In some ways yes; Churchill could be very eloquent and charismatic, but he was equally capable of being spitefully belligerent. And some of it is just the cultural perception of British vs French.
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
In some ways yes; Churchill could be very eloquent and charismatic, but he was equally capable of being spitefully belligerent. And some of it is just the cultural perception of British vs French.
gral
Well-known member
Yes, on that he was like my paternal grandfather: a friendly, generous guy for those he liked, and the meanest, pettiest mofo for those he didn't.
De Gaulle did what ever he could to help France, and he did just that. He rallied the French to help fight against thier own government.
Sounds about right
I think he was far too erratic and reckless. France could afford de Gaulle to be like that because France, or the Free French anyway, had damned all power to do anything much combat wise for most of the war. Churchill, while he wasn't the only one, made too many rash moves and overstretched what resources Britain and its allies had.
However in summer 1940 he was, briefly, probably the best option simply because no one else was likely to be willing to fight on. [In theory making peace if suitable terms could be achieved, then regrouping to resume the war against the Nazis at a more suitable time would have been far better for Britain but that would have relied on a hell of a lot going right.]
Here's my controversial thought of the moment: the Nobel Peace Prize is bullshit.
Not as in, "It's been a joke since [person I don't like] was awarded it or allegedly nominated for it", as in, it has always been a worthless piece of political theater that rides on the coattails of the real Nobel Prizes. This is highlighted by the fact that it's awarded by the Norwegian Parliament, whereas the real Nobels are awarded by the The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
----
A secondary controversial thought: the real Nobel Prizes aren't inherently bullshit, but they've been quite badly hijacked.
Alfred Nobel's will very clearly lays out that the Nobel Prizes are supposed to be awarded for the most important advancement benefitting humanity in the given field occurring in the previous year, i.e. strongly emphasizing practical engineering that directly makes the world a better place. Yet the Royal Swedish Academy has awarded almost every single Nobel Prize for "important" discoveries in theoretical sciences which at best indirectly benefit people.
This initially led to several cases of the Nobel Committee completely humiliating itself by awarding Nobel Prizes for research that was subsequently debunked, including at least one case of a Nobel being to an outright con man who never did *any* legitimate research at all. The Nobel Committee ultimately decided to avoid further humiliation by ignoring Nobel's will even more and awarding Nobel Prizes for important scientific discoveries only when those discoveries become widely accepted decades later, which has led to new issues with scientists who clearly deserved Nobel Prizes being denied recognition because they died before their groundbreaking work was accepted.
The time delay has also greatly exacerbated issues with unethical scientists stealing credit and/or the Committee being very biased about who gets the Nobel for a collaborative discovery, but that's a less foundational issue.
Not as in, "It's been a joke since [person I don't like] was awarded it or allegedly nominated for it", as in, it has always been a worthless piece of political theater that rides on the coattails of the real Nobel Prizes. This is highlighted by the fact that it's awarded by the Norwegian Parliament, whereas the real Nobels are awarded by the The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
----
A secondary controversial thought: the real Nobel Prizes aren't inherently bullshit, but they've been quite badly hijacked.
Alfred Nobel's will very clearly lays out that the Nobel Prizes are supposed to be awarded for the most important advancement benefitting humanity in the given field occurring in the previous year, i.e. strongly emphasizing practical engineering that directly makes the world a better place. Yet the Royal Swedish Academy has awarded almost every single Nobel Prize for "important" discoveries in theoretical sciences which at best indirectly benefit people.
This initially led to several cases of the Nobel Committee completely humiliating itself by awarding Nobel Prizes for research that was subsequently debunked, including at least one case of a Nobel being to an outright con man who never did *any* legitimate research at all. The Nobel Committee ultimately decided to avoid further humiliation by ignoring Nobel's will even more and awarding Nobel Prizes for important scientific discoveries only when those discoveries become widely accepted decades later, which has led to new issues with scientists who clearly deserved Nobel Prizes being denied recognition because they died before their groundbreaking work was accepted.
The time delay has also greatly exacerbated issues with unethical scientists stealing credit and/or the Committee being very biased about who gets the Nobel for a collaborative discovery, but that's a less foundational issue.
gral
Well-known member
Yeah, that's been my conclusion as well.
Are you seriously arguing Lincoln was not anti slavery?
Lincoln outright declared this, so yes. While he was morally opposed to slavery, he was explicitly *not* an abolitionist, he explicitly *did* believe in white supremacy, and he only adopted the position of emancipation because of the war.
I do not remember the white supremacists part.
I did know Grant wasn't an abolitionist but his father was
Lincoln explicitly clarified this in his political debates with Stephen Douglas, who *accused him of* supporting racial equality. His position was that blacks should not be enslaved and should have *some* fundamental rights, but *absolutely not* equality. In specific, he opposed free blacks having any of the political rights of citizens (specifically naming the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, and the right to hold political office), and he was also vehemently against racial intermarriage. In fact, he proposed that it would be dangerous for the United States to have too many free blacks in it, so the ideal solution to slavery would be to expel all of the ex-slaves back to Africa.
Later on, Lincoln stated that he felt that free blacks who served in the Union military had earned the right to vote, but no others.
The way you worded it makes it seem like he thought Black's deserved to be in slavery in all but name.
I would watch how you word things.
Let me put it in Lincoln's own words, then:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
- Abraham Lincoln, 18 September 1858
Again. All I was saying is you made it sound like he is saying Black people should be slaves in all but name.
At least he is saying they be free for fucks sake
In Lincoln's opinion, they should be "free" with no legal rights, not allowed any of the freedoms of citizens, and considered both legally and morally inferior. That's what he said, and it's entirely accurate to describe it as white supremacy.
....and I get that.
Not what I am saying.
Are you one of those that thinks Lincoln was a bad guy and should not be praised for the emancipation proclamation?
Let me remind you all of two things:
1) Lincoln was a politician. Politicians say things. Often they say different things to different audiences.
2) Saying, or even sincerely believing, something does not make you a something-ist.
Calling Abraham Lincoln a "white supremacist" is to project onto a man from the 19th century a frame of reference that did not yet exist in his time.
I think more informative as to his actual goals is the following quote:
Abraham Lincoln said:
So he wanted everyone to be free. He just had to make sacrifices to get there
He freed around 3 million people from slavery what have you done?