governments they left in place protected the former colonies for another 50 years after the colonizers "officially" exited.

[SweetLeftFoot]

34. Cricket

Only thing the Poms ever did was give us a game at which we c ould beat you again and again and again ...

[TyeDye75]

105. You may be eating those words

Come this years ashes series my friends

Oh and we also gave you rugby and enjoyed ever so much taking it back in November 2003.

[bicentennial_baby]

59. Cecil Rhodes, Henry Morton Stanley

Give me a fucking break...abuses and evil deeds my ass.

[AP]

31. The biggest: massive transfer of wealth to the colonizing

countries.

Walk around the capital cities of any colonizer and look at the huge buildings, the marble, the streets, the art colllected in the museums, etc. What paid for that? Wealth taken out of the colonies is what paid for it. The huge difference between what it cost to extract resournces and the amount that the resources were sold for outside of Africa is the reason so much of Europe became so wealthy while Africa is so destitute today.

Compare Houston and Baghdad today. It's the same math and the same economics.

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. The Opium Wars in China

also spring to mind - where they forced the Chinese, against their will, to sell British-garnered opium to their people, I believe.

The French were so peeved when they left Algeria that they even took out the light bulbs when they left; yet it is true that they were far less arrogant than us British, to the extent that their colonies were (and to the extent that they still exist) still are considered to be part of a greater France, and likewise, its people as French citizens.

I found it quite moving to see a French programme on the box some time ago, in which a bespectacled young man of African race was dressed in a smart suit. I thought hang on! Aren't those people all supposed to dress casually and wear back-to-front baseball caps, and be rappers, singers or footballers? What's going on here?

Incidentally, it should be no surprise to anyone familiar with the destruction of the fabric of our country by succesive right-wing governments, that our children's educational standards in comparison with those of Zulu children, for example, is truly pathetic. I'm sure the quality of the education of Cuban children would also put ours to extreme shame.

[chenGOD]

157. That first part is not quite right...

The Chinese middle-men would only pay silver for opium, and the Chinese government would only accept silver as payment for tea.

The British government later outlawed opium sales, but of course the merchant-men would have none of that. This of course led to the opium wars, and that led to India becoming the largest tea manufacturer for the BE.

Not saying that any of the opium business was right you understand...

[fertilizeonarbusto]

19. Is this news?

I'm not saying that these people weren't racists-just about everyone back then was. No news here.

[plasticsundance]

22. Yes it is news ...

especially for those that lack backing up their arguments with facts.

The current disarray in Africa are the result of whitey. Everywhere the imperialistic behemoth has been in Africa has left its monster footsteps and made the populace in the nations of Africa vulnerable to other forces that oppress them.

The exploitation of Africa by Western forces was, as it is today, an intrusive negative force that destroys the fabric of these African nations. The IMF and World Bank give huge loans to these African nations, and then the banks dictates the terms of the loan, including how much each nation can spend on health care. The leaders of these African nations can't resolve the problems of their nation, because the bulk of their nation's budget must go into the interest to pay the World Bank/IMF.

Jesus Christ couldn't help these African people out of their dilemma.

As for Churchill being a racist and comparing him to Hitler is now too far off the mark. Here are some quotes from Churchill:

"This worldwide conspiracy amongst the Jews for the overthrow of civilisation has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century"

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes." -- Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." -- Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

"The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable." -- Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." -- Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

Nah ... doesn't sound like Hitler.(sarcasm ):eyes: Just your everyday run of the mill racist from the good-ole-days.

[d.l.Green]

35. Not only that...

But also Mr. Mbeki has proven that he is a leader for HIS people and will not be threatened or discouraged by the criticisms of the foreigners who have ravaged and manipulated the greater African community for centuries. He is learned and intelligent and eloquent and therefore a threat the New World Order. When he stood up to the medical industrial complex and questioned the credibility of the "aids/hiv" hoax (and it became world news), President Clinton reacted by declaring "aids/hiv" a national security threat!

[American Tragedy]

42. I assure you, HIV is no hoax

I'm sure Clinton reacted that way because he found it frightening that the leadership in countries stricken with the disease seemed willing to bet the lives of their people on a bizarre conspiracy theory.

[starroute]

45. So Churchill believed in the Bavarian Illuminati?

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt . . ."

That's a reference to Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Bavarian Illuminati. Yes, those Bavarian Illuminati.

Sigh.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DS1]

60. You, my new friend, are completely obsessed with Jews

It's unhealthy, you know, wrapping them up in every little conspiracy you can think of.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hughee99]

50. That's right, he's JUST LIKE HITLER!

I remember as a young boy reading about Churchill's death camps at Liverpool, Leeds and Cardiff. Clearly anyone who would say these things is on par (as far as racism goes) with Hitler.

[Ms. Clio]

125. Eye-opening quotes

I had read the chilling statement about gassing uncivilized tribes before--I believe he might even have been referring to British arial gassing of Iraqis at the time?

The rest are new to me, but very illuminating.

What strikes me most forcefully in reading Churchill's hate speech about Jews is how much it resembles some of the poison spreading in the modern public discourse about Muslims. I have read very similar screeds about diabolical secret Muslim plans to take over the western world, primarily by having lots of babies, right here at DU.

Guess it is just everyday run of the mill racism.

[AngryAmish]

37. Churchill started his career slaughtering Africans

He was a young officer for the British invasion of the Sudan. He wrote a book about it called "The River War".

[emad]

41. Gibson's riposte:

Douglas Gibson, a party spokesman, said: "It amazes me that President Mbeki feels that he should insult the memory of the greatest Briton by associating him with British colonial policy of 120 years ago.

"All this in order to create some superficial similarity between Sudan and South Africa.

"There is no similarity at all. South Africa has a liberal democratic constitution ... Sudan is a country which is hardly governed and where the Arab north dominates the African south and west."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1383331,00.html

MBEKI ranting against Churchill would have been more credible had his own political career been something worth writing home about....

[plasticsundance]

43. emad ... your article does nothing

to refute the valid points made by Mbeki. Just what kind of character does one need to have to criticize an obvious racist like Churchill. The problems that are and were in Africa are and were the result of Western Imperialistic intrusion.

South Africa fought for its new government, and it still has scars left from the intrusion of whitey. It has high unemployment, and the amount of impact South Africa would have in Sudan is staggering low, as compared to the influence of the US, UK, and France.

If the author of your article was being genuine, the author should have quoted what Churchill actually said, as I did.

[emad]

65. Churchill's record as a statesman, politician and man of honor

soars way above the stature of Mbeki - as countless historians have demonstrated.

The esteem he is held in by others who are/were his peers dwarfs that of those who accuse him of racism, imperialism or any other ism.

Mbeki's polemic can be dissected and analysed to uphold his personal agenda.

But Churchill's global contribution to humanity stands head and shoulders above that of any living politician today - many of whom owe their freedom and very existence to the courageous stand that Churchill, Roosevelt and Harry S Truman took during World War II.

[AP]

137. "man of honor"?? Churchill is partly responsible for the crap...

...Mbeki has to live and deal with.

Mbeki's entitled to crticize the guy.

[CatholicEug]

47. History hates a winner n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. And can you blame History,

when it has always been the triumph of the mailed fist! Might is right. The meek shall inherit the earth, but not its mineral rights, as Paul Getty contended.

But then perhaps you are one the Daily Mail's favourite historians, CatholicEug, who sees martial conquest as among man's finest endeavours.

[plasticsundance]

51. Ah ... I see ... CatholicEug

That justifies the exploitation of Africa by Western powers and racists comments from Churchill. :eyes:

I didn't see anyone use the word "hate, but I doubt that the DU-ers mentioning Churchill being a racist are doing it because "they hate a winner."

Do you have anything to disprove what is being asserted about Churchill? I mean, anything outside of platitudes?

[CatholicEug]

95. I'm not justifying Churchill's racist attitudes

I am saying that they were a product of their time. It's not like the man engaged in systematic genocide like Hitler. And when it came down to brass tacks, the man WAS the leader of the free world during WWII. This guy showed courage that most of us could only dream of having.

Confession -- I am a fan.

[Psephos]

63. Yawn. It's not hard to rip any historical figure a new asshole.

The formula is simple. Focus myopically on their flaws (every fucking human on Earth has flaws), minimize their contributions (i.e., damn them with faint praise, followed by a string of "yes...but" statements), and most importantly, superimpose current values and ideological fads on them, ignoring inconvenient facts that don't fit the grid. Funny how we always think OUR modern values are intrinsically superior to those of earlier times, isn't it? No one even questions it. The height of arrogance...as if all other people in all other times were dumbfucks or worse.

I do not think future generations will judge our luminaries well, either, presuming our descendents will have learned to minimize racial and class hatred, political viciousness, and national selfishness.

[plasticsundance]

66. Psephos ... hope you get a chance to catch up on your sleep

It might help you make a more substantiated argument. As they say, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

The platitudes and condescending tone is in full swing from those DU-posters criticizing the premise of Churchill being a racist and the facts surrounding the detrimental results of Western imperialism, especially in Africa. I can't say I blame these critics, they are severely lacking in facts, and must solely rely repeating the same specious and unsupported arguments, without providing one shred of evidence to back up their statements. When they're confronted and backed against a wall, they appear to rely on the haughty and supercilious attitude of a country club patron. They make Bush and Cheney proud.

First, these critics unsubstantially repeat the claim that one must hold a different standard regarding the attitudes expressed by Churchill, since it was a different time, and apparently back then it was chic and the trend to hold as an "ideological fad" the notion of gassing tribal people. Mind you, we're talking as recently as the first part of the last century. In addition, there were probably many back then that held the concept as revolting. This is probably one reason why Churchill had to defend his position in the first place.

Take their argument to the extreme, and one could let Nazi Germany off the hook, since gassing people was evidently a developing "ideological fad" at the time. It's the, "after all, boys will be boys" argument. Oh wait ... I forgot ... Hitler isn't considered a luminary, so his idea about gassing people differs from Churchill's concept of gassing "tribal people." It's okay to kill in the name of democracy by any means necessary. Using today's model, it's like saying, "look Saddam, we'll decide when something requires gassing the Kurds, thank you very much. Just because we sold you the material to do it, doesn't mean you have to use it. Really now!"

Second, these critics ignore the argument made by me that Western influence in present day Africa and around the world is proving just as detrimental, if not even worst, then those results of Western imperialistic meddling in the past. As those who have been reading carefully the postings on this topic, will surely have read that I've already criticized the IMF and World Bank. However, James Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank, is already on record about the results of "Western intrusion" in Africa. Evidently, even he agrees with Mbeki.

James Wolfensohn is on record as stating:

“Before colonialism it is clear that this continent had a remarkable concept of management. It was a system of people coming together for a common purpose. Now we have to find our way back. Governance is not something that is strange to Africa, it is something that has to be rediscovered in Africa.”

http://www.blackbritain.co.uk/news/details.aspx?i=964&c=africa&h=World+Bank+chief+admits+colonialism+messed+up+Africa

Psephos writes:

"I do not think future generations will judge our luminaries well, either, presuming our descendents will have learned to minimize racial and class hatred, political viciousness, and national selfishness.

Psephos, you should understand that I have no interest in being a perverse proctologist to either you, or, God rest his soul, Churchill, but I should point out that when following generations have reflected and found fault with prior generations, it went a long way to "minimize racial and class hatred, political viciousness, and national selfishness. Pray tell, do we even need a future generation to make us realize the harm we're doing in the Arab and Muslim world. What constitutes someone as being a luminary, and does the use of that word mean people deemed as such are untouchable?

History is a series of concatenations. When we, as a society, self-reflect to the degree that even has us holding are past and present luminaries accountable for actions and words, we assist in changing the course of history for the better.

[Stella_Artois]

133. Taken within the context of that period in history

There he was in 1919, advocating the gassing of Iraqi tribespeople.

Sounds shocking now, but this is mere months from a time when Britain was gassing Europeans by the hundreds of thousand, and suffering the same in return.

You will have a tough time convincing me that this guy is some kind of proto Hitler when he was merely reflecting the accepted military methods of the decade.

[AP]

74. Try to rip Twain a new asshole.

There were people back then who were anti-imperialists and anti-fascists.

[Psephos]

78. Fish in a barrel

I love and admire Mark Twain. Along with Orwell and Gandhi, he's one of the few I can respect and recommend without reservation. But I do not deify him. He was as full of flaws as the rest of us. Including me. Including you.

What always kills me is that ideologues take the flaws of whoever they're excoriating and manipulate these flaws in ways that serve their purposes. I could do the same with Twain (many others have) if I wanted to propagandize whatever ideological drum I happened to be beating. If you want to beat up Churchill (of whom I hold conflicting opinions), it only requires that you draw your conclusion first, then go back and adduce the evidence that fits, and ignore the evidence that doesn't.

Harrumph. The arrogance of it all is dwarfed only by the uselessness of it all. No one is swayed by this form of rhetoric except those who are already true believers. All heat and no light can only keep us hot and in the dark. As Swift observed centuries ago, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

As I said in my earlier post, we take current mores as unassailable. It's weird, it's like a psychological defense mechanism, a blind spot. For example, "imperialism" is such a loaded word we dare not even question its evil. It's just taken to be axiomatic that it's the vilest form of evil, like we assume Euclid's Axioms are true without proof when we set out to derive geometry. Yet for most of history, imperialism (in its denotation, not its connotation) was seen by many (if not most) to be good, desirable, and proper. (THIS IS NOT MY VIEW, SO DON'T BOTHER SLAMMING ME FOR IT. I AM PERSONALLY ANTI-IMPERIALIST.) There are a whole host of loaded concepts too sacred to question; we merely use them as brickbats to smack people of the past, or our political opponents of the present. The fervor of the attacks can only be described as religious. For that is what faith in unquestioned tenets is: a religion.

Take a look at PlasticSundance's posts in this thread. His/her multiple use of the hate-word "Whitey" was what first caught my attention. But it's the sneering attitude toward those who don't share his/her views, based on the assumption that there is only one true political viewpoint (politics, like religion, seems unable to admit any other viewpoint might be valid) that seal the case. Plastic figured out the conclusion before the argument.

No question, the West has absolutely fucked Africa over, again and again. We are right to condemn this, and never forget it. But Africans have fucked Africans over, just as bad. (Can you say Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan? Do the names Daniel Arap Moi or Idi Amin mean anything to you?) Inconvenient to mention this when in an anti-Western rage? Naturally.

The last hundred years - when our supposedly "enlightened" political perspectives have come to the fore - have been hands-down the bloodiest, most sadistic period of history. How many died? A hundred million? Hah. A hundred million is only the first installment.

800,000 died in Rwanda in the middle of the "enlightened" 90s. So much for all the imperialist hand-wringing. At this very minute Sudanese Arabs are raping Sudanese blacks, and Somali girls are having their clitorises cut off. Let's have some more UN meetings.

To get back to the point about Twain. This is a post on a bulletin board, not a paper or journal article, so I'll limit this to a few dashed-off examples.

1. Twain was a racist; Huck Finn embodies the concepts of White Man's Burden, and racial paternalism. Even in the 1950s, the NAACP was condemning the book. Are you aware that Twain refused to condemn slavery at the outset of the Civil War? Are you aware he joined a southern militia and served with them a short time before deserting and heading for California? Some "social critic" he was.... (Again, I'm applying 21st-Century standards here to make a point.)

2. Twain came from a nasty childhood dominated by a narcotics-addicted father and financial catastrophes. He sought refuge in the idealization of young women, especially the town doctor's daughter, who was found dead in a cave under weird circumstances. (Becky Thatcher is her doppelganger.) As he grew older, Twain's strange obsession with slim, virginal teen-age females increased to the point where it brought discomfort to his family and made him vulnerable to schemers and manipulators.

3. Twain was an utterly failed entrepreneur whose obsession with scoring big in business (especially in his OCD pursuit of commercializing a new typesetting machine) brought about his own financial ruin and extraordinary pressures on his family. His relationships with his daughters slipped through his fingers as he indulged his obsessions; his sense of loss and guilt over this (see virginal teenagers above) colored the rest of his life.

4. Twain's later years were marked by unrelenting depression, the calcification of his wit and its replacement by bile, and unsuccessful literary and political ambitions.


See Hoffman, Andrew. Inventing Mark Twain. Also, Lystra, Karen. Dangerous Intimacy : The Untold Story of Mark Twain's Final Years. A useful journal article is Sloane, David E. E. "A Revisionist Perspective of Mark Twain." Studies in American Humor, October 1975.


I wouldn't give a deck of damp playing cards for any of these books or their hundred counterparts I didn't cite; each was written to advance the financial or academic fortunes of the author, not further our understanding of Mark Twain. But it's very easy to use them to whack Twain if you have an agenda to do so.

The same is true about almost any great figure in history. So, in the end, what I evaluate is not the flaws of the revisionist target, but the motives of the revisionist writer. That requires me to make a judgment about whether I should listen to the arguments of people who have an agenda to advance. Usually, the answer is, "life is too short to waste it on foregone conclusions."

[AP]

79. Twain was co-founded Anti-Imperialism League with Jane Addams.

People act like there weren't smart people crticizing people like Churchill -- as if there were no alternatives back then.

There were.

Of your four points, the only one that remotely relates to his politics is the first one and that is so contradictory to reality that I'm going to need a little more evidence before I take it seriously. Most people see Huck Finn as extremely anti-slavery.

http://www.peacehost.net/WhiteStar/Voices/twain.html

[Psephos]

80. I did what exactly what you asked...

...which was to try "ripping Twain a new asshole." Now you say that you wanted it done only on narrow political grounds?

(BTW, I offer the earlier posts and this one in a spirit of respect, and only as a discussion, not an attack. Sometimes, that's hard to remember in these anonymous forums.)

To expand my point about vilification, ad hominem attacks (such as the slimy insinuations that Twain was a racist or off his rocker or sexually disturbed) are almost always used when people who have an agenda attack someone (current or historical) whose politics are different.

Once more: I have no interest in making Twain look bad. I am a big fan. At your invitation, I was demonstrating how someone who did have a desire to smear him would go about doing it.

The stuff I wrote is all "true," in the sense that other people with a need to make Twain look bad have published works from which I drew my examples. As far as I can tell, Twain did refuse to take the anti-slavery stand, did join the southern militia, did have the weird teenage girl obsession, etc., but that is a matter of historical record twisted through someone's lens. I sure as shit wasn't there to witness it myself. The business about Twain being racist? What a bunch of hooey (IMO). The stuff about his business failures and the waste of his later years? So what, IMO. Repeated failure is the true price of real success. Mark Twain is a success story, not despite of his flaws, but because of them. Maybe in that sense he really is the quintessential American writer.

All that I have to personally judge Twain by is what he wrote, and it's some of the best writing I've read. Twain was indeed politically active as an anti-imperialist, and that makes me respect him even more...it wasn't a popular view at the time.

So, take another look at MY agenda. I set out originally to say that if you want to, you can selectively arrange historical facts (and omit inconvenient ones) to make any great figure of the past look like a hero or like a zero.

Churchill is a perfect example. Take your pick of biographies; some paint him in a hagiographical glow, others vilify him as the devil incarnate. Then, when you check the politics of the people who wrote the slanted accounts (slanted either right or left), duh, guess what, turns out they have a political axe to grind. If you want my best guess, Churchill was a blustering ass most of the time, a traditionalist who longed for the days when the sun did not set on the Empire, but there were a few moments granted him by history when he was all that stood between Hitler and global hegemony by the Third Reich. I am thankful that Churchill lived and acted, even if I find most of his politics repulsive.

As I said before, I have no time to swallow someone else's dogmas. Give me a reasonably balanced historical account, not edited to avoid facts that don't support the author's agenda, and LET ME MAKE MY OWN FUCKING DECISIONS. I'm a big boy now.

[AP]

86. If you want to attack people's private behavior, I think everyone could...

...have a second asshole ripped.

I was definitely talking about 20:20 hindsight in political analysis (ie, "should churchill have known better-- should he not have been a racist imperialist?") and I think people like Addams and Twain show that there was a good argument being made back then against imperialism and that there's no excuse for Chuchill.

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. You seem extraordinarily confused, Psephos..

What makes you think that anyone who reviles the moral turpitude of Churchill and his far-right ilk in their attitude towards the "lesser breeds without the law" (ironical), in those days, would consider their role in our governments in recent years as anything but execrable? Or, indeed, in the UK, the one-time Labour party politicians who currently do their bidding? The fact, indeed, that, very perceptively, Churchill, actually used the term, "less worldly" to describe them - as a muddled, if believing Christian - counts against him even more heavily.

To Churchill's credit, he once said something to Rooselvelt about God's care for Britain, and was stunned to hear the latter scoff to the effect that Almighty God would scarcely concern himself with such a little entity; stunned, presumably, since that extraordinary, divine condescension is the core message of Christ's incarnation.

The monied, principally caucasian peoples, generally, in Europe - certainly the UK - Canada and Australia, worshipped Hitler and Mussolini, until Hitler and the nazis became an obvious threat to them. I'm not sure that the worship of the fascists was as widespread in America, despite the large population of people of German descent.

Though in vew of America's enduring official, if covert, love affair with fascism, I imagine its top dogs, who still show contempt for democracy, never mind egalitarianism would have been great fans of those beasts.

In the middle ages, viking palatine warlords, such as Hugh Lupus - a great character by all accounts, with a libido like wild Bill's and a court full of charcters from all walks of society - keenly aspired to retire to a monastery and die in a monk's habit. Yet murder, mutilation, and general "mayhem" to the persons and property of poor civilians at home and abroad were the staple tools of empire building and preservation.

So, with the elapsing of so many intervening centuries later, what excuse could the likes of Churchill, his peers and their more or less immediate subordinates have had, for their inhuman, social arrogance, both at home and abroad. The British peoople were under no illusions concerning Churchill's record as a peace-time politician, as he found out at the first post war, general election.

Still, he did play a truly epic role in WWII and in fighting the appeasers prewar, and, as I suggested earlier, you did get the strong impression that he did eventually manage to see beyond the vile constraints of his snobbish background.

To get some kind of flavour of "where he was coming from", you need to have seen the American TV film, Shogun, or read the following true story related by Wedgie Benn:

Bertrand Russell, who had been on a peaceful, altruistic, street demonstration of some kind, was being laid into by a policeman with a truncheon. A companion of his loudly appealed to the policeman, crying out: "Stop! Stop! This is Bertrand Russell! He's a world-famous mathematician! He's a world famus philosopher! He invented formal logic! He's a Noble laureate!" But made no impression whatsoever on said policeman.

Finally, in desperation, he called, "He's the son of an earl!" The whole world seemed to freeze at that moment, doubtless with the rozzer's truncheon, frozen in mid-air...

"Ohhh! begging your pardon, Sir, are you all right, Sir? I really didn't mean to hurt you, Sir! I didn't know who you were!", etc, etc.

For all the hideous wickedness of empires and the types who initiate their building, still, it is helpful to acknowledge that some good things nevertheless were produced by them in some places. Not to justify empire... Just not to close our minds.

It was, for instance, pointed out to Pandit Nehru by writer, Malcolm Muggeridge - and he did not demur - that when the British went to India, they were greeted by the ordinary people as saviours. Ghandi didn't find this sufficient grounds for accepting occupation by a foreign power, but Britain left many fine institutions, still preserved, and no doubt enhanced in the intervening years; as well as a vast railway system. Suttee and thuggee had been banned by the British some time before, although I have read that suttee has returned in some parts. To me, these positives suggest Christ's words that faith, though it be small as a mustard seed, can grow into something great.

Of course, atheists, unaware of their debt to Christianity via their essentially Christian culture, recoil in horror and disgust at the thought of such a mixed bag as empire and occasional good by-products. However, the truth is not as simplistic by any means as they see it, or you, Psephos.

The cruel and inhumane avarice of the Victorians is mimicked today by our parliamentary "beggars on horseback" (and the residual toff recidivists, when they shared power with them under the Tories), yet the civic, if not entirely *public*-mindedness of the Victorians, which led to the construction of great public works and infrastructure is not imitated. It's just me, me, me, me.

[Psephos]

112. Confused? At least I read your post...did you read mine?

If so, you would see that we hold a similar point of view.

I wrote:

"If you want my best guess, Churchill was a blustering ass most of the time, a traditionalist who longed for the days when the sun did not set on the Empire, but there were a few moments granted him by history when he was all that stood between Hitler and global hegemony by the Third Reich. I am thankful that Churchill lived and acted, even if I find most of his politics repulsive."

Here is what you wrote:

"Still, he did play a truly epic role in WWII and in fighting the appeasers prewar, and, as I suggested earlier, you did get the strong impression that he did eventually manage to see beyond the vile constraints of his snobbish background."

Not so different, really.

You think I am your political opposite, but I'm not. I would prefer you not wheel out the usual political responses (the condescending "you're confused" for example, or labeling my point of view "simplistic," etc.). My point was apolitical.

Again, my argument was not that Churchill was good or bad, but that past historical figures are easy to judge or condemn using contemporary standards, and we would be better served by not giving in completely to the temptation. Your own historical recitations, which make up the bulk of your response, are statements of opinion, colored by your own politics (not that I either agree or disagree with them; I enjoy hearing other people's points of view.) But they have little to do with my central point. I'm glad you have the opportunity to share your historical opinions, but I'm not arguing history here, merely pointing out that we can make an angel or devil out of anyone we choose. Every human life provides ample material for either side of the argument. (For example, look how Christopher Hitchens made Mother Teresa look bad in his book Missionary Position.)

Strong political beliefs, like strong religious beliefs, degrade our ability to make objective judgments. I find it hard to listen to the judgments of true believers (whatever religion or politics they practice) because I usually know in advance exactly what they are going to say.

I'm always suspicious of people who are trying to make historical facts fit some predetermined grid. That usually means they are editing history and choosing which parts to tell me and which parts to withhold, and then presenting their own opinions and judgments as obvious facts. There are many ways to look at the world; I may not agree with the views of my political opposites, but I sure as hell want to hear them and see if there's anything there I missed. I also find it unuseful for meaningful discourse when someone calls me confused, simplistic, and all the other PC euphemisms for dumbfuck, because my opinions may be different. I need a diet of facts undistorted and edited by other people's opinions. Let me form my own opinions. That's why I came to DU in the first place.

[Joe Chi Minh]

126. My sincere apologies, Psephos.

It looks as if it was me who was confused, since the only cavil I have after reviewing your posts, is that I think the relative justification of historical figures, on the basis of their being children of their time, can be overdone; particularly in view of the fact that in all ages, there always has been and always will be (this side of the Parousia), individuals who are either extreme sociopaths or psychopaths. We clearly agree though that epic virtues finally showed through in Churchill, despite his background.

Also, I've got so used to "going for" neocon operatives on here, rather than debase my intelligence by crediting them with good faith, that it's probably carried over. I must be more sensitive. Oops! there! I've said it! A dirty word in the neocon lexicon! No, I'm not accusing you, Pseph.

[Psephos]

165. KCabot, you put a lot of thought into your posts...

...and I will look for more of them in the future. Yours is just the kind of discourse I look for on DU.

I know exactly what you mean about rising to the neocon bait here. No apologies necessary.

[plasticsundance]

108. Let's have some fun ...

Psephos wrote represented in blue:

Take a look at PlasticSundance's posts in this thread. His/her multiple use of the hate-word "Whitey" was what first caught my attention.

Of course that got your attention. It's another mechanism you can use to distract yourself from the particulars of my argument. If it's any consolation to you, I'm a "whitey."

It also allows you to overlook the premise of my argument, as it was posted previously:

"History is a series of concatenations. When we, as a society, self-reflect to the degree that even has us holding are past and present luminaries accountable for actions and words, we assist in changing the course of history for the better."

Missed that part ... huh? Oh well. you're sleepy anyways. You stated as such in your previous post.

Psephos wrote:

"But it's the sneering attitude toward those who don't share his/her views,"

Uh ... excuse me mam/sir, but I was responding to your previous post that started off with the title: "Yawn. It's not hard to rip any historical figure a new asshole.

That, dear mam/sir, is a condescending tone. You were called out by me, and you can't face the music. Or is yawning some alien method you have of showing intense interest in another person's point of view.

Psephos wrote:

toward those who don't share his/her views, based on the assumption that there is only one true political viewpoint (politics, like religion, seems unable to admit any other viewpoint might be valid) that seal the case.

Pray tell, then what is the point of a debate? And you don't know what the hell my politics or ideas on religion happen to be. Yours is a prejudicial statement disguised in the language of indignation and self-righteousness.

Psephos wrote:

Plastic figured out the conclusion before the argument.

Another unsubstantiated remark from you with no evidence to support it. However, I would say that I'm a little ahead of the game than you in providing evidence and documentation to support my point of view.

You make assumptions, for example:

Psephos wrote:

No question, the West has absolutely fucked Africa over, again and again. We are right to condemn this, and never forget it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you placing this in the past tense? If you are, I believe one of my viewpoints is that it is an ongoing process of Western intrusion into Africa.

But Africans have fucked Africans over, just as bad. (Can you say Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan? Do the names Daniel Arap Moi or Idi Amin mean anything to you?) Inconvenient to mention this when in an anti-Western rage? Naturally.

Part of the problem I have with your arguments is that you fail to give them any historical context.

Western influence in Rwanda:

http://www.iss.co.za/AF/profiles/Rwanda/Politics.html

Belgian administrators viewed Rwandan society through racial lenses, and considered Tutsis innately superior to Hutus and born to rule them. In 1926 major administrative reforms were enacted which greatly strengthened the Tutsi aristocracy's ability to extract surplus labour from their predominantly Hutu subjects. Colonial work obligations were also highly onerous, and at the onset of World War II, the country has been termed a labour camp.

In Sudan, the British wanted economic development, but did not know how to manage the South of Sudan and its tribes. British rule resulted in pitting one tribe against the other. For instance, the Dinka tribe aligned themselves with the British; whereas, the Nuer tribe resisted and thought of the British as occupiers.

Sound familiar? Can anyone say Iraq?

[theboss]

67. Whether or not Churchill is racist....

The fact that he is blaming his country's problems on a man who last held power in the 50s indicates that something is going wrong for him and he needs a scapegoat.

[Magmadona]

69. Humm..

You know it is very easy to claim someone as a scapegoat especially when you've most like never spoken to anyone from South Africa. As much progress as we claim to being made individuals dare admit the struggle for ones ability to thrive in the country depend on his ability to ignore his present situation and his country men. To simply claim the man is trying to further his political carrier by stating that in fact England's most profound statesman during WWII has a past which has been ignored for the sole purpose of glorifying his image is a bit vague. From what my friends from South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria and Sudan tell me they still remember the ills done to them. See many Africans aren't fond of Europe or America at the present time, and Bush reminds them at every waking moment he wants to be like Churchill and to many that’s a smack in the face. Many of you have yet to grasp the fact that your opinion of Churchill in the optimistic light means absolutely nothing unless you're a product of Africa and its exploited past. Also before you yawn to show some type of superior thought process at least get your facts straight and learn the position of the people you wish to discredit. Learn just why they may not see progress running muck in Africa and why the past actions a single person hurt so many. Finally, I’ll admit Churchill was hero he stood his ground while his country was currently under attack, that’s great but that’s was in Europe he left his sh!t in Africa.

[NYC]

81. Welcome to DU, Magmadona.

:hi:

[plasticsundance]

71. The posting from theboss is a good example ...

of someone repeating a mantra with no evidence to support it, while at the same time rejecting any concept for reflection on the topic. It's evident in theboss's firing-off of a posting that is not supported with one example. Theboss's posting amounts to name-calling, and little else.

Theboss's rather terse remark has already been posited on this topic. It's already been refuted with various examples. Saying and repeating it doesn't make it anymore true or valid. Something more beefy is needed.

First, theboss, look up the word concatenation. Mbeki is not just talking about the 50's or the person holding power in the 50's. He singled out Churchill as an example:

"To some extent we can say that when these eminent representatives of British colonialism were not in Sudan, they were in South Africa, and vice versa, doing terrible things wherever they went, justifying what they did by defining the native peoples of Africa as savages that had to be civilised, even against their will."


We're talking about a series of Western intrusion (i.e. actions) in Africa from the the first part of the last century all the way up to the present. In some small part, the same will be true for next US Administration that will inherit the problems produced by the Bush Administration, except as leader-of-the-free-world that person and his/her Administration will have ten times the influence and access to the channels of power and wealth than does Mbeki.

In addition, the topic isn't about how Mbeki is governing South Africa. The topic is about the criticism Mbeki has received in regards to his actions to address the human rights and genocide taking place in Sudan. It's a laughable claim considering how much influence and economic interest the US and UK have not only in Africa, but the world as well.

The attack upon Mbeki from the British newspapers, probably was instigated by the fact that South Africa arrested Mark Thatcher for breaking SA's antimercenary laws in conjuction with a planned coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has disclosed that his government knew about the alleged plot to overthrow Equatorial Guinea President Obiang Nguema at least five weeks before mercenaries were arrested in March for planning the coup.

http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/6642.html

[AP]

73. If Mark Twain had been PM of the UK, there'd be no

crisis in the Middle East and no 9/11.

The "third world" wouldn't have been the third world.

They would have been trading partners on an equal footing with Europe (which, incidentally, they were until the slave trade made racist imperialism incredibly lucrative) and they would have built up a lot of wealth for themselves.

[Raskolnik]

87. And most of Europe would be speaking German.

I don't mean to pick a fight with you, as you have been utterly reasonable on the Obama threads.

But if you had to pick one person that was responsible for defeating Hitler, Churchill is the one. (with no second place, either)

[AP]

96. Maybe. Maybe not. I think anyone attuned to the evil of racist imperialism

would have done a pretty good job of fighting Hitler (see FDR).

Incidentally, my understanding was that Churchil actually reluctantly set the stage for the end of British imperialism by pulling the navy away from the colonies and back to Britain in order to protect Britain from Germany's navy. That was the first step towards ending British imperialism.

Perhaps if someone like Twain had been running Britiain, the British navy would have never been spread so broadly and Germany would never have seen the advantage of becoming militarily aggressive in Europe.

Who knows.

I definitely believe the world would be a better place with British imperialism with or without Hitler's fascist imperialism.

[Raskolnik]

98. Disagree.

I think that the record shows pretty conclusively that no one had the ability to keep Britain in the fight the way Churchill did. Not Lord Halifax, not Wood, and certainly not Chamberlain (although he does get a bad rap, often rather unfairly).

Churchill's many and obvious faults would probably be enough to doom an ordinary man, but this particular man SAVED THE WESTERN WORLD FROM THE NAZIS. If Churchill had not refused a negotiated peace with Germany, the world would be a far darker place than it is today.

Without Churchill, the British fascists under Mosley had a better than average chance of taking significant power after a settlement was reached. And that means the US doesn't get involved in the European war, which means that Stalin and Hitler would have split the continent along whatever bloody line they eventually stalemated along.

[AP]

104. Well anyway...

I was arguing about the era of about 1890-1920.

Regardless of his motivations, Churchill presided over the end of British Imperialism when he pulled the navy back to protect the UK against German aggression.

But had someone like Twain been PM when Churchill was a civil servant in the early 1900s -- when Churchill was a cheerleader for imperialism -- the world would be a better place.

[Raskolnik]

111. Fair enough.

I think that's debatable, but I concede that there can be a case made.

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. You forget that

it was Churchill's class, the monied folk of the Conservative Establishment, whose values were so pagan that they saw Mussolini and Hitler as great leaders, to be encouraged and imitated. They sent heroic German dissidents packing, when they came to the UK just to obtain help with their cause, at great and continuing risk to their lives. While during the actual war, Neville Chamberlain was appalled at the thought of our bombing the industrial Ruhr, doubtless having a substantial financial stake in its industries.

If the monied folk of the West has been shamed by the Communists in Russia and later China into seeking Christ's priorities of economic justice for the poor, under the influence of Christian grace, it is most unlikely that WWII would have eventuated.

[Raskolnik]

102. I'm not sure where to start with that.

So Churchill carries all the sins of his "class"? Do you have an example of Churchill praising Hitler as a "great leader"?

Is you point that the aristocratic classes of industrialized nations are generally assholes? Because that's not really a secret.

"If the monied folk of the West has been shamed by the Communists in Russia...into seeking Christ's priorities of economic justice for the poor"

You don't seriously believe that, do you? I mean, you can't honestly believe that. Tell me, how did the poor fare in Lenin's and Stalin's Russia? (the ones that didn't starve to death or sent to slave labor camps, that is)

Don't take this as a defense of Western Imperialism, by the way. We are still paying for those sins. I am merely dumfounded by your apparent defense of a political system that killed more (by an order of maginitude) than the Nazis ever hoped to.

[Joe Chi Minh]

113. "So Churchill

carries all the sins of his "class"? Do you have an example of Churchill praising Hitler as a "great leader"?

If Churchill had carried all the sins of his class, he would certainly not have become the great man he eventually did become.
But it is a well-documented fact that the monied classes in Britain worshipped Hitler and Mussolini, and the demonic imperialism evidenced in the quotations of Churchill by others here clearly indicate that the spirit of fascism was very securely imbued in him in his younger days. It would be bad enough to gas a people who were your equals in strength, but to do so to the people towards the bottom of the pecking order, indeed, the defenceless, as if they were vermin, (Hitler's rationale), cries to Heaven for vengeance.

As for his domestic politics, in his early years he was an absolute s*d in his treatment of the working-class. I would not have put it past him to gas them. The way they dealt with the general strike showed that they viewed the "lower orders" as little more an extension of the colonial gas fodder.

I don't recall stating that Churchill *ever* applauded Hitler. If he did, I am not aware of it, and it must have been relatively early. He certainly caught on to the monster Hitler was, much earlier than his class as a whole. And more importantly, he fought against their criminal appeasement, while the ordinary people were relatively quick to see the truth of his warnings.


"'If the monied folk of the West has been shamed by the Communists in Russia...into seeking Christ's priorities of economic justice for the poor"

You don't seriously believe that, do you? I mean, you can't honestly believe that. Tell me, how did the poor fare in Lenin's and Stalin's Russia? (the ones that didn't starve to death or sent to slave labor camps, that is'".

You have a strange way of putting words of mysterious provenance into people's mouths, Raskolnik. Again you totally misread what I wrote. I was remarking that the kind of communism that Christ preached, i.e. not that everyone should have the same amount of property and/or money, but that the more spiritual poor folk should always be afforded an ample sufficiency, was in fact, hijacked by Stalin. In fact, it would have been by others anyway, since godless utopianism, after centuries of devout Christianity, wretchedly imperfect though it was, was a retrogade step. Goodness, virtue is a privilege as well as a duty, and never more so than in connection with the sharing of the bounty of this world - which God in fact created for *all* his children, (not just for those who wield the mailed fist ); the goal of the Roman Catholic Church's Social Policy. Being congenitally more materialistic and less spiritual , the monied folk really need more material wealth. But they too, if sincere Christians (formal or informal) are still other Christs, and to be respected as such.

In China, it was different, the culture of China, already imbued with the social responsiblity of Confucianism, under Communism, put the post-Christian world to shame, despite the cultural revolution and other faults. People who worked there remarked what a happy people they were. How you could leave your hotel door open at all times, and never have anything stolen. In America, there would be no end to the burglaries with violence - murder and rape. I have read that you even have to have armed guards in some of your primary schools. I hope I'm wrong. With their population they could have caused similar kinds of chaos and violence in S. East Asia to those that the USA have been inflicting in South America.

"Don't take this as a defense of Western Imperialism, by the way. We are still paying for those sins. I am merely dumfounded by your apparent defense of a political system that killed more (by an order of magnitude) than the Nazis ever hoped to".

Incidentally, to ascribe the mass murders under Communism as dwarfing that under any other system is *absolute* nonsense.

a) the figures of those sent to the gulags and also those who died in them has been massively overstated. Can't give you references, but they're not, apparently, arcane authorities;

b) Capitalism is simply the old Adam: chronic sin, unfettered and writ large; writ large, because it's been systematised down the millennia to the "n"th degree; its most obvious dynamic: a demonic, insatiable, avaricious rapacity.

[Raskolnik]

117. Yikes.

First of all, you horribly misuse the word "fascism" in your last post. Churchill was a conservative in the truest sense of the word. His desire to preserve the past resulted in both negatives and (in my opinion far greater) positives.

Fascism of that period was revolutionary, not conservative. It sought to sweep away the old orders of the past and replace them with a frightfully modern, twentieth century politicaly system. Call it nit-picking if you like, but these are terms of art that shouldn't be thrown around without acknowledging their meanings.

"In China, it was different, the culture of China, already imbued with the social responsiblity of Confucianism, under Communism, put the post-Christian world to shame, despite the cultural revolution and other faults."

Jeebus, man. This honestly blows my mind. "DESPITE...OTHER FAULTS"!?!? That is quite a way to gloss over the systematic starvation and murder of approximately 50 million people in a few decades.

Seriously...you're defending fucking COMMUNISM as an ideology as is was practiced in fucking CHINA. What the fuck year is this?

And if you care to compare the Chinese Communists with Churchill, by all means lets do that: Churchill was a racist and a imperialist that wanted to preserve the British Empire. He sacrificed that empire to defeat the Nazis. The Chinese Communists killed tens of millions of their own countrymen...for what purpose again? What legacy did they leave in China?

Seriously, if you want to call the overwhelming bulk of reputable history "nonsense" because it accounts for the murder of untold millions, then you'd better have something to back it up. I don't expect you will.

[Joe Chi Minh]

127. My! My!

You really swallow capitalist propaganda whole, don't you! You live in a real right-wing fantasy world, lad, and you ahve an awful lot of shocks ahead of you.

Chiang Kai-shek was so corrupt that even the Americans who had been financing his nibs in the civil war against the Communists were, according to the historical expert on a programme of the period on a cable channel, disgusted at the veritable abyss of his corruption. He embezzled the large sums of money they had sent him for the prosecution of the war, for his private use. On the other hand, his soldiers in their fight against the Communists, were not simply without armour or short of ordinance (as other armies have been...), they were literally starving, and had to be chained together at night to prevent their escaping and joining the other side. Just how many people do you imagine died of starvation in China before the war, under Mr Kai-Shek's compassionate aegis?

Under Chiang Kai-shek, the Brainy Encyclopedia, on the Internet, comments, "In Shanghai, Chiang also cultivated ties with the criminal underworld dominated by the notorious Green Gang and later served as an officer in the army of the Cantonese Warlord, Ch'en Chiung-ming".
Well, now, there's a first! Since when did a far-right party ever cultivate ties with organised crime? Well, of course, among the many others in the US, Japan and Italy, to name but three countries, there was Santo Traficante, the holy trafficker, in Cuba. But, of course, the Cuban people were far better off under the aegis of Mr Traficante and his louche, far-right pals than under Mr Castro's government.

Oh! I beg your pardon. I read on the Net today, that notorious Communist lover, Pope John-Paul II urged Fidel to sustain his efforts in the areas of health, education and culture (which of course, have been maintained under the most difficult circumstances). The Pope is evidently losing his touch. I'm sure Fidel's policies in those areas would compare very unfavouraby with those of the US. Not.

The same encyclopedia, observes "Chiang Kai-shek's policies were far from Christian or democratic, but this remained unknown to the US public due to strong state-imposed censorship in China and self-imposed censorship in the US during the war years and after". Another first! Wow. This is getting really exciting.

And don't give me that precious drivel about distinguishing between fascists and extreme Cosnervatives. We're talking morality here, not semantic or political pedantry. Grow up ...spiritually!

[Raskolnik]

130. You're all over the place with that one.

Why is it that I live in a right-wing fantasy world again? Because I'm unwilling to embrace a failed ideology that probably killed around 100 million people in the 20th century? My god man, you are defending an ideology that not only has failed in every attempt, but one that has MURDERED TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. What the hell!?

Did you read an endorsement of Choiang Kai -hek in my last post that I wasn't aware was in there? You assume (incorrectly) that if one acknowledges the horrible consequences of Mao's regime, one must be arguing for the merits of the previous regime. That is intellectually lazy, and rather silly to even argue. Stop doing it.

Tell me that aspects of Communist China that seem to have you enthralled. And as a favor to me, don't just recycle the "capitalism is bad, so any alternative must be better" line of argument you've been using. It doesn't help your position.

[American Tragedy]

129. Yeah, the gulags were really like the fucking Renaissance Hotel.

Can't give references for that, of course.

And the Soviet Union wasn't really a brutal oppressive imperialist power, they were just trying to save the other Slavic nations from themselves, no doubt just as Japan tried to save Manchuria, just as we are trying to save Iraq. Talk about drinking the Kool-aid.

[eric144]

83. Mandela is named as MI6 agent ?

This explains rather nicely how a black man got to be a global icon.



http://www.sundayherald.com/news/newsi.hts?section=News&story_id=7675

By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor
EXCLUSIVE, SUNDAY HERALD SCOTLAND

Publication date: March 19, 2000



NELSON Mandela is to be named as an MI6 agent who aided British intelligence officers with operations against Colonel Gadaffi's Libyan weapons programmes, supplied his handlers with details of arms shipments to Ulster terrorists and allowed UK spying operations to be based in South Africa.

Allegations of Mandela's recruitment by the British intelligence service will be revealed in a controversial new book, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, by the acclaimed intelligence expert Stephen Dorril. The book is due to be published at the end of this month.

MI6 launched an unsuccessful legal challenge to get the book's publisher, Fourth Estate, to release its contents. Special Branch officers also raided the London publishing house and seized computer equipment, but did not unearth details of Mandela's recruitment by MI6.

British intelligence chiefs are outraged that they failed to access the contents of Dorril's book after an Old Bailey judge ordered on Friday that the Guardian and Observer newspapers hand over documents relating to the former MI5 officer David Shayler. The ruling was made on the grounds that the papers could help police prosecute the rogue spy under the Official Secrets Act. Shayler had made claims that MI6 was involved in a plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.

Stephen Dorril's book will stun the world with its allegations about Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It is thought that Mandela's recruitment would have been motivated partly by his virulent anti-communism. In return MI6 offered information about potential assassination attempts on his life.

Dorril claims highly-placed MI6 officers told him about Mandela's recruitment by the Secret Intelligence Service - the arm of British intelligence which undertakes espionage activities overseas, recruits foreign spies and engages in counter- espionage against foreign agents working in the UK.

Sources within the Foreign Office and the intelligence service have said that Dorril's claim "is entirely credible". Last night, the Foreign Office did nothing to deny the allegation that Mandela worked for MI6. There were also no denials, or threats of legal action against the book, from either Nelson Mandela's office in Johannesburg, South Africa or his London-based lawyers.

Part of Dorril's book, on the activities of MI6 in Africa, reads: "Another MI6 catch was ANC leader Nelson Mandela. Whether Mandela was recruited in London before he was imprisoned in South Africa is not clear, but it is understood that on a recent trip to London he made a secret visit to MI6's training section to thank the service for its help in foiling two assassination attempts directed against him soon after he became president."

Dorril says the assassination attempts referred to probably included one from within a faction of the African National Congress (ANC) which was bitterly opposed to Mandela's successful maneuvering to oust Communist Party leaders from under the umbrella of the African National Congress. Another is believed to have been planned by a covert operations wing of the apartheid government's military.

Dorril, a writer on intelligence issues and a lecturer at Huddersfield University, claims Mandela was of use to MI6 as his friendliness with Colonel Gadaffi's Libyan government paved the way for the hand-over of the two Libyan agents accused of the Lockerbie bombing.

Both the British and American governments are keen to rebuild relations with Libya to exploit the country's rich oil fields. "Mandela was the key to turning Libya from a terrorist state to one open to the West," Dorril told the Sunday Herald. "The result of his actions will be a huge economic boost to western economies. It can be said that he charmed Gaddafi for western economic interests." He claimed MI6's psychological warfare, or IOps, department - responsible for propaganda - helped massage international opinion allowing Mandela to visit Gadaffi without courting virulent western opprobrium.

Dorril added: "Mandela helped MI6 with information over Libya's funding and arming of the IRA, and the sending of arms to loyalist terrorists in Ulster from apartheid South Africa." Dorril claimed Mandela told his MI6 handlers about Libya's attempts to develop chemical and biological warfare capabilities, and informed them about South Africa's own secret nuclear arsenal.

Dorril claims in his book that Britain did not push for full disclosure of South Africa's biological weapons programme as part of its plan to support Mandela when he was president, and Mandela helped stem the tide of South African scientists being recruited by Libya to build Gadaffi's bio-weapons programme.

One of MI6's biggest overseas stations is in South Africa. It was a key spy center during the Cold War as Russia and America fought to take countries like neighboring Mozambique and Angola into their sphere of influence. South Africa is also key to Britain's economic interests because of its natural uranium, gold and platinum deposits.

It is unclear exactly when Mandela was recruited. Nor is it clear whether MI6 courted Mandela with warnings about assassination attempts in order to lure him into the service's clutches, or if he was recruited and provided MI6 with information and then received the warnings in return.

The publisher of the book, Fourth Estate, has been under intense pressure to reveal the contents of Dorril's 900 page work to MI6 prior to its publication on March 30. MI6 made a request through its lawyers for a full disclosure of the contents but Fourth Estate successfully fended off the challenge. However, the publishing house was raided under a search warrant by Special Branch officers who seized the computer of Fourth Estate editor-in-chief Clive Priddle which contained notes on the book. According to Nicky Eaton, Fourth Estate's publicist, the intelligence service is unaware of the Mandela claim. The book has been meticulously poured over for accuracy by Fourth Estate's own lawyers.

Both Neil Harold, from Mandela's personal office, and Mandela's London lawyer, Iqbal Meer, of Meer Care Desai, were stunned by the allegations coming to light. They were both unable to contact Mandela last night to brief him on the claims. It is thought he is holidaying in the South African countryside, and is not contactable. Dorril claims his revelations are not damaging to Mandela's reputation. "There is nothing defamatory about being a recruit for MI6," he said.

Officially the Foreign Office said it could not comment on the allegation as it was a security matter. However, unofficially senior Foreign Office sources hinted that the recruitment claim was credible. One said: "If we focus on the allegations referring to assassination claims, it is not surprising that the ANC would have sought security advice from the UK, or its intelligence services, to protect key individuals."

Foreign analysts and African experts also claim that Mandela's recruitment into MI6 is not only credible but will also have a seismic effect internationally.

One expert on Southern Africa said: "His life history shows how he would have been attractive to MI6 and MI6 would have been attractive to him. Mandela is deeply anti- communist. As a young man he would break up Communist Party meetings with his fists. Later in life, he came to realize that to end apartheid he needed every ally he could get and he pragmatically decided to get into bed with the Communists.

"Mandela admires Britain, its parliamentary democracy and its judicial system. Once he went into jail, Mandela moved further and further away from the Communists, privately pouring scorn on their policies. When he was freed, a struggle began for the soul of the ANC between the Communists and the 'democrats', like Mandela."

There has been intense speculation, including allegations by Winni Mandela, that the South African Communist leader, Chris Hani, who was assassinated in 1992, apparently by white extremists, may in fact have been a victim of this internal feud. "Many of the democrats in the ANC certainly hated the Communists enough to have them killed.

"British diplomats were also central to smoothing the end of apartheid during negotiations between Mandela and President De Klerk. It can not be underestimated how many MI6 and CIA officers were working in this area. Their numbers were colossal."

[Moderator]

92. eic144

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs.

[emad]

93. No wonder Sir mark Thatcher - Equatorial Guinea Coup Plot

supremo currently in the dock in Johannesburg - is shitting himself...A sitting duck all those years for SA's elite scorpion gang to nab him just when the money laundering trail finally linked the Riggs Bank with Moto, General Pinochet, Saudi terrorists and Jonathan Bush.......

[leesa]

88. Well, no doubt. But can we get with current events? Plenty of racism

and imperialism going on today.

[plasticsundance]

94. Who defeated Hitler?

Raskolnik,

It is a bit fatuous to claim one single person as being responsible for defeating Hitler. That's an argument of hyperbole. Yes ... it's true ... Churchill provided excellent leadership, but so did FDR and Eisenhower, and many other leaders from the European allies. The Soviet Union also played a big role. Hitler also played a role in his own demise by being foolish enough to open a second front. Hitler and many other high-ranking NAZIS had already concluded that Germany could not win by 1943, and this was in large part due to the results of opening a second front with the Soviets.

The question remains: Is there a concatenation of Western imperialistic intrusions into Africa over the past 100 years to the present, and are the actions and sentiments of Churchill an example of Western attitudes? Do these attitudes and sentiments have a negative impact on the African nations and their people? A current example is the impact of oil companies in Nigeria, another is the case I posted above involving Mark Thatcher.

Regarding Sudan, even after the British left, the West supplied military equipment to Sudan, then stopped, followed by China and the Soviet Union giving Sudan arms, until, once again the West began selling arms to Sudan.

Ah! All is fair in love and war. :eyes:

So far, many of the sentiments from my fellow DU-ers on this topic, only make Mbeki's case for him.

[Raskolnik]

101. Without Churchill, the US never gets a chance to fight Germany

If Churchill had negotiated a peace with Germany after the fall of France, what reason would the US have for getting involved in the European war? Would we have fought for the Soviet Union? Very doubtful. The fact remains that no other leader in Britain was either willing or able to keep Britain in the war the way that Churchill was.

And you're right of course, the Soviets won the war. But if the British and Americans didn't fight from the west, Germany would have kept western Europe after their inevitable defeat by the USSR. And that, my friend, would have been the shits. (as an aside: many German generals did, as you state, feel that they could not defeat the Soviets after being stopped in Stalingrad and Moscow. Hitler, however, was not such a realist.)

And no, the question does not really remain: of course there is a legacy of horrible racism and imperialism. To argue otherwise is foolish.

[Magmadona]

107. Thats fine and dandy.

The problem with explaining to us about Churchill in terms of his role in WWII is it does nothing to discredit the argument that the man was in fact racist and had little regrade for anything he deemed sub-human. Until you can prove he actually gave a damn about the Africans, I'm going to take your praise
of him as a grain of salt.

[Raskolnik]

110. I'm not trying to prove he "gave a damn".

No one is asking you to ignore British imperialism's legacy. What I'm arguing for is a sense of perspective in balancing Churchill's achievements.

As I said in an earlier post, Churchill's faults were many and readily apparent. However, those faults have to be measured against the fact that he was responsible, more than any other single individual in the world, for preventing the Nazis' victory.

I'd say he comes out ahead in the final accounting.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. Why do you think

the Russians would not have overrun and occupied Western Europe, but would have given it to their finally vanquished arch-enemies of the time, the Germans? That doesn't seem to make sense to me at all; but a Russian colonisation of Western Europe would certainly contribute to incentivising the Americans to enter the war.

[Raskolnik]

115. For several reasons.

(1) Russia never had territorial ambitions for western Europe.
(2) They would have faced the same problems (if not more) that Germany faced in trying to invade and cotrol an area so far from resupply.
(3) Stalin was not an idealist. He was fighting Hitler because he had
to, not because he chose to. He would have gained nothing by continuing the war for the extra years it would have taken to invade western Europe.

All this is supposition, that much is sure. But I think you can find a lot more convicing evidence of my position than the contrary.

[roguevalley]

121. part of the problem with Churchill and his confreres was that they

divided up continents without concern for the groupings that originated. Consider Rwanda. Should never have been configured like that. He saved his country from Hitler but it doesn't excuse his excessive zeal for war and killing people. He wanted personal glory and often risked his own neck to get it, doing stupid things. The King had to order him not to go with the troops onto Normandy Beach. His actions in Ireland alone are enought to give one pause. The battles that his policies and actions began are still being waged because the wishes and history of localities didn't count for squat.

[malaise]

123. Thanks Mbeki

As a victim of British colonialism, thanks for merely speaking the truth. The British are responsible for most of the border squabbles on the planet. They had one approach - divide and rule. They were racist to the core and Churchill was merely another evil murdering SOB.
I love to read about these so called heroes who are nothing more than scumbags who garner wealth off others' labour, rob, loot, plunder and pretend to be honest decent people.

[Raskolnik]

124. "so called heroes who are nothing more than scumbags"

Well, without that scumbag, there would be a Nazi flag flying over Europe right now. That counts for something in my book.

[Joe Chi Minh]

128. 'Fraid not.

It's laughable.

[Raskolnik]

131. What can I say in the face of well-reasoned arguments like that?

Did you have an argument to make on this point?

[Placebo]

122. Damn that racist Churchill!

Damn him to blazes.

[emad]

132. "Why do so many Islamic States fail": Jasper Gerard, S. Times

Calling Churchill “racist”, as South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki has done, is like future generations calling us “computerist” for grumbling about our laptops, which will no doubt be seen as (moderately) intelligent life forms. But just as we were forgetting Mbeki’s silliness, the death of Nelson Mandela’s son reminded us that he is a serious menace. Makgatho Mandela died of Aids.

For years Mbeki denied HIV caused Aids. South Africa has an estimated 5m HIV sufferers, more than 10% of the population, the highest rate in the world. How many lives would have been saved but for him? His silence breeds ignorance, so witch doctors teach that Aids can be cured by sex with babies.

Mbeki angrily quoted Churchill’s opinion of Islam: “sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule”. Sure, the bulldog sounds reactionary now but his implicit question — why do so many Islamic states fail? — is a legitimate one. If Mbeki finds it easier to dwell on colonial history than to cure his nation’s ills, he might recall that Churchill stood alone against the worst form of white supremacy the world has ever known.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1431321,00.html

[plasticsundance]

134. Not to get off topic ... but

Raskolnik,

I think I should address several points in your straw man argument.

Raskolnik wrote:

If Churchill had negotiated a peace with Germany after the fall of France, what reason would the US have for getting involved in the European war?

This is a question that could be surmised endlessly. The actual history indicates something different. The US entered the war, because after the Pearl Harbor attack, Germany declared war on the US.

The difference between Chamberlain and Churchill was that before confronting Hitler's war machine, Chamberlain wanted the UK to be better prepared with modern weapons that could compete with Hitler's war machine. Churchill felt the threat was much more immediate, but both of them in the run up to Hitler's initial conquests advocated that money be budgeted for better armaments for the UK. Churchill stalled for time by exiting from the Battle of Dunkirk.

Hitler's war machine was stalled by a geographical obstacle called the English Channel. The Blitzkrieg did not have the same affect has in had on the continent of Europe. Both Hitler and his generals knew that their ultimate victory relied on quick victories. The more delays, the worst it would be for Germany.

Hitler wanted to negotiate a peace with England. Hitler even made a concession that he would withdraw from France, Holland, Belgian, Norway, and even Denmark on condition that England remain neutral.

Ironically, Hitler praised England. According to the German Gen. Blumentritt, Hitler said of England after Dunkirk:

"He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but “where there is planning there are shavings flying.” He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere."

- Blumentritt

Do you think any of those colonies that were once Germany's had anything to do with Africa?

Although Hitler did ultimately commit to a plan to invade England from Admiral Raeder, he did so reluctantly. Hitler was even under the impression that England could understand the principles that Germany had at the time.

This was not lost on the people of color throughout the war, where even in the US many African-Americans found it disconcerting that they were sent off to fight as soldiers in war against racism, where at home in South hangings were a common occurrence.

I am not comparing Churchill to Hitler; however, one can surely empathize with statements by Mbeki.

[emad]

135. Thanks for that. Empathise yes. But point out the humbug and

dismiss it for the glaring holes in an otherwise dissectable argument.

Mbeki's world statesman status has been diminished somewhat by his petulant rant about Churchill.

Had he clarified his stance on Hitler - or Mussolini, Franco or Stalin, more weight could be given to his complaints.

[Raskolnik]

138. That's all right, we're off topic already.

I disagree with your apparent contention that Germany would have declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor regardless of whether Britain was still in the war. In late 1941, the U.S. was a defacto participant in the European war by means of Lend-Lease. If the U.S. hadn't been supplying the British, what *possible* reason would Germany have for declaring war?

I also disagree fairly strongly with your characterization of the difference between Chamberlain and Churchill. Chamberlain is too often maligned for his tenure, but the fact remains that he fundamentally misunderstood Hitler's nature. Time and time again, he thought he had gotten the better of Hitler in diplomacy, only to realize that Hitler simply did not play by the same set of rules.

Churchill, on the other hand, seemed to understand like no leader in the world the real danger of National Socialism. No other leader, and certainly no other British leader, had the vision or foresight that Churchill possessed. For that, the world is in his debt, in my opinion.

(and the Dunkirk wasn't a 'stall', it was the desperate retreat of a routed army)

[AP]

136. Mbeki would make a bad doctor, but he does understand post-colonial

politics.

It's revealing that the response to his argument about Chuchill is, "but, but, but, did you hear what he said about AIDS?"

[plasticsundance]

139. Exactly AP.

It's the classic attack the messenger, and present as many straw man arguments so one never has to respond to the actual issues raised by Mbeki, which have yet to be refuted, or even addressed.

This allows the straw man argument to ignore the issues that relate to the ongoing problems of Western intrusion into Africa, and how the people of that continent still suffers as a second class citizen to the world.

Raskolnik wrote:

I disagree with your apparent contention that Germany would have declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor regardless of whether Britain was still in the war.

It is not my contention. I wrote in response to you that we could surmise endlessly as to what would have happened in this regard. It is true that Germany did not want England to become a base from which attacks and strategic planning could take place against Germany. This is one reason why Hitler wanted to negotiate peace with England, but there were other reasons as well Hitler wanted peace with England, including the ones mentioned in my previous post.

As regard to whether the US would have entered into the European theater, it depends on so many factors, including an ensuing arms race with Germany. Germany was aligned with Italy and Japan. When Japan attacked American soil, it brought home the temerity of the entire "axis". It then became an issue for all parties involved on how one should deal with axis.

This is the problem I have with what you have thus posited on this topic, because it appears to me that your arguments rest upon authority, rather then the particulars.

Raskolnik wrote:

I also disagree fairly strongly with your characterization of the difference between Chamberlain and Churchill. Chamberlain is too often maligned for his tenure, but the fact remains that he fundamentally misunderstood Hitler's nature. Time and time again, he thought he had gotten the better of Hitler in diplomacy, only to realize that Hitler simply did not play by the same set of rules.

The facts do not support your contention, for the argument is more subtle with shades of nuances. Here is a good breakdown of Chamberlain's position:

His "appeasement has seldom been discussed in this light, and most of his critics have misrepresented his position. The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism. He strongly supported sanctions against Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and was a vocal supporter of rearmament after 1934. Nor was he ignorant of the menace of the dictators. Few people linked the need for rearmament more strongly with the ambitions of Germany. But the crucial characteristic of Chamberlain's support of rearmament lay in his vision of such rearmament as a support for negotiations that would institute a general peace. Chamberlain believed that a lasting peace would be possible when British rearmament had helped demonstrate to the dictators that the alternatives to negotiation were unthinkable.

Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness and a refusal to regard the German minority in Czechoslovakia as worth fighting over--although these considerations were present. It sprang also from a passionate desire to avert the horror of war and a firm belief in the possibility of a lasting general peace. This policy of "negotiation through strength was always potentially self-defeating. The more Britain rearmed, the less sincere her desire for peace might appear; the more she spoke of peace, the less credible the deterrence of rearmament might become. When the British declared war on Germany, Chamberlain's policy had failed. The deterrent was to be used, and he above all men was stricken by the catastrophe that he had striven to prevent. This repugnance to war made him appear to many to be unfitted for wartime politics; he resigned after the obvious discontent within his own party was combined with the refusal of the Labour party to join any government led by him.

http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_chamber.html

Read what I wrote as an emphasis. The positions of both Chamberlain and Churchill were distinct from each other in rhetoric, but both Chamberlain and Churchill realized that rearmament of England was necessary. This kind of budgeting in a country still reeling from a depression and having little taste for war after WWI was difficult as a persuading argument.

Now read the consensus of the British people in a survey taken in 1938:

"Hitler says that he has no more territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?" (Asked October 1938)

Yes: 7%
No: 93%

"Which of these views comes closest to your views of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement?" (Asked February 1939)

1. It is a policy that will ultimately lead to a lasting peace in Europe: 28%

2. It will keep us out of war until we have time to rearm: 46%

3. It is bringing war nearer by whetting the appetite of the dictators: 24%

4. No opinion: 2%

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/public_opinion_and_appeasement_i.htm

Raskolnik wrote:

(and the Dunkirk wasn't a 'stall', it was the desperate retreat of a routed army)

In recent letters and documentation from that period, it was revealed that Churchill, even as he was planning a retreat, told the French and Belgians that England would fight on in the Battle of Dunkirk. The saving grace of the entire fiasco was that Hitler decided not to send the panzers.

With that said, let's consider that England did not send a major land military force unto the continent/mainland of Europe until 1944. No one was ready for the blitzkrieg and the speed of the German tanks in 1940. This only seems to support my views on the need for rearmament of England. I would also say it constitutes as a stall. The English retreated to fight another day, which appears to be a stalling for time in confronting the Germans with a large number of troops on the continent of Europe. We're arguing semantics.

Maybe we can now discuss British and Westerninvolvement in Africa and the Sudan, and why Mbeki made his remarks.

[emad]

140. Pointing out the obvious flaws in Mbeki's polemic viz his risible

rant against Churchill highlights the weakness of his position on global issues such as the Aids.

Gerard is right: Churchill's stand against the ultimate in white supremacist evil is a damn good indicator of his own polemic.

Mbeki's flaws and failures to grasp a progressive agenda only serves to weaken his overall stature as a statesman.

[AP]

141. Colonialism was bad politics, bad law, bad economics, bad ethics, bad...

...morals, bad everthing.

Regardless of what Churchill did during WW2, he was very wrong about colonialism and our generation is paying the price of Churchill's mistakes.

[emad]

144. India's remarkable Civil Service owes much to the organisational

acumen of the Brits who left an impressive legacy.

Their administration of Palestine is another case in point where little religious/sectarian fighting took place, in contrast to post WW2 conflicts.

In itself, Colonialism has no place in modern Democracies. But rewriting history to suit revisionist polemic speaks for itself.

Whatever mistakes the great man may have made, his outstanding achievement in defeating Hitler and associated European fascists is unparalleled in history.

[AP]

145. Time for you to shift focus from the Masons to Edward Said.

There's a lot of great scholarship on colonialism that might give you a different perspective on your fondness for colonialism and its cheerleaders and its aparatus.

The British created colonial infrastructures to grease the skids of the exodus of wealth from the interior of these countries. So, I'm not going to reward the British with praise for magnanimously building railroads which ran from the gold mines to the sea ports.

You know what? There was enough wealth in those countries for them to build their own railroads, and they could have kept more of their wealth had they and not the british been in control of the railroads. And if the British were really paying a fair price for the goods, they would have built up their own civil services to manage everything.

And you know what just about every colony did with the civil services they built? They put different ethnic groups in charge of different things when they colonizers pulled out. That way, they could sow the seeds of chaos which would allow them to control their former colonies from abroad. This is what happened from India to Rwanda and a lot of places in between.

HOORAY for the colonizers' civil services!!! The colonizers were so magnanimous, generous, and thoughtful!

This isn't revisionist history. It's description. It's describing what happened. And what you're really arguing is that you don't want to speak the truth about Churchill and other brit's failures because they might have done one or two other things right. Just because Churchill did something right during WW2 doesn't mean we have to swallow stupid pills and ignore a lot of the evil shit he he supported with regard to the British colonies.

[emad]

146. It's just that I'll never forget Harry S Truman's eulogy to Churchill

after the funeral, or the standing ovation that he received when he talked of the milestones of world history that stand as a memorial to him.

Given Truman's remarkable stand against racists and segretationists within his own party, this was some tribute.

Nothing compares to those words, however much Churchill's detractors want to slime him on other issues.

[AP]

148. A eulogy is not the place for critical theorizing about the effects of...

...colonialism.

In fact, a eulogy is the last place I'd look for a good argument about the truth.

Don't speak ill of the dead, eh? Especially at their funeral and in front of their family.

[emad]

149. -It was filmed at the US ambassador's residence Winfield House

and a copy was placed in BBC archives.

I have sent a request to the Bodleian library in Oxford about material they hold on Truman's correspondence with Churchill, which used to be extensive.

I expect it will more than hold up the words he spoke in honor of his friend, ally and fellow statesman.

No other US Democrat president's personal stance on rasicm speaks as loudly or as relevantly as Truman's. Thus I value his opinion and see the whole argument posted on this Mbeki thread in this context.

[AP]

150. I doubt many Americans think of Truman when they think of civil rights.

Black families put up pictures of FDR and JFK in their living rooms, and it was the Johnson administration which did the most for civil rights, and it was Clinton whom Maya Angelou called the first black president.

So I don't think a few nice words from Truman in a eulogy or a personal letter in the aftermath of WW2 is going to save Churchill from his pro-empire and pro-colonial sins in Africa and the ME.

Furthermore, a lot of DU'ers (not including me) believe that it was Truman who started the CIA on its path of ruining third world countries during the post-colonial era. If that's true than one might not expect Truman to be a good judge of Churchill's views on empire.

[emad]

151. UK's BBC is going to broadcast a major Truman tribute in their

commemorative for the 40th anniversary of Churchill's death at the end of January, including the Winfield House Truman footage.

No mere "few nice words": his speech was a major hour long assessment of the man's political, diplomatic and personal attainments, backed up with testimonials in writing from other notable Democrats. Some of these have never been published although transcripts are held at the Bodleian in Oxford and at the Royal Archives at Windsor.

Those DU'ers who you cite have perhaps forgotten that it was Truman who stood up to racists and segregationists in his own party. A salutary lesson there I think.

Sad that revision of history comes all too easily to those who forget the dignity and honor that Harry S brought to American politics.

His admiration for Churchill is widely acknowleged among leading British historians and educationalists who view what is termed the "special relationship" between the US and UK as that one forged during the Roosevelt/Truman/Churchill years.

In Europe too Churchill's unique achievement in wiping out the worst racist in history is widely acknowledged and Truman is also revered as a man of honor. Hitler, after all, also exterminated ethnic groups other than Jews and the Nazi polemic was crushed not by Thabo Mbeki's predecessors but by the leadsers of the WWII allies.

The Simon Weisenthal Foundation used to hold material on Truman's relationship with Churchill. The two remain highly admired for their indisputable contribution to peace.

[AP]

152. There is no revisionist history about Truman.

I was just saying that there are other presidents who are greater symbols of civil rights than Truman.

And regardless of Truman's stature -- unless he were doing a critical analysis of Churchill's feelings about imperialism and colonialism -- I'm not sure how he's at all relevant to the points about colonialism and imperialism that Mbecki was making.

[emad]

153. I'm going to video the BBC tribute and post it online so that others

can see it and judge it themselves. Maybe that way Dems can see for themselves a bit of UK history that may not have filtered across the Pond.

Why it is relevant is because Truman addresses those issues Mbeki has made and not only refutes Churchill's detractors but cites all those Democrats whose personal contributions to public office are a matter of record and who also spoke of Churchill's contribution without any personal bias.

I can't think of any other Democratic president who had to stand against racists and segregationists in his own party like Truman did. The '48 election result is a matter of record.

Other presidents may have notable records in civil rights, but fighting the crap in one's own party and winning is surely some feat.

[AP]

154. What were Churchill's attitudes about colonialism and empire?

That's what's relevant here.

[emad]

155. Well, refuting the racim slur is the No1 issue. The colonialism

and empire stance can also be judged on his track record.

I think the archive footage I will video and post may be a good starting point for Dems to judge that for themselves.

It is scheduled for broadcast on 29/30 January.

[AP]

156. Do you not know what his position was?

Look, I'm still waiting for J.K. Rowling to be accused of copyright infringement or plagiarism, which you promissed would happen months and months ago. I'm not sure I can trust you to deliver on your promise to post the transcript.

Since you've been such a passionate defender of Churchill, one would expect that you know Churchill's position on empire and colonialism (which is the subject matter Mbeki addresses).

You say that Mbecki is wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence directly on point to contradict him.

To the contrary, another post above has provided Churchill's quotes supporting Mbecki's allegations.

Furthermore, Churchill is a bit of a red herring.

It is quite obvious that colonialism did a ton of damage by extracting a whole lot of wealth from Africa that they could have used to develop their own economies.

[emad]

159. Rowling buisness is still sub judice in the UK courts. An appeal

was launched and is scheduled for High Court hearing in March as far as I know. The previous in-camera hearing before a senior judge excluded the press. The litigants citing copyright theft and plagiarism. The case then escalated with Rowling's attorneys counter-suing. The litigants then produced police reports and security/intelligence material alleging coercion from UK Home Office to drop the lawsuit. The Rowling party then agreed to an appeal.

Big bucks involved here now if you consider it's gone to five books, film rights, spin-off concessions etc. Plus a lot of loss of face not to mention a hefty custodial sentence, as well as a lot of egg on the faces of publishers, movie studios and spin-off franchises.

Re: Churchill: I will do as I have said: video the BBC tribute to Churchill which deals with the issues we have discussed in this forum, and post it online.

Also, I will post any material I receive from my request to the Bodleian Library and the Truman Library/Museum in the US about this subject.

The reason I know about the UK Truman footage to be aired in the Churchill tribute is because I was there - aged 7 - both at the funeral at Westminster Abbey and at Winfield House, the US Ambassadorial residence in Regent's Park - in January 1965 and heard the man speak.

My parents were in the diplomatic service and were involved in the embassy's role in looking after US dignitaries who had flown in for Churchill's funeral. They kept a copy of Truman's address which was then copied for requested distribution. My family has the original in cold storage somewhere back home in Monterey.

The BBC archive footage I have referred to includes this plus excerpts from their own coverage of the funeral.

[AP]

164. Incidentally, your first paragraph has me scratching my head.

How can you agree to appeal a ruling that was never issued? You can't have "sub judice" proceedings in the courts that progress to an appeal of an opinion nobody knows anything about. I'm not even sure you can have them in super-secret national secrets cases, and you certainly can't have them in copyright infringement cases.

Rowling had one crazy infringement claim against her by an American author who, it turned out, had lied about when she authored her stories. She also manufactured evidence. That's the only claim I know about.

As an aside, I find that most of the objections to Rowling -- an questions about her originality -- (embodied, incidentally, by tradition-loving A.S. Byatt) to be incredibly classist.

Wealthy, classist, cultured people can't believe a single mother on welfare can become richer than the queen by writing good, popular literature.

It's the same anxiety that manifests itself in the questioning of Shakespeare's authorship of his plays. How can a working class person be the author of such smart, layered works? It must have been someone educated, with royal blood who wrote those plays, eh?

[emad]

167. There has been a series of UK lawsuits alleging she stole the

Harry Potter books - lock stock & barrel - and claimed all royalties, revenue and incomes as her personal right.

Counter lawsuits were launched, with some appeals being heard in camera.

The plaintiffs in this case subsequently backed up their original claims with documents subpoenaed from the UK Home Office. A ruling on the admissability of these is imminent and disucssion in the public domain remains sub judice.

Rowling, it is alleged, conspired with other to claim she is the original author and thus copyright owner, of the entire Harry Potter series.

The Plaintiffs have alleged this is straight forward theft resulting in copyright and plagiarism issues.

Police investigations have remained low key but Rowling is believed to have spent many £££££££££ on legal advice.

Re your: "Wealthy, classist, cultured people can't believe a single mother on welfare can become richer than the queen by writing good, popular literature."

Plaintiffs allege theft and subsequent conspiracy to pervert and conspiracy to defraud.

"Single mother on welfare" - they allege criminal conduct in conjunction with other parties.

As I understand it the original author has police documents showing the registration of the pseudonym "J K Rolwing" as a nom de plume way back in the late 1980s.

No doubt the fur will fly on this one.

One source of this information has alleged that it is part of a long drawn out sting connected to fraud, blackmail and defamation.

[AP]

168. This is LUNACY. Everybody loves a conspiracy theory, but you simply

cannot have a secret conspiracy theory with copyright infringement.

Firstly, there's no way these procedings would be secret.

Secondly, copyright infringement requires publication. She couldn't infringe the copyright of something that was never published. So if she did infringe the copyright of something, it would be available for us to read and compare and your story would include names of authors and works.

Thirdly, you don't register "noms de plume." You can register a copyright work (in the US and not the UK, because there is no copyright registration service in the UK) using a pseudonym (but it's not required). You simply have to use a nom de plume for it to be yours in the UK.

Fourthly, JK Rowling is her name. So I'm not sure what it matters if there were another JK Rowling, "registered" nom do plume or otherwise. That would have been great foresight for her parents to give her name that would, 30 years later, conveniently help here steal someone else's work.

[emad]

169. Humbug.

A sting works by baiting a relatively small but juicy titbit into shark infested waters.

I've no more to say on this topic in this Mbeki/Churchill thread.

Watch the UK press after Thursday this week for more on the Rowling saga.
EOM

[AP]

171. Promises, promises.

If you wait long enough, all consipracy theories will come true? Or hopefully people will forget that you made them?

Do you think that if someone else wrote the Harry Potter books they would have just sat on them, waiting years for Rowlings to come along to submit them to a publisher?

Why would you put that much intellectual labor into something like that only to hide it away from the public?

Or did she infringe the copyright of something that was already out there? What was it?

[emad]

172. Reeling them in one by one. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Fortunately the only conspiracy I recognise is the one that law enforcement agencies take seriously: conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, to defraud, to steal, to deceive, to suborn etc.

Lampooning theories is just a little hobby.

[NCN007]

158. Remind me...

who was it that gave the executive order to racially integrate the military, a move that put the armed services out in front of the rest of society, and required building schools on base so that black children with military parents could get the education they deserved and not the one the southern states were prepared to provide?

[emad]

160. Thank you.

[AP]

161. If it wasn't Churchill, I don't see how it's relevant.

Furthermore, if it doesn't have to do with imperialism and colonialism, I really don't see how it's relevant.

[mojojojo27]

142. yes

.

[plasticsundance]

143. That's not what the original premise was about

emad wrote:

rant against Churchill highlights the weakness of his position on global issues such as the Aids.

That's somewhat of a non-sequitur.

Mbeki was being criticized from the West about not doing enough in the Sudan crisis. Mbeki counter attacked by explaining to the Sudanese assembly about the the legacy and result of Western imperialism within Africa. You have not brought one single claim as evidence to refute Mbeki's case against the West and Churchill.

Concerning Mbeki's current stance on AIDS within his country, Mbeki had refused to declare a national emergency on AIDS, because he accurately states South Africa had already passed legislation to deal with the problem. However, the international pharmaceutical companies wanted to prevent the enactment of that particular South African legislation, because it would allow South Africa to override current patents of the pharmaceutical companies, which would open the door for South Africa to make the drugs on their own at cheaper cost.

These other countries outside the US cannot buy drugs at the costs that a US citizen could buy them, or others in the West. In the case where these African countries have loans from the IMF and World Bank, they can only spend so much on health costs, including education and prevention, because the IMF and World Bank stipulate that these African countries must allot so much money for paying off the interest of their loans.

The African nations are weary of the US. All too often, the international community will find an herb or a plant in Africa, herbs and plants that the local indigenous people have used for medicinal purposes. Western companies then obtain a patent on the herb or plant, which does not allow access to the medicinal use by the people. These Western nations then convince the indigenous population to accept economic reform by trying to develop themselves as an underpaid and overworked workforce, and most often the indigenous people fall into base poverty, because their countries simply cannot compete on the global stage and already have huge outstanding debt with the IMF and World Bank.

[AP]

147. I have a friend who's black and who applied to the state department.

As part of the recruitment effort another black state department employee called him and talked about some of the things that would be important to know before the oral exam. One of the recruiter's obsessions was Mbecki. He aksed if my friend knew about Mbecki's statements about AIDS, and he ran through the ideological arguments AGAINST Mbecki.

It really seems to me that a great deal of the aparatus of American foreign policy is designed to protect the profit motivations of just a handful of very wealthy and powerful companies and the state department was trying to either (1) make sure that they had a potential employee who didn't see this issue a different way, or (2) trying to mould a potential employee who didn't yet have an opinion on this issue into seeing Mbecki as a danger to humanity.

[d.l.Green]

162. Then why is this called Democratic UNDERGROUND?

Forgive me, but I thought this was a place where reasonable discussions untethered by the press spins would take place. Apparently there have been suggestions in this thread that Mbeki's still unanswered questions about the credibility of the "hiv/aids" pandemic are unreasonable and crazy. I know this is a little off the mark, but it follows the idea that Mbeki's statements are judged with malice towards this stance of his that the press has continually misrepresented.

I don't want to get into the discussion of Mbeki's right as the president of a country, that has been defined by its "hiv/aids" crisis, to question the very roots of this issue. But to remind everyone that the people who I expect would participate in these forums would be more open minded and suspicious of press spin and corporate control (media/"studies"/"hiv/aids" agencies and "activist" organizations , etc).

Here's a tidbit of a discussion that was going on at the height of this "controversy" way back in 2001. As you can see he was characterized as being in denial and a conspiracy theorist and irresponsible- but that was furthest from the truth.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/bdharry.htm

[AP]

166. So true.

It doesn't take much googling to find stories that suggest that a lot of stuff said about Mbeki on this issue seems to be spin and unattributed, and extremeley helpful to the neoliberal opposition.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=36909

http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2000/AF000467.html

[yellowcanine]

163. Churchill wasn't racist per se - he was an imperialist. That is why Bush

likes him. He would fit right in with Rummy, Wolfie, and da boys.

[jdonaldball]

170. Some Minimalist Common Sense and Zen, in defense of Churchill

Some basic, Common Sense here. You can call it Common Sense if you want to give it a Western term, or call it Zen if you want to give it an Eastern term:
Churchill was an imperialist, and a racist, of one kind.
Hitler was an imperialist and racist of a different kind, a far worse kind.
Churchill acknowledged that all Humans have some essential Human Nature. Hitler did not.
Churchill's idea of Imperialism - misguided and myopic as it was - was for the Western imperialist peoples to guide the rest of the world toward a higher level of civilisation. This was myopic and racist, but not against Humanity.
Hitler's idea of Imperialism was for the Master Race to enslave or to destroy all inferior races. Not to enlighten them and lead them, but to enslave them or destroy them.
Yes, Churchill was a racist and an imperialist. But he did not believe - as Hitler believed - in destroying any race of Humans.
Churchill believed that his culture - and maybe even his race - was superior to others. But he did not believe in - and he did not try to - destroy any other races.
Hitler did. The difference between Hitler and Churchill, is that Hitler considered all other "inferior" races to be something other than Human. Churchill did not.
And Churchill fought, hard and long, to defeat Hitler.
Churchill was wrong about many things, but he was always right about the most important thing: He believed that all Humans are Human. Hitler did not.
And so, in the end, Hitler was an enemy of Mankind, while Churchill was a Humanist, even if a racist and imperialist one.
In our time, I think, we have a duty to understand the difference.
Because what Hitler personified, was far more evil and antihuman, than anything Churchill ever did or said. And Hitler's ideas are still infecting the world today - and Churchill, after all, was Hitler's worst enemy. And even with all his faults and his mistaken ideas and his crimes, still, after all, Churchill stopped Hitler from winning the war in 1940. Churchill deserves honour for that, for as long as Civilisation carries on.
I mean, if Hitler had won the war - as he almost did in 1940 - then we would not be having this discussion. We owe this much freedom to Churchill, who stopped Hitler from winning the war in 1940.