Rootsie Homepage | Weblog | Tracey | Ayanna | Reasoning Forum | AmonHotep
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 12, 2024, 11:36:54 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  Rootsie
| |-+  Rogues Gallery (Moderator: Rootsie)
| | |-+  Winston Churchill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Winston Churchill  (Read 62516 times)
Posts: 958

View Profile WWW
« on: January 06, 2005, 07:20:40 PM »

The Guardian(London) Thursday, November 28, 2002,

Winston Churchill, exterminationist, racist and anti-Semite was yet voted the "greatest Briton".

The Churchill you didn't know.

Thousands voted him the greatest Briton - but did they know about his views on Gandhi, gassing and Jews...

[Churchill in favour of gassing 'lower grade' of races]: i.e. Kurds and Arabs in Iraq
"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

[Churchill the racist]:
"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King." -- Commenting on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

[Churchill the racist]:
"(India is) a godless land of snobs and bores." -- In a letter to his mother, 1896

[Churchill in favour of exterminating lower grade of races]:
"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

[Churchills views on communist Russia, more extreme than Hitler's]:
"(We must rally against) a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia of armed hordes not only smiting with bayonet and cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin." -- Quoted in the Boston Review, April/May 2001

[Churchill on the Irish spectre, horrid and inexorcisable]:
"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

[Churchill wanted to sterilize the mental ill]:
"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed." -- Churchill to Asquith, 1910

[Churchill in praise of Adolf Hitler]:
"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." -- From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

[Churchill condemns the Polish exile government]:
"You are callous people who want to wreck Europe - you do not care about the future of Europe, you have only your own miserable interests in mind." -- Addressing the London Polish government at a British Embassy meeting, October 1944

[Churchill handing over whole nations to Stalin]:
"So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have 90% of Romania, for us to have 90% of the say in Greece, and go 50/50 about Yugoslavia?" -- Addressing Stalin in Moscow, October 1944

[Churchill the anti-Semite]:
"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
Full Member
Posts: 448

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2005, 07:44:20 PM »

“White Man’s Burden” and the Iraq War        
by Mike Whitney

“I do not agree that the dog in the 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.”  - Winston Churchill; to the Peel Commission of Inquiry 1937, defending the brutal slaughter of Palestinians in the first Intifada of 1936 “on grounds of the racial superiority of the Jews”.

One of the important topics that continues to remain off-limits in regards to Iraq is race, and the racist theology that drove the country to war. It’s odd, in a country where so much of the history is steeped in the blood of chauvinistic wars, that Americans are still hesitant to examine the reflection in the mirror. Wasn’t the nation shaped by a genocidal assault on Native Americans; killing upwards of 10 million indigenous people and decimating their culture? Or was that simply a demonstration “Manifest Destiny”; God’s sordid will expressed by dispatching people of color to their immortal reward? The same could also be said of slavery; the odious transformation of people into chattel to augment the wealth of a few plantation owners. That crime was vindicated under the rubric of “states rights”, a moniker that justified 200 years of methodical brutality and exploitation. Yes, these crimes always have their attendant rationalization.

How different is Bush’s Global Democratic Revolution: the melodious sounding euphemism for racial warfare and subjugation? Don’t deny it; the evidence is everywhere. The third world has entered Bush’s crosshairs and racist ideology is fueling the hysteria.

American liberals won’t investigate the issue of race; the cultural deterrents are far too great. Besides, many of these so-called “progressives” feed from the same trough that energizes the system. The racist component of the war on terror is the elephant in the room; the ultimate taboo that eludes all respectable public discourse. Let’s call it what it is for a change.

How many Christians are there in Guantanamo Bay? How many Jews? How many white Christians are there in Abu Ghraib, or in any other of Rumsfeld’s numerous gulags stretched out across the planet?

A survey conducted by Cornell University two weeks ago proved what many had already suspected. “Nearly half (44%) of all Americans believe that the US should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans…The survey also found that Republicans and highly religious people were more apt to support curtailing civil liberties of Muslims.” (Al Jazeera) No surprises there, but is this change a natural response to the events of 9-11, or are there other factors at work?

“Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.” (Al Jazeera)

This clearly illustrates the connection between televised media and the increasing prejudice directed at Muslims. We can debate the significance of this observation, but we cannot ignore the fact that the media is the breeding-ground for greater discrimination.

The question is whether or not the media is deliberately complicit.

The media serves as the mouthpiece for corporate America. At present, it’s using its national platform to demonize both Arabs and Muslims, a process that involves the subtle manipulation of the facts to discredit its victim. The facts are either emphasized or downplayed according to the overall objectives of ownership. In this case, ownership is foursquare behind the occupation of Iraq, a judgment that applies to all the major networks without exception. This means that the goal of American elites is shaping the news, contributing to the distortions, and creating greater antipathy towards the native people (Muslims). It’s part of the information-management strategy to elicit more support for an unpopular conflict.

As the Cornell survey proves, the overall affect of the media campaign is a steady increase of racial and sectarian division. Televised news is a virtual spawning ground for burgeoning prejudice, feeding the imagery of fanatical Muslims being tamed by the benign forces of “white” civilization. The paternalistic themes in the coverage are almost unbearable. American servicemen are invariably depicted as struggling to bring the unruly “dark skinned” locals into the ardent grasp of democracy. It’s a dubious portrait of a Father showering love on his errant children. What baloney. Iraqis don’t want our smug condescension or our cultural elitism. They just want us to leave.

The roots of racism are not hard to fathom. Both European and American cultures are built on a solid foundation of entitlement and white privilege. (Did anyone notice France backing-away when they were asked to provide troops for Haiti or Ivory Coast?) Even now, Europe’s leaders would join the onslaught in Iraq if the division of resources were to their liking. Only now, the plundering of nations and the subsequent destruction of their culture is embraced under the sobriquet of “humanitarian intervention”, a general disclaimer for the racist subjugation of third world countries.

History is really nothing more than a faithful chronicle of racist wars. The illusion of “western culture” is only perpetuated by concealing the enormous material wealth that was stolen from vulnerable, people of color. Our “civilization” is grounded on plunder, a dismal fact that neither great music nor inspiring literature can disguise.

When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization, he said, “I think it would be a good idea”. His response is as apt today as it was 50 years ago.

Churchill’s platitudes on race, “a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly-wise race”, are familiar to the denizens of the Oval Office, as they are to their constituents in their leather-upholstered boardrooms and their antebellum-style country clubs across the nation. He is only reiterating what they already know. The apologists of the caste system need no reminders of its meaning; it is etched in their consciousness with the indelibility of hot iron. Their sense of entitlement is identical to Churchill’s. It’s a simple, immutable fact, as certain as the blue-blood coursing through their veins.

We’ve never veered far from prevailing doctrine of “White Man’s Burden”; the dogma that animates the imperial agenda. Iraq is just the latest chapter in this ruinous account of man’s inhumanity to man. Racism continues to be the subtext of all American politics, a tragic undercurrent of violence and injustice.


Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!