You obviously never read all of the posts. I myself had already acknowledged his oratory skills, and as for his imperfections, let's face it, I let his words speak for themselves. If you agree with them, fine by me.
First Armed Forces Day will be marked by up to 200 separate events across the country
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
You obviously never read all of the posts. I myself had already acknowledged his oratory skills, and as for his imperfections, let's face it, I let his words speak for themselves. If you agree with them, fine by me.
Hitler & Co; actually were insturmental in shapeing the modern world, many if not all of the techniques pioneered by that lot have by this time seventy years further developement and far broader application.
Not at all, Colpie. The Canadian military is a tool of the majority, not of the collective. I'm a world federalist, so as such ideally I'd like to see the Canadian armed forces gradually be replaced by an international force. Until then, I recognize pragmatically that Canada will need a national military force, but then I'd like to see it limit its role to maintaining international laws, not defending 'national interests'.
The Nazis were elected by the majority, not the collective. The Jews were certainly not represented. In Canada in the 60's, Inuit were moved from their homes further north by the Canadian military and then trained to use rifles and then given rifles. They had no choice and were lied to when told that this was temporary. So this Cold War with the Soviets had nothing to do with the Inuit except for them to be used as pawns.
As for Canada promoting an international military force, that's not likely to happen either (speaking of Churchill, he actually proposed the idea at one time, and was a world federalist himself, albeit a more anglocentric one. But I still agree with him except for the Anglocentrism.). So we can't say that the Canadian military protects my interests very much. Again, it protects the interests of the majority, not of the collective.
Oh, yes, and it was the same army that put many Canadian citizens from the West Coast into work camps against their will because of their language and culture. Did the Canadian military represent their interests too?
i was in the military for a short time (parental pressure to carry on the family tradition), and I'd met one soldier with 'skin head' tattooed on him, and another who wanted training to eventually go to train the Freemen. Represent my interests? Maybe yours.
Not everyone refects fondly on the wars of imperialism, British or otherwise. Here is Kipling's poem White Man's Burden written in 1899 in response to America's war in the Phillipines. Kipling was encouraging America to assume the "burden" of empire, just as Britain had. Are today's attitudes any different?
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
A little different. They don't express themselves so bluntly anymore, as if embarrassed. So unlike then, now they have a clearer understanding that it's not just.
And Colpy, an example here of what I meant when I said that Churchill's words can be misleading if not read carefully:
"Unless we establish some form of world government, it will not be possible for us to avert a World War III in the future"
On its own it might sound progressive, and yes I'm likely to agree with his words quoted here on their own. But when we read this quote in congruency with other quotes of his relating to his opposition to the dismantling of the British Empire, it becomes clear that his words are misleading. What he really meant by 'world government' is one firmly under the control of the English-speaking peoples.
Another example:
"This gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance, and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship."
Again, beautiful words. Makes it sound like he's an idealist believing in universal peace, justice and brotherhood. But then, if read in context, we get:
"This gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance, and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship. I like to think of British and Americans moving about freely over each other's wide estates with hardly a sense of being foreigners to one another. But I do not see why we should not try to spread our common language even more widely throughout the globe and, without seeking selfish advantage over any, possess ourselves of this invaluable amenity and birthright.
Some months ago I persuaded the British Cabinet to set up a committee of Ministers to study and report upon Basic English. Here you have a plan. There are others, but here you have a very carefully wrought plan for an international language capable of a very wide transaction of practical business and interchange of ideas. The whole of it is comprised in about 650 nouns and 200 verbs or other parts of speech - no more indeed than can be written on one side of a single sheet of paper.
What was my delight when, the other evening, quite unexpectedly, I heard the President of the United States suddenly speak of the merits of Basic English, and is it not a coincidence that, with all this in mind, I should arrive at Harvard, in fulfilment of the long-dated invitations to receive this degree, with which president Conant has honoured me? For Harvard has done more than any other American university to promote the extension of Basic English. The first work on Basic English was written by two Englishmen, Ivor Richards, now of Harvard, and C.K. Ogden, of Cambridge University, England, working in association.
The Harvard Commission on English Language Studies is distinguished both for its research and its practical work, particularly in introducing the use of Basic English in Latin America; and this Commission, your Commission, is now, I am told, working with secondary schools in Boston on the use of Basic English in teaching the main language to American children and in teaching it to foreigners preparing for citizenship.
Gentlemen, I make you my compliments. I do not wish to exaggerate, but you are the head-stream of what might well be a mighty fertilising and health-giving river. It would certainly be a grand convenience for us all to be able to move freely about the world - as we shall be able to do more freely than ever before as the science of the world develops - be able to move freely about the world, and be able to find everywhere a medium, albeit primitive, of intercourse and understanding. Might it not also be an advantage to many races, and an aid to the building-up of our new structure for preserving peace?
All these are great possibilities, and I say: "Let us go into this together. Let us have another Boston Tea Party about it."
Let us go forward as with other matters and other measures similar in aim and effect - let us go forward in malice to none and good will to all. Such plans offer far better prizes than taking away other people's provinces or lands or grinding them down in exploitation. The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."
If we don't give it much thought, it might appear like a pretty progressive quote, but when we read it more carefully, it's clear again that the intent is that the English language and culture are to dominate in this 'perfect union'.
So yes, I respect Churchill for many of Churchill's principles. I just don't buy into the details of what he said.
"Unless we establish some form of world government, it will not be possible for us to avert a World War III in the future"
On its own it might sound progressive, and yes I'm likely to agree with his words quoted here on their own. But when we read this quote in congruency with other quotes of his relating to his opposition to the dismantling of the British Empire, it becomes clear that his words are misleading. What he really meant by 'world government' is one firmly under the control of the English-speaking peoples.
Another example:
"This gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance, and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship."
Again, beautiful words. Makes it sound like he's an idealist believing in universal peace, justice and brotherhood. But then, if read in context, we get:
"This gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance, and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship. I like to think of British and Americans moving about freely over each other's wide estates with hardly a sense of being foreigners to one another. But I do not see why we should not try to spread our common language even more widely throughout the globe and, without seeking selfish advantage over any, possess ourselves of this invaluable amenity and birthright.
Some months ago I persuaded the British Cabinet to set up a committee of Ministers to study and report upon Basic English. Here you have a plan. There are others, but here you have a very carefully wrought plan for an international language capable of a very wide transaction of practical business and interchange of ideas. The whole of it is comprised in about 650 nouns and 200 verbs or other parts of speech - no more indeed than can be written on one side of a single sheet of paper.
What was my delight when, the other evening, quite unexpectedly, I heard the President of the United States suddenly speak of the merits of Basic English, and is it not a coincidence that, with all this in mind, I should arrive at Harvard, in fulfilment of the long-dated invitations to receive this degree, with which president Conant has honoured me? For Harvard has done more than any other American university to promote the extension of Basic English. The first work on Basic English was written by two Englishmen, Ivor Richards, now of Harvard, and C.K. Ogden, of Cambridge University, England, working in association.
The Harvard Commission on English Language Studies is distinguished both for its research and its practical work, particularly in introducing the use of Basic English in Latin America; and this Commission, your Commission, is now, I am told, working with secondary schools in Boston on the use of Basic English in teaching the main language to American children and in teaching it to foreigners preparing for citizenship.
Gentlemen, I make you my compliments. I do not wish to exaggerate, but you are the head-stream of what might well be a mighty fertilising and health-giving river. It would certainly be a grand convenience for us all to be able to move freely about the world - as we shall be able to do more freely than ever before as the science of the world develops - be able to move freely about the world, and be able to find everywhere a medium, albeit primitive, of intercourse and understanding. Might it not also be an advantage to many races, and an aid to the building-up of our new structure for preserving peace?
All these are great possibilities, and I say: "Let us go into this together. Let us have another Boston Tea Party about it."
Let us go forward as with other matters and other measures similar in aim and effect - let us go forward in malice to none and good will to all. Such plans offer far better prizes than taking away other people's provinces or lands or grinding them down in exploitation. The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."
If we don't give it much thought, it might appear like a pretty progressive quote, but when we read it more carefully, it's clear again that the intent is that the English language and culture are to dominate in this 'perfect union'.
So yes, I respect Churchill for many of Churchill's principles. I just don't buy into the details of what he said.
So Colpy, you seem to be irate that we don't worship Churchill. If we're not giving him the respect you think he deserves, please pull up some quotes of is that you can fully defend. I respect his stance against Nazi tyranny, but those were extreme circumstances. But he certainly wasn't an ideal peace-time PM. Too imperialistic. And I don't mean that too negatively. To be fair to him, he was representative of the majority opinion of his time. But it does show that he did have flaws. And when we consider that there were Britons not only during his time but even before speaking out against British Imperialism, then we must conclude that they are superior still. But sinse their beliefs were in the minority they stood not a chance at a political career. If a person's views are ahead of their time, he cannot become the leader of a democratic country. The simple masses would simply not be ready for him.
Worship Churchill????
Not at all. He was flawed in more serious areas than can be revealed by simple oratory.........he was the mastermind of the disasterous Gallipoli campaign of the First World War, he was undoubtedly a man of his time, and was blatantly elitist, if not racist. His politics and tactics in Ireland left much to be desired.... He was so poor a tactician that his own gov't and military leaders of WWII had to constantly pry him off some hare-brained scheme, not the least of which was his plan (at age 70) to land at Normandy with the troops (the King had to order he drop that one).....but he was larger than life, he was a brilliant figurehead, and he saw it coming.....he was single-handedly the orchestrator of the capture and delivery of the enigma machine to Britain....he warned of the evil of Hitler, and his threat to world peace. he was, in all the ways I listed, a great man.
A historical correction, and a matter of opinion:
First of all, a correction. The Nazi Party never won a majority in a German election. In 1930, they won just 18 percent of the vote, in 1932, they won 33%, after which Hitler was made Chancellor in a minority gov't (as all Weimer Republic gov'ts were) In 1933, after the violent elimination of many opposition supporters, terrorizing of candidates, with Hitler as Chancellor, and after the burning of the Reichstag by a "Jew!" (Guess what conspiracy guys, a REAL black flag op, complete with scapegoat!) the Nazis managed to garner just 44%. That was the last election of the "1,000 year Reich"
As for opinion, world gov't and world armies will come to pass over my dead body....literally. Have you looked at the UN??????????????????? Good God, man, what more evidence do you need that rule by the majority of screwed up, oppressive, racist, lunatic nations on earth would be a disaster of Old Testament proportions....I mean like the flood......
Thanks for correcting me on that, so the Nazis represented at most 44% of the population.
I acknowledge that for simple pragmatic reasons we might need national militaries for now, but does this really mean that we must start to glorify the military with an Armed Forces Day. At lest remembrance day is to mourn those that gave their lives, and that reminds us of the horrors of war. But in our modern atmosphere, I suspect an Armed Forces Day would just be taken as an opportunity to glorify war.
I acknowledge that for simple pragmatic reasons we might need national militaries for now, but does this really mean that we must start to glorify the military with an Armed Forces Day. At lest remembrance day is to mourn those that gave their lives, and that reminds us of the horrors of war. But in our modern atmosphere, I suspect an Armed Forces Day would just be taken as an opportunity to glorify war.