Race row as equality group brands Winston Churchill a 'white supremacist war criminal' and demands a cosmetics store removes a quote of his used in their window

A cosmetics store has been slammed by a racial equality group for putting a quote from Sir Winston Churchill on display.
The Bristol branch of Lush currently has words by the wartime leader promoting European unity in its front window.
But a local campaign group is furious about the decision and has branded Churchill a 'war criminal and white supremacist'.
Members of the Bristol People of Colour Collective went into the store on Tuesday to complain about the words and were told it was part of a nationwide campaign.

Now the group is lobbying Lush's head office to have the words, which were taken from Churchill's 1948 speech to a packed crowd in Amsterdam, removed.
The quote in the store's window includes the lines: 'We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think of being a European as of belonging to their native land.
'We hope wherever they go in this wide domain... they will truly feel: "Here I am at home. I am a citizen of this country too."
'Let us meet together. Let us work together. Let us do our utmost - all that is in us - for the good of all.
'How proud we should all be if we had played any useful part in bringing that great day to come.'

But Bristol People of Colour Collective, which was set up three years ago to 'end the harmful and oppressive structures and attitudes that exist in society', said quoting Churchill was 'wild'.
A spokesperson for the group said: 'The fact that any brand, especially one that is rooted in ethics, can uphold Churchill or anything he said about unity when he was a war criminal and white supremacist responsible for literally millions of deaths is wild. 'We won't stand for it.'

The two-time Prime Minister has been regularly voted the 'Greatest Ever Briton' in polls for leading the country during World War Two and his face features on the five pound note.
But his track record before 1940 has been controversial.

In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: '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 wordly wise race... has come in and taken their place.'
Former Bristol Tory Leader Richard Eddy said: 'Sir Winston Churchill was undoubtedly one of the greatest Britons ever.
'During the last World War, he saved this country by his leadership and Europe and the World by example.
'It really is ludicrous for this self-appointed and self-important protest group to make the claims they have against him and seek to blackmail the Lush business.'
He added: 'Sadly, there are some people in this country who hate our nation, its values and history, and heroes like Winston Churchill.
'But in my opinion, it is always a mistake to pander to their warped opinions.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4587822/Equality-group-attacks-Lush-racist-Churchill-quote.html

See this is what pisses me off.

We cant have a hero plastered on windows because its now classed racist. That word has been banded about so much its lost the original meaning.

Those people want to take a long look at themselves, if it wasn't for Churchill leading us and our boys fighting in the last war, there would be no equality anywhere here and no freedom to express their views!

Just wish they would all go away Im sick of them.

Who gave H/T a red for that, wouldn't be some one from Australia by any chance?

Whoever gave the red to Horatio must've wanted to actually give it to the "bad and naughty" news story - which is a bit odd don't you think? - as Horatio didn't even post an opinion....

So.
You do get strange people on forums.

I'm not sure why Lush are quoting Churchill, but if people don't like it, they can vote with their feet. Saying they "won't stand for it" is stupid as they have no say in it.

IT DOESN'T surprise me in the least, to learn that Churchill was obviously quite racist, nationalist and sexist/mysoginist in some of his opinions...

His government was also active in protecting and promoting some hogh profile establishment paedophiles and rapists --  as shown in a earlier items about the evil Viscount Silm..

Human rights weren't high among his concerns, either --  his wartime government oversaw the thousands of British children who were taken from their families during WWII and exported permanently to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Rhodesia.


As seen with the Queen Mum's public support of the German Nazi party during the 1930s, the British public were willing to forgive and forget a lot of sins after the war, on the part of those who showed great service in helping them through the war and in defeating the enemy.

There is no doubt that Churchill was racist and no excuse should be given for this, but he is remembered for helping to unite Britain at its time of need. He should be condemned for his racism and how he allowed millions of Indians to starve to death during the war. I will always condemn his wrongs but commend what he did right.

I mean people hail George Washington, as an American hero,  but he had slaves by the time he was 11. Does that disqualify him as being an American hero Wolf?

Serious question?

nicko wrote:Who   gave H/T a red for that,  wouldn't be some one from Australia by any chance?

Those reds shouldn't be anonymous, should they.

HoratioTarr wrote:

nicko wrote:Who   gave H/T a red for that,  wouldn't be some one from Australia by any chance?

Those reds shouldn't be anonymous, should they.  

I gave you a green to make up for the person who was cowardly in giving you a red

Thorin wrote:There is no doubt that Churchill was racist and no excuse should be given for this, but he is remembered for helping to unite Britain at its time of need. He should be condemned for his racism and how he allowed millions of Indians to starve to death during the war. I will always condemn his wrongs but commend what he did right.

I mean people hail George Washington, as an American hero,  but he had slaves by the time he was 11. Does that disqualify him as being an American hero Wolf?

Serious question?

You could say the same about Lincoln, who though an abolitionist of slavery, still didn't believe black people had the same social and political rights as whites. Lincoln told freed slaves in his last year as Presi­dent that there was no place in America for free blacks, that repatriation in Africa was the only solution to the dilemma which emancipation would pose for both races.

What we fail to do in the 21st Century is apply the mindsets of society and people at those foregone times when racism was rife. We are, thank God, more advanced in our thinking now - at least most of us are. But back then it was the norm. Look at how we treated homosexuality which was only made legal in the 1960s.

My view on this is that companies like this who use political statements etc in an effort to appear 'edgy' or 'intellectual' in order to sell a product, or suck up to what they think the public want to see/hear, are just asking for trouble. Stick to creating your own witty statements.

I also think it's a storm in a teacup, and that this group stamping in outrage just have nothing better or more productive to do.

So it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:There is no doubt that Churchill was racist and no excuse should be given for this, but he is remembered for helping to unite Britain at its time of need. He should be condemned for his racism and how he allowed millions of Indians to starve to death during the war. I will always condemn his wrongs but commend what he did right.

I mean people hail George Washington, as an American hero,  but he had slaves by the time he was 11. Does that disqualify him as being an American hero Wolf?

Serious question?

You could say the same about Lincoln, who though an abolitionist of slavery, still didn't believe black people had the same social and political rights as whites.   Lincoln told freed slaves in his last year as Presi­dent that there was no place in America for free blacks, that repatriation in Africa was the only solution to the dilemma which emancipation would pose for both races.  

What we fail to do in the 21st Century is apply the mindsets of society and people at those foregone times when racism was rife.   We are, thank God, more advanced in our thinking now - at least most of us are.   But back then it was the norm.  Look at how we treated homosexuality which was only made legal in the 1960s.

I agree and sadly, people apply history based off our views today and not apply them to the standards of that day. However, that does not mean we should still not condemn things done wrong. As they are wrong. Slavery is wrong and so is sexism for example. Do we need to look to past leaders for this, or how we are as today secularists? My bone of contention is how religious texts have a free pass to be hateful, Horatio. That people no matter their Abrahamic faith. Can be allowed by law, to call for the execution of homosexuals, through their beliefs.

So clearly we are not that advanced. If we were, we would not want to punish two people, who are in love as consenting adults. Sadly, the reality is, that friends like Eilzel, have to live with this hate and that religious bullshit brainwashes people to hate him. The abrahamic deity is not something of love. Its built on ear and hate.

So we are advanced, but sadly have learnt nothing from history.

HoratioTarr wrote:My view on this is that companies like this who use political statements etc in an effort to appear 'edgy' or 'intellectual' in order to sell a product, or suck up to what they think the public want to see/hear, are just asking for trouble.   Stick to creating your own witty statements.  

I also think it's a storm in a teacup, and that this group stamping in outrage just have nothing better or more productive to do.

So it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

Interesting Horatio.
So if I condemn both sides as being selfish, is it a storm in a tea cup ( I understand you do not mean me)?
What needs to be talked about, is how selfish a society we have become.

So its more like the other half a dozen of the other.

If people want to criticise every historic figure who had bigoted views they'll soon find that means pretty much all of them. Historic figures need to be judged in the context of their time not by today's advanced standards of humanity.

Churchill may have been a racist geranium, but he also led the UK to victory, and deserves recognition for that.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:My view on this is that companies like this who use political statements etc in an effort to appear 'edgy' or 'intellectual' in order to sell a product, or suck up to what they think the public want to see/hear, are just asking for trouble.   Stick to creating your own witty statements.  

I also think it's a storm in a teacup, and that this group stamping in outrage just have nothing better or more productive to do.

So it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

Interesting Horatio.
So if I condemn both sides as being selfish, is it a storm in a tea cup ( I understand you do not mean me)?
What needs to be talked about, is how selfish a society we have become.

So its more like the other half a dozen of the other.

Yes, we are selfish, or perhaps self centred is a better phrase. People seem to be getting more egotistical, specially on social media. I don't personally find the Churchill quote offensive, but then I tend not to look for offence in everything.

Eilzel wrote:If people want to criticise every historic figure who had bigoted views they'll soon find that means pretty much all of them. Historic figures need to be judged in the context of their time not by today's advanced standards of humanity.

Churchill may have been a racist geranium, but he also led the UK to victory, and deserves recognition for that.

exactly mate.

HoratioTarr wrote:My view on this is that companies like this who use political statements etc in an effort to appear 'edgy' or 'intellectual' in order to sell a product, or suck up to what they think the public want to see/hear, are just asking for trouble.   Stick to creating your own witty statements.  

I also think it's a storm in a teacup, and that this group stamping in outrage just have nothing better or more productive to do.

So it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

Well yes - they should be more original. What does all that have to do with soap anyway? I never like the Benetton united colours thing. They sell jumpers FFS.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:My view on this is that companies like this who use political statements etc in an effort to appear 'edgy' or 'intellectual' in order to sell a product, or suck up to what they think the public want to see/hear, are just asking for trouble.   Stick to creating your own witty statements.  

I also think it's a storm in a teacup, and that this group stamping in outrage just have nothing better or more productive to do.

So it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

Well yes - they should be more original. What does all that have to do with soap anyway? I never like the Benetton united colours thing. They sell jumpers FFS.

I think Lush should employ you to write the slogans! How about ....'It's just fucking soap!' or 'Fuck Coronation Street, ours is the only soap you need!' or 'Our soap keeps your nipsy lemon fresh' or 'You wanna Jumper? We got 'em!' or 'Why knit your own when you can look like a twat in ours?'

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well yes - they should be more original. What does all that have to do with soap anyway? I never like the Benetton united colours thing. They sell jumpers FFS.

I think Lush should employ you to write the slogans!   How about ....'It's just fucking soap!'   or 'Fuck Coronation Street, ours is the only soap you need!'  or 'Our soap keeps your nipsy lemon fresh' or 'You wanna Jumper?  We got 'em!' or 'Why knit your own when you can look like a twat in ours?'

I like the first one.

Eilzel wrote:If people want to criticise every historic figure who had bigoted views they'll soon find that means pretty much all of them. Historic figures need to be judged in the context of their time not by today's advanced standards of humanity.

Churchill may have been a racist geranium, but he also led the UK to victory, and deserves recognition for that.

Exactly that.

But Russia Actually Defeated the Nazis
And the USA lead the Western forces


You guys have all been snorting too much of that propaganda again haven't you

veya_victaous wrote:But Russia Actually Defeated the Nazis
And the USA lead the Western forces


You guys have all been snorting too much of that propaganda again haven't you

and neither of them would have done it without britain

in the case of the russian the convoys
in the case of america, without britain there would have been no D day landings and no night bombing

have you not yet realised that the only reaction you are getting is "here he goes again"

Right. Veya get over it. At this point I'm starting to think that regardless of all the attacks (whatever the justification) you actually harbour a weird inferiority complex- why else endlessly try and run down a nation?

Thorin wrote:There is no doubt that Churchill was racist and no excuse should be given for this, but he is remembered for helping to unite Britain at its time of need. He should be condemned for his racism and how he allowed millions of Indians to starve to death during the war. I will always condemn his wrongs but commend what he did right.

I mean people hail George Washington, as an American hero,  but he had slaves by the time he was 11. Does that disqualify him as being an American hero Wolf?

Serious question?

It just goes to show how many peoples are able to "compartmentalise" when looking at various people in various situations;  for example :


Americans excuse Wahington and Jefferson for being slaveowners, and still list them as amongst their greatest presidents...

The Queen Mum wasn't particularly popular in the 1930s, but was considered a national hero (along with her daughters..) after remaining in London during the Blitz, rather than retreating to somewhere safer..
Likewise, as demonstrated here, many people are willing to forgive Churchill for being a obnoxious prick personally, for leading Britain during its "darkest hours".

After WWII, France elected "General" de Gaulle  to a record term as president..

Down here, people like Shane Warne, Margaret Court and Tony Mundine (Anthony's father..) are still considered as national sporting 'icons', despite being obnoxious prats in their personal lives.


Highlighting achievements and positive outcomes in one part of a "great" person's life shouldn't necessarily detract from negatives in other aspects --   (or vice versa..
After all, none of these people were known murderers or sex offenders, were they ???)

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:There is no doubt that Churchill was racist and no excuse should be given for this, but he is remembered for helping to unite Britain at its time of need. He should be condemned for his racism and how he allowed millions of Indians to starve to death during the war. I will always condemn his wrongs but commend what he did right.

I mean people hail George Washington, as an American hero,  but he had slaves by the time he was 11. Does that disqualify him as being an American hero Wolf?

Serious question?

You could say the same about Lincoln, who though an abolitionist of slavery, still didn't believe black people had the same social and political rights as whites.   Lincoln told freed slaves in his last year as Presi­dent that there was no place in America for free blacks, that repatriation in Africa was the only solution to the dilemma which emancipation would pose for both races.  

What we fail to do in the 21st Century is apply the mindsets of society and people at those foregone times when racism was rife.   We are, thank God, more advanced in our thinking now - at least most of us are.   But back then it was the norm.  Look at how we treated homosexuality which was only made legal in the 1960s.

I've just given this a belated greenie, having only this morning caught up on the thread.

The last paragraph is a perfect example of what Basil Fawlty once famously described as "a statement of the bleedin' obvious"...demanding apologies from heads of state and governments for the events of centuries ago, and calling for bans and boycotts of shops and goods simply because of a particular photograph on display serve simply to lay the complainers open to more ridicule and contempt than sympathy.

All of us can complain about what other countries, tribes or even individual villages did to our forebearers back in the mists of history; the Vikings, the Romans, the French to name but three in the case of the UK.

But what bloody sense would there be in asking the Scandinavians, the Italians or the French to say "oops, sorry - we were wrong" any more than there is in now directing the wrath of the "cult of ists and isms" towards a picture a man who was born and served as a soldier and politician in the days of a long gone Glorious Empire?

veya_victaous wrote:But Russia Actually Defeated the Nazis
And the USA lead the Western forces


You guys have all been snorting too much of that propaganda again haven't you

Russia only turned on the Germans because they invaded Russia. Russia was doing their own killing of the jews for them before Germany turned on Russia, burning jews alive in sheds and killing them. They never did answer to their murdering of Russian jews. They got a way with it. Churchill said after the war, we should go into Russia now, they are the enemy of the future no one listened to him.

We stood alone for a long time before America joined the war. They did not lead us either, we were already there, on our own! The French Resistance was doing their bit after France caved in, and the Poles too.

Eilzel wrote:If people want to criticise every historic figure who had bigoted views they'll soon find that means pretty much all of them. Historic figures need to be judged in the context of their time not by today's advanced standards of humanity.

Churchill may have been a racist geranium, but he also led the UK to victory, and deserves recognition for that.

That's the final, best point.  The other day Thorin posted a thread about Marx being a racist, and several of us made the same point: just because a man, or woman, was famous, or contributed greatly to western civilization in one way, doesn't mean that they did't have flaws in another way.

Newton was a plagiarist, Mark Twain spoke often of the negro problem, James Watson was a white supremacist /1/...all with as many flaws as virtues.  Churchill, many argue, was a rabid anti-Communist who started the Cold War.  So what?  He rallied a nation when it needed it and brought a scourge to its knees...and that's what he's known for.

1. In a 2007 interview, Watson said that he was “inherently gloomy about the "prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really.” Further, he said that while everyone hopes that all groups are equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” (He also said that some black people are smart, and has apologized, although many question the sincerity of his apology.)

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If people want to criticise every historic figure who had bigoted views they'll soon find that means pretty much all of them. Historic figures need to be judged in the context of their time not by today's advanced standards of humanity.

Churchill may have been a racist geranium, but he also led the UK to victory, and deserves recognition for that.

That's the final, best point.  The other day Thorin posted a thread about Marx being a racist, and several of us made the same point: just because a man, or woman, was famous, or contributed greatly to western civilization in one way, doesn't mean that they did't have flaws in another way.

Newton was a plagiarist, Mark Twain spoke often of the negro problem, James Watson was a white supremacist /1/...all with as many flaws as virtues.  Churchill, many argue, was a rabid anti-Communist who started the Cold War.  So what?  He rallied a nation when it needed it and brought a scourge to its knees...and that's what he's known for.

1. In a 2007 interview, Watson said that he was “inherently gloomy about the "prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really.” Further, he said that while everyone hopes that all groups are equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” (He also said that some black people are smart, and has apologized, although many question the sincerity of his apology.)

Okay, point taken about Marx

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the final, best point.  The other day Thorin posted a thread about Marx being a racist, and several of us made the same point: just because a man, or woman, was famous, or contributed greatly to western civilization in one way, doesn't mean that they did't have flaws in another way.

Newton was a plagiarist, Mark Twain spoke often of the negro problem, James Watson was a white supremacist /1/...all with as many flaws as virtues.  Churchill, many argue, was a rabid anti-Communist who started the Cold War.  So what?  He rallied a nation when it needed it and brought a scourge to its knees...and that's what he's known for.

1. In a 2007 interview, Watson said that he was “inherently gloomy about the "prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really.” Further, he said that while everyone hopes that all groups are equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” (He also said that some black people are smart, and has apologized, although many question the sincerity of his apology.)

Okay, point taken about Marx

I didn't mean to be critical. I just wanted to point out that it it's a point that arises now and then, but over and over.

It was a good thread.

Because I have Never heard any one but a Brit claim that Churchill was responsible for victory.

seem ludicrous a leader acting like any leader would and begging for assistance can be seen as the cause of victory.
and Until I started digging You lot where al saying WW2 was just the European theater acting like it didn't Start and finish in the Pacific.

It just shows again how fucked Up UK propaganda is.

veya_victaous wrote:Because I have Never heard any one but a Brit claim that Churchill was responsible for victory.

seem ludicrous a leader acting like any leader would and begging for assistance can be seen as the cause of victory.
and Until I  started digging You lot where al saying WW2 was just the European theater acting like it didn't Start and finish in the Pacific.

It just shows again how fucked Up UK propaganda is.

Or it shows you have not the first clue about history.
Britain stood alone against Germany when France surrendered. It had its Empire to call on resources but managed to bring about the first major defeat of Hitler during the battle of Britain. Where up until this point Nazi Germany had been invincible. If Britain had of fallen. Hitler would have been able to bring his entire forces to bear on the Eastern Front. Russia was closest to defeat in both 1941 and 1942. Where its was only with the help of the arctic conveys and aid from the US and Britain that the USSR was able to defeat Germany. They may have well given millions of lives in blood, but it they were only able to achieve this victory. With the mass of resources that the USSR needed, especially between 1941 and 1943. The mass of tanks, warplanes, trucks (this provided 3 quarters of all their lorries and without they would have never been able to pull over the mass encirclement victories they had), boots, clothes, and a mass of other resources. In 1942, the allies landed in North Africa, which helped divert hundreds of thousand of German troops to North Africa, thus further helping draw away troops from the Eastern Front. So I suggest you learn to understand the war in its full context, where without each other, its doubtful Hitler would have been defeated, with more to the fact you have not got a clue what you are talking about.