Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)


- Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:17:19 EST jg4fL/jL No.56882
File: 1474463839322.jpg -(56051B / 54.74KB, 648x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Churchill
So Churchill has been on a lot of people in the UK's lips on account of him now being on a lot of people in the UK's notes.

There's been a lot of backlash from the people who link him with the Bengal famine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 and blame him for their deaths. There's also stuff like this popping up http://hitlerorchurchill.info/ (try it, it's interesting). Plus there was his collosal fuck up during WW1 with the Dardanelles.

ALL THAT SAI I can't bring myself to hate him. People of history don't exist in a vaccume, and are products of (and in Churchills case, shapers of) the time they live in. I'm not denying that the Bengal famine was an atrocious loss of life and as a Scottish person I've never been a fan of Britain or the British Empire, but part of me just allows it. This alcoholic infinitely quotable badass that embodied the attitudes of the nation he ruled at the time. Even if the nation was allowing massive amounts of Bengalis to starve to death...

I don't really know what I'm trying to say here, I'd like to think it isn't so simple as "He's a product of his time so that makes it ok" but I can't really explain it otherwise. I'm no apologist to the atrocities commited on his behalf but I just find myself unable to get that pissed off with him. I've heard there's people refusing to accept the £5 notes with him on it.

So what do you guys make of him?
Emma Bodgeham - Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:57:51 EST 3Ays09so No.56883 Reply
I'm a big believer in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics so, you know, there's that. Maybe they just didn't know better (to put it simply).
On the other hand, the more distant something in in space and time, the harder it is to care about it.
A father being shot in Syria is just as tragic, objectively speaking, as my grandfather dying. Maybe even more so, since he had young children and a life ahead of him. But you'd never fault me for being more sad about my grandfather dying in his sleep than about a Syrian I've never met being killed, because my grandfather is closer to me. Or if you just want pure distance: We all get a lot crazier when there's a terrorist attack in our country, but nobody gives a quarter fuck for suicide bombers in Pakistani markets.

I feel about people judging historical figures like I feel about people being judged by retroactive laws: It doesn't make any sense to vilify someone for doing what wasn't wrong at the time.

So that's how I feel about him in a sort of moral sense.

As for not accepting £5 notes with Churchill on them (isn't it illegal to refuse official currency in shops?), I can better follow that as an objection to having Churchill on notes at all.
The things or people on our currency, no matter where we are, are chosen deliberately to represent the country and tend to have images on it that symbolize what that country is about, and while the note you pictured is about Churchill as a leader during WW2 carrying Britain through to the other side, it's impossible to entirely disentangle that part of Churchill from his (by our current standards) fuck-ups.
Beatrice Gommerbanks - Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:43:57 EST v+MjOh7X No.56885 Reply
Churchill pretty much sucked at everything except for riling people up to keep fighting against Hitler.
Shitting Necklechidge - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 22:51:34 EST FBZRkRuk No.56893 Reply
Here's my american perspective:

ANYBODY is better to have on money than royalty. Fuck royalty. How could you complain about churchill being on a banknote, but not raise an eyebrow/teacup to elizabeth being on currency? What the fuck has she done to get that privilege? She was just born by the right parents, and that's it. Fuck her to hell and back. I hate the queen, just like every other real american.

Now Churchill was probably a blue blood for all I know, but at least he had to be a cunning politician to get to be prime minister.

On a related note (ha!), the US is getting rid of Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. The 20 is a great bill to have - not too big, but can still buy a shitload. But Jackson was a genocidal cunt that hated central banks. So I'm very glad we're getting rid of him.
Cedric Worthingridge - Sun, 25 Sep 2016 03:21:07 EST wlEcThYX No.56900 Reply
A blood thirsty toff who participated in wars of empire and genocide from Africa to Germany.
Fuck that piece of shit, I'm glad he's dead.
Cedric Cellersud - Thu, 04 May 2017 10:14:53 EST 8iQhyERG No.57177 Reply
Oh, I'm a conservative.

Maternal... instinct...

Lydia Dartbanks - Tue, 04 Jul 2017 11:39:50 EST YYFtDXxk No.57211 Reply
Sounds like typical self-hating and deeply naive bourgeois intellectuals. For some reason the British "left" (liberal centrist) establishment hates Imperial Britain and everything about it.
Lydia Dartbanks - Tue, 04 Jul 2017 11:43:57 EST YYFtDXxk No.57212 Reply

I love this revisonism lately to use pictures of Roosevelt and Churchill with some Canadian rather than the usual photos with Stalin as the third party
Doris Mucklekurk - Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:28:17 EST 9CoQeyOj No.57228 Reply
>it's revisionism to use different photographs than that one famous one of the yalta conference
Walter Blisslewut - Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:47:13 EST sVSDp2E0 No.57229 Reply
Hey man, history is what you see in history textbooks.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.