Going into his European Vacation, Mitt Romney made up an itinerary of things he wanted to do and see in the countries that are not as exceptional as America in the eyes of Mormon Jesus. From his checklist:
- Criticize European things for not being American enough
- Speak loudly to the natives and remind them that their country is a little hellhole fit only for mocking for its worthlessness
- Reinforce the image of the Ugly American
- Forget his hosts names and try to bluff his way through it (Mulva?)
- Videotape his daughter Rafalca’s Olympic dance recital
- And bring the head of
Alfredo GarciaWinston Churchill back to America because Winston Churchill is an American icon just like John Wayne or maybe Ryan Seacrest.
About that little bust:
Mitt Romney, speaking to a group of more than 200 supporters in hotel in the heart of London this evening, said he is “looking forward” to returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the White House after it was sent back to Great Britain by President Obama.
The GOP candidate, who suffered a brutal day of press after he suggested that he wasn’t sure the London Olympics would go off without a hitch, spoke highly of the British monuments — singling out the Churchill statue — that he said he got a firsthand look at while stuck in traffic — likely caused by the Olympic Games.
“You live here, you see the sites day in and day out, but for me as I drive past the sculpture of Winston Churchill and see that great sculpture next to Westminster Abbey and Parliament and with him larger than life, enormous heft of that sculpture suggesting the scale of the the grandeur and the greatness of the man, it tugs at the heart strings to remember the kind of example that was led by Winston Churchill,” said Romney, speaking in a ballroom at the Mandarin Oriental hotel on the edge of Hyde Park.
“And I’m looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again,” Romney said, evoking applause from the group that helped the candidate raise more than $2 million for his campaign.
As you might guess, like most things Romney and this trip related, this is also in shambles:
Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.
Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.
News outlets have debunked this claim time and again. First, back in 2010 the National Journal reported that “the Churchill bust was relocated to a prominent spot in the residence to make room for Abraham Lincoln, a figure from whom the first African-American occupant of the Oval Office might well draw inspiration in difficult times.” And just in case anyone forgot, just last year the AP reported that President Obama “replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.”
In case these news reports are not enough for Mr. Krauthammer and others, here’s a picture of the President showing off the Churchill bust to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House residence in 2010.
Oh. Hmmmm. Okay….
In related news, upon his return to the states, Mitt Romney will be tracking down Mark Judge’s stolen bike. Word on the street is that The Blahs stashed it in the basement of the Alamo.
Developing…





94 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
Soooooooooooooooooooooooo – Obama has STOLEN teh bust and hidden it so no one can find it!
Maybe it’s not too late for the Republicans to draft Clark Griswold.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in
In their sties with all their backing
They don’t care what goes on around
In their eyes there’s something lacking
What they need’s a damn good whacking
Everywhere there’s lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon
Romney spends a day stepping on his dick in Jolly Old; Krauthammer parks the wheelchair on his.
That fucking Churchill bust has become a fertility fetish for Republicans hasn’t it?
What, you never heard of trick photography before?
OT, but BREEKING NEWS!!1!!1!OMG!!1!!one!
Guess who’s coming back to Dancin’ With Them Stars “All (But Not Really) Stars”? None other than America’s Favorite Unwed Unemployed Mother, BRISTOL PALIN!
Not sure if this is a sign – or a hope – that the Mayans were right, or if it’s a preview of much exceptional snark from Mr. Bogg. Of course, this is good news for John McCain, plus it’s Obama’s fault also, too.
Isn’t this just another excuse to break out the Lincoln dogwhistle?
Now to get back ON topic:
Mittens lies so much, his pants have been the GOP’s eternal flame since at least 2008. (1999, if you count his “retroactive retirement” from Bain.) But thanks to The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, we now know that it doesn’t matter if Romney lies, only that it “works” on the rubes and allows him to be anointed our Overlord of Dancing Ponies. It’s the Cokie Roberts rules on steroids.
In 2012, money and bullshit talks.
The UK tabloid The Sun said it the best: “Mitt the Twit.”
Also glad we are “looking through the backside of 10 Downing Street” also too.
Potential headline you won’t see at Breitbart:
REPUBLICANS CRY FOUL! BUST OF COMMY ROOSEVELT’S CLOSE FRIEND REPLACED BY REPUBLICAN HERO!
Well you know what Cokie would say…
I always thought the Puggie strategy of not permitting Snowtard Snooki to speak was really, really stupid. I now think that might be precisely how the Rmoney campaign might like Mittens to proceed for the next 100 days.
I am outraged that President Obama would allow that imperialist warmonger Churchill, to have his head displayed in the White House. Or is it really Churchill? Did that non-Anglo-Saxon President Obama send it back to Britain?
The mystery deepens and the world needs to know the truth. Where is that Limey Bastard? The President had better tell the truth. I congratulate the President for removing a “Dead Head” and World Class One Percenter, from the White House. If the President did actually reject a dead Churchill Head, I might reconsider my vote for President.
Jesus H. Christ and my sainted English Comp teacher, circa 1965. Can’t that man even speak English? Oh wait, statement assumes Romney is a human being….
I am trying to understand the RomneyBots. Who could have guessed Mittens and Annie, watch PBS. They especially enjoy some show called “Downtown Abbey”.
“Toffs” are rich English snobs. This seems to be a popular tee vee show, especially among the landed gentry. It could be cultural necophilia.
Churchill and his cabinet made a momentous decision in May 1940 to resist the Nazis rather than sue for peace. The beginning of the end for the Third Reich. He did a lot of crappy, racist, imperialist things, too. Arbitrarily partitioned Iraq in 1921, then 32 years later urged the US to overthrow the government of Iran and install the Shah. There’s also India, the Boers, etc.
Churchill? You mean this guy?
I can’t imagine why Obama would replace a bust of that guy with a bust of Lincoln.
All that salad needs is just a drizzle of “also, too” and it would be a complete Palin.
The only solution; Mitt & Rafalca to DWtS, Bristol to the RNC, nominated by RonPaul, seconded by John McCain. Then, they’ll have a real reason, and not just an excuse.
This Churchill?
Love that the Brits are calling Mr. Bain, Mr. Bean.
Ricky Gervais made An Idiot Abroad starring Karl Pilkington
Mitt Romney has created the American remake, starring himself.
I do so tire of the Churchill bashing on the part of the modern American left.
Was the man a racist, a misogynist, a classist, an imperialist? Yes. So were all the other white guys of his time. I think folks tend to forget that the guy was born c. 1880. He was very much a product of his time – a time in which white people, and men in particular, were considered superior to all others. It’s kind of pointless to judge people who died 50 years ago by the criteria of our times. For all his faults, Churchill was the right man for the right moment when he served as PM during WWII. He was also about as close as one gets to a Renaissance man – he was a writer, a painter, a builder, a politician – the breadth of his interests and intellect was really impressive.
Appreciate him for what he was, rather than damning him for what he was not. Had he been running around Britain from 1900 – 1940 advocating for the end of empire, equal rights for all, gay marriage, & etc etc, he never would have been in government and wouldn’t have been there at a time when he was most needed.
You talkin’ ’bout Obama?
Damn, right.
That Obama, he’s a bad motherf–
Don’t make me recite the reason why Churchill is largely wrongly maligned for Gallipolli.
Shut yo’ mouth!
I have it on good authority (MA residents) that he was known as Mitt the Shit, and that this actually appeared in one of the Boston newspapers.
Personally, I favor “Lord Foul”.
Oh, is it a game of Clue? I guess:
“Jeff Gannon, in the Lincoln bedroom, with the bust of Winston Churchill”
He really had very little to do with Gallipolli. Srsly.
This is something up with which I will not put.
Clearly this is just a convoluted plot, conceived by Planned Parenthood and funded by George Soros. You see, Obama brought the bust BACK to the White House in time for Cameron’s 2010 visit in order to be photographed so as to discredit any Republican candidate who might bring it up in the 2012 campaign. An act only a barbarous, unAmerican, Muslim, brown, Kenyan would conceive and carry out. Oh, and dead kittens and leprous ponies!
So let me get this straight. Mitt Romney, who was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, should accept full responsibility for the actions of Bain at that time. However, Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, should never have taken the fall for the Gallipoli shitfest?
Pret’ much, eyah…..
How about his destruction the British economy in 1925? His wild(and drunken) defense of Edward in 1936? The Norwegian campaign of 1940? His deliberate starvation of 3 million Bengalis in 1943? The scuttling of the French Fleet at Aden?
So this is turning into a “I blame Churchill” thread for a change.
Awesome!
Ooh, this might get fun!
I’m going to make popcorn and call my bookie!
I’ve said it before, I’m saying it now, and I’ll say it again:
Romney doesn’t need Sarah Palin.
Romney is Sarah Palin.
I blame Al Gore, internet inventor.
I blame Mel Gibson for Gallipoli.
as someone sort of touched on above… the bust was just an optic to make W not seem like such a buffon and improve the war president image. I think people forget that before 9/11, Bush was more or less a national joke…. we thought we’d have a dull Ford-like 4 years and be done with him… who could have foreseen…..
Ten reasons why I love Churchill:
Don’t rush me.
Take Sarah Palin’s conviction mix with Mitt’s vocabulary and articulation, and you get one truly epicurean word salad.
Yep, I know. It was his idea, but it wasn’t his idea to drag ass for several months before implementing it, giving the other side time to mine the straits of Dardanelle and move in troops. Had the plan been adopted and acted on when he first proposed it, it was actually a good strategy and might have shortened the war by years. As head of Admirality he was not the equivalent of the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was not top dog for calling the shots militarily. I can’t remember the name of the guy who was, but you’re a historian so you probably do.
You might want to mention there were over a hundred thousand dead and hundreds of thousands of wounded on both sides. But it was a Turkish Victory and British defeat. It was also a disaster from the beginning and a total waste of lives and ships for the British.
Yes, it was a good strategy, but other people messed it up for Winnie. If only wars did not have so much uncertainty and incompetence, wars would be easier to win, such as Afghanistan.
All my gods …
Dangit Jenn, I’m trying to get some bets placed here!
Am I allowed to hold his masturbatory enthusiasm for the murder of unarmed Irish people against “Winnie”? How about his mocking responses to anyone who thought that the brutal Black and Tans should have been called off from the Gestapo-esque mission he sent them out on?
Fuck Winnie. Saying most old white men back then shared his bigotry doesn’t mean he wasn’t one of the nastiest pricks of his time. As a human being, FDR was worth 10 Churchills. There’s a reason why most right-wing scumbags revere Churchill and despise FDR – it’s because they recognize their own kind even decades later.
Do modern day Brits think of Churchill much? I ought to know more, because my kid is living in London, but perhaps 20 something art students don’t know there history. OTOH, I have not encountered any Churchill fetishism during any of my trips to London.
Here’s the wikipedia article about it, with photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Winston_Churchill,_Parliament_Square
According to the article, it is frequently defaced by protestors.
Why would the sight of a Churchill statue “tug at the heartstrings”? It sure doesn’t look very heartstring-tuggy to me. If one were a Churchill fan, one might find it solemn, impressive, perhaps a little imposing. But tugging at the heartstrings?
I think it looks like he’s going to kick a dog, or maybe tell someone to get the fuck off his lawn.
Far right Brits hate Churchill. Their view is that for reasons of vainglory he dragged the U.K. into a war that cost them the empire.
If Churchill had died in 1939 at age 65 he would have been remembered as an erratic, drunken opportunist who had squandered a great talent. He was also on the verge of bankruptcy. A war against Hitler was his last chance to redeem himself and go down in history as a great man. While not unsympathetic to other facsists he found Hitler and the Nazis to be so evil that only their total annihilation would satisfy him. To that end he was willing to sacrifice the resources of the empire and later ally with Stalin.
Maybe he was right. It’s certainly possible for a bad man to do good things and the right things be done for the wrong reasons.
The knuckleheaded Churchill cult in this country missed WW2 and compensates by periodically shouting “Munich! Appeasement!” so they can fancy themselves as brave participants in a twilight struggle of good against evil rather than the mere apparatchiks they are.
FWIW, Churchill lived his entire life on the verge of bankruptcy.
Been trying to find a Helen Lawrenson evisceration of Churchill that was probably published sometime in the 1970s. It was like a Hunter S Thompson scene with a very drunk Winnie enjoying immensely the bombs falling on London.
Churchill was something else. According to Lawrenson, FDR had to twist his arm very hard in order to get old Winnie to focus first on Hitler rather than Stalin.
Financial and moral.
This is not uncommon with belligerent drunks.
And I didn’t expect you to defend him as to his intense, murderous hatred of the Irish. No one could, really.
What I find staggering in all this is that the GOP, “the Party of Lincoln,” want Churchill’s bust restored to the oval Office in place of the Lincoln bust thatObama placed! Doesn’t this just say it all about how racist the GOP has become?!
Jeez! How do you folks feel about Lloyd George or Eamon de Valera? I don’t think Mitt Romney knows any more about Winston Churchill than he does about Cheesy Grits or correctly sized trees. It’s another ridiculously inappropriate effort to ingratiate himself to people with whom he has no real affinity or understanding. Those Salt Lake City Olympic pins show who he really admires.
Otherwise, I’ll admit to some disappointement that President Obama has never shown any particular admiration for FDR.
I inadvertantly capitalized cheezy grits, because I always think of it as a reference to Haley Barbour.
Are they waiting for it to speak?
TBogg, my pettest peeve is misusing Ugly American. In the book, he was the good guy.
Ahem, the would be: Romneye spendes a daye steppynge on his dycke in Jollye Olde.
Whye do youe hate oure anglo-saxone herytage?
No, of course that’s not defensible, in the same way that FDR’s internment of the Japanese during WWII is not defensible, nor his exclusion of blacks from Social Security when the program started. Also, Lincoln didn’t go into the Civil War with the intention of freeing the slaves.
But that was really my point to begin with. It’s impossible to apply modern-day standards when judging a historical figure; if you do, the only conclusion you can reach is that EVERYONE who lived 150, 200 or whatever years ago was a rank bastard. Churchill was born into the British upper-crust at the height of Empire so it’s rather unsurprising that he was an unabashed imperialist and royalist. That was his milieu. From our vantage point in history, it’s easy to look back and condemn him for his attitudes about Irish and Indian independence, but it’s really not surprising that an imperialist, at the height of the Empire, opposed both. He certainly was far from alone in those attitudes. Does it make it right? Not by our standards today, but by the standards of his time, it was the norm.
I haven’t read Lawrenson, but I find the claim that FDR had to work really hard to get Churchill to focus on Hitler first to be, well, quite suspect, given that at the time, Hitler was running nightly bombing raids over England and had already turned on Stalin. To be sure Churchill hated the commies, but he hadn’t been worked into a froth over them for the 5 years previously as he had with the Nazis, or as he called them, “the NARzis.”
Well said.
I was gonna let that go…but, no.
The hundreds of thousands that died and were wounded and the loss goes to the decision, not Churchill’s, to drag ass on implementing the strategy. It wasn’t his idea to throw men on the beaches in front of heavily-fortified positions. Those positions weren’t there when he wanted to go in.
As for the snark about “…other people messed it up for Winnie. If only wars did not have so much uncertainty and incompetence, wars would be easier to win, such as Afghanistan,” that’s just stupid. The war was already going on; Churchill didn’t start it. He proferred a strategy that might have brought it to a close much sooner, had it been implemented when he wanted to go in. We’ll never know for sure of course, but it never was his idea to waste the lives of 100,000 men by giving the enemy time to dig in BEFORE attempting invasion.
FWIW, Churchill was distraught about what happened at Gallipolli. He resigned his post and enlisted to serve and went to France for his service. Imagine Donald Rumsfeld doing the same when it became clear that he had created a massive clusterfuck in Iraq. Impossible to imagine, I know.
An elderly white scumbag I once knew thought it was a total lack of character on the part of FDR to be on the side of the little guy.
You are a very effective advocate. And Churchill did have some good qualities…he drank a lot! But give some credit to the Turks who were just as brave as the Aussies. But why were Australians fighting Turks? The real war was between France and Britain, versus Germany, not Turkey, and hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted in France and Belgium, on a daily basis. Churchill and all the war leaders of that time, were delusional, to think the Turks would surrender.
World War I, the War To End All Wars, was a premeditated war created by arms dealers, justified by phony propaganda. Same as today.
To be fair: they were fighting the Turks to try to keep open supply routes to Russia and also, to open a new front in the war, given that everything on the western front was in stalemate. And they offered the Ottomans 4 million pounds to join their side. Unfortunately, the Germans offered the Ottomans 5 million pounds. That’s why the Brits and Aussies and Kiwis and French ended up fighting the Turks – because they were German allies.
Thank you, George.
Interestingly, just as wingnuts are lying about the Churchill bust, they also lie about Rumsfeld’s allegedly serving in the Korean War. He didn’t. Rumsfeld spent the Korean War in Princeton, doing pre-law coursework en route to failing to get a law degree. He did do a hitch in the Navy, but only during peacetime, from 1954 to 1957, and spent the next few decades in various kinds of reserve status which at the time (unlike now) was how rich kids stayed out of wars.
Churchill was quite often a vicious bully, but he was competent, and more importantly had a conscience and a sense of honor, and when it came time to face down Hitler he had the backing of all Britain. Conversely, it was recognized once the war was over that his main strengths were as a war leader, so the Brits turned out the Tories and Churchill as soon as they could, paving the way for the Labour folks to come in do things like create the National Health Service (which was given a prominent place in last night’s Olympic celebrations, you will recall).
Downton Abbey is the UK version of Gone with the Wind: Rich people are gods, servants are supposed to be happy with their lot, and it’s those rotten
Socialistsabolitionists that are the problem!Yep, you capture my feelings quite well. He was a flawed man, but he was the right man for the moment. After the war ended, he was no longer the right man for the moment. My whole point is that it’s possible to give him credit where it’s due even while recognizing his many flaws.
I don’t give a stuff about Winnie, and frankly, neither does MittBot or (nearly) anyone else in this stupid country. This whole trumped up (paging the Donald!) hoo-hah about Winnie’s “bust” would be beyond belief, except that we’ve all become mostly desensitized to the *insanity* exhibited by the Tea Party as ginned up by their enablers in the 1%.
WTF?? A bunch of yabbering ning-nongs whining endlessly about everything, including a bust of Winston Churchill.
MittBot has demonstrated irrevocably for all times, amen, what a complete ning-nong, ding-dong, suck-up, loser, dolt he is. Guess his 1% pals are forking over some of their filthy lucre to make MittBot do this dance of shame.
Thank goodness there are some truly great Americans in London right now sweating it out for Team USA and doing us proud. Otherwise, I’d have to hang my head in shame (which I may do anyway).
Of course, as always, this is very good news for John McCain…
heh… indeed
That one made me snort. But at least Mel was nice to look at back then, and kept his mouth shut when he wasn’t repeating his lines.
That comment won the Internets for me.
Younger Mel *used to be* a reasonably decent actor, and yes, a good looking guy. I enjoyed the Mad Max series, as well as most of his earlier movies. I felt he had talent then. Sad what happened to him bc I have NO interest in any of his recent, very weird torture porn movies.
We’re behind with DA, due to getting our telly stuff streamed on demand; we just started watching Season 2. But I have to say that your characterization’s not really what I’m getting from it. The virtues and vices seem to be fairly well distributed amongst the social classes, as far as I can tell. It seems that the series is concerned, on the broad scale, with the great shift in the class system that happened in the WW One period, and the welling up from below of the unhappiness and frustration of people of the working and serving classes. Also the big shifts in assumptions about women. As Brit screenwriters usually do, being character-driven storytellers, they’re accomplishing this by exploring the interpersonal politics, emotions, and alignments between individuals in and around the capsule society of this one country house.
Brit series have of course treated this before, the earliest one that I know about being Upstairs, Downstairs when it gets to the war years. WWI was a turning point for them culturally, economically, every way, to a degree it’s hard for us, with not even 300 yrs of history, to comprehend, and they return to it again and again. The closest we could get to an historical node of such depth might be the Civil War combined with the opening of the West by rail, but I’m not good enough on history to know if that’s a meaningful comparison. Probably not, the circumstances were so very different.
Several generations of good people struggled against those “superior” white men to take control of their own lives. Why now do you want to forgive the oppressor?
Yeah? Nathan Bedford Forrest was a product of his time too.
You and Frank33 should lighten up about “Downton Abbey” and spare us the contrived personal affront.
DA doesn’t presume to be a history lesson and shouldn’t be taken as such. It’s entertainment, that’s all.
The plot is so unbelieveable no one can take it seriously. So was “Upstairs, Downstairs,” for that matter.
Mystery solved! By Jake Tapper! There are two Heads of Winnie! Or maybe three.
This whole trumped up (paging the Donald!) hoo-hah about Winnie’s “bust” would be beyond belief,
It’s true, of course. If Tony Blair had lent Dubya a porcelain statue of the Queen’s Corgi and Obama chose to replace it with Lincoln, the wingnuts would be outraged at Obama’s callousness toward dogs….oh, wait, that’s not a hypothetical.
I don’t see too much that’s actually unbelievable about DA, in the sense of including incidents that could never actually have happened to anyone… with the possible exception of the Unfortunate Incident of the Turkish Diplomat in the Bedroom in Series 2. The writers aren’t going for OTT Period Excess, and they are definitely interested in having real historical events shape their plotting. Same for Upstairs, Downstairs.
These long-form series share some characteristics with soap opera, in that they involve multiple situations and relationships with a sizable cast of characters, and a fluid structure in which one issue will resolve and fade away to be replaced by another, only to have the first one resurface some time later, as well as multiple parallel story-lines that may or may not interact with each other. But you can say exactly the same things about many of the great Victorian novels.
It’s true they’re not “history lessons” in the sense of a documentary approach. But when talented people are serious about using drama to convey something about how big social changes occurred in the fairly recent past, I think it’s worth paying attention to that part of it, as well as the fun soap-opera aspects.
Sorry, the Turkish Diplomat was Series 1.
Excuse me? WTF? “Forgive” someone who died before I was born? Like that makes a rat’s ass worth of difference. It’s not about “forgiving” people long dead. It’s about not being a ninny and trying to project modern mores onto times long past. Fat lot of good it would do for me to go round being pissed about the way women were treated in the Bible, right? Just as we constantly point out, you can’t graft the values of a nomadic desert culture from 2,000 years ago onto modern life. The reverse holds true as well.
I was just stating what every GOOD history prof and scholar out there will tell you – you have to look at historical figures in the context of their times, not in the context of your own.
It’s about not being a ninny and trying to project modern mores onto times long past.
You say. I say it’s about fetishizing the people who sustained a brutal, exploitive empire at the cost of suffering and death for millions. You can apply the “product of his times” argument to defend anyone of any era. But if you do, you denigrate the sacrifices of those who struggled for self-determination.
Go ahead. Hold up Churchill as a hero. Had he been anything other than British, the western world would regard him as a monster.
I’m sure if Churchill had known that, 50 years after his death, someone obviously morally superior to him would judge him by the standards of their own time, he would have done everything differently.
Assuming of course that he was psychic and could predict what the standards would be 5 decades after his death.
Of course, the sainted Mr. Churchill never judged anyone at all on any basis. Well except for whether they were members of a substandard race.
Is your belittling and sarcasm part of the “good history professor” thing, or is that just your own sour demeanor?
Nice.
Oh, even better: When Mitt-bot screws up, he usually does it in complete sentences, suitable for memorializing on t-shirts and bumper stickers.
The problem with judging historical figures by modern mores is that you project the sins of entire societies onto one individual, who is merely a reflection of the norm for that time. Just as many people who are raised in a religion are blind to the fact that the reason they’re sure their religion is the one truth is that they’ve been steeped in it since earliest childhood, so it goes with a lot of other things. If you’re raised up with the idea that your nation is special, can do no wrong, and has been divinely ordained to rule over other nations, you’re going to be blind to the wrongness of subjugating other societies to your rule, especially if everyone around you believes the same thing.
If you suppose Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure who really lived and preached in Judea 2100 years ago, you can start damning him for not making it clear that gays are god’s children too and that women are to be treated equally to men with the same rights. Jesus didn’t preach either of those things, because he was raised as a Jew, and the Hebrew bible contained scripture condemning homosexuality and clearly stating that women were not equals. Of course, he preached a lot of things that went contrary to old testament scripture, but not those. And look at all the problems his failure to say those things has caused. By your yardstick, quaker, Jesus was a monster for not righting the wrong beliefs his fellow Jews held regarding gays and women. Of course if he had tried to right those beliefs, those bits probably never would have made it into the New Testament, because what he was preaching was already pretty radical and adding gay rights and women’s rights might have been a bridge too far, one that would have cost him his following. So Jesus threw gays and women under the bus, where they could be run over repeatedly for the next 2,000 years.
Most people would look at that conclusion and recognize it for what it is – deeply silly. Just because you’re doing the same with someone from the much more recent past doesn’t make it any less so.
I suppose I’d agree. Perhaps some of the frustration with DA noted by Frank33 and PW may be an expectation of a Dickensian approach with teachable moments.
One of the faults with DA is unavoidable (if it’s a fault at all, soap-wise). There isn’t enough time for any of the characters to have an uneventful day or two for us to get to know them better. Inconsequential things in their lives reveal quirks about them nonetheless. Time is money, though.
The only TV series with any patience that way, I think, was War and Peace — the 1970s old one by BBC with Anthony Hopkins. We’ll never see anything like that again, I’m afraid. Even so, that W&P had to compromise due to costs.
BUSH II: “Hey Tony! I just called to see if I could borrow a cup of that gravit-ass you Brits seem to have a surplus of….”
You might oughta take another look at some of the quotes I posted.
Churchill said, “I don’t understand all the squeamishness…” All the squeamishness? Sounds to me as though Churchill wasn’t embodying “the norm” at all. It sounds more like he was making a case in opposition to the norm.
“I don’t admit that a great wrong has been done…” Was someone else suggesting that such a wrong HAD been done? It would seem so.
In fact, Churchill’s imperialist views were opposed–strenuously so–in real time, not just in retrospect. If he was a “product of the time,” he was the product of a privileged class and expansionist politics that he was willing to defend with military force.
Not unless my Bible is missing a page where Jesus says, “Gas they neighbor, if he is of an inferior race.”
As the official referee tonight, I award Jenn a penalty kick.
If he was a “product of the time,” he was the product of a privileged class and expansionist politics that he was willing to defend with military force.
Indeed. When I hear the “product of the time” line I know I’m about to get a whole lot of rationalizations next. What “product of the time” really means is part of the dominant social class or structure and is usually used to downplay the flaws of um, I mean “contextualize”, the “Great Men of History”.
Note as you point that there were plenty of people who resisted or opposed the products of their times in real time which, in this case, sort of puts the lie to the notion that modern standards are being placed on historical figures.
To the subject at hand, give Churchill his due but give him ALL of his due.