Category: Racism

The Capitol Insurrection – The Dangerous Start

January 10, 2021 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

To be honest, I can’t remember the overall stance of this blog on Donald Trump. I think the man is a master media-manipulator, uncompromising (for good and bad) and that he is at least six foot tall. I also happen to think he is the most dangerous President since Nixon, Andrew Johnson (both of whom, coincidentally, were similarly impeached but the Senate refused to remove them from office – Nixon resigning the day before and Johnson surviving by just one vote.)

I oft avoid the news, because whenever I open the BBC News App I see three items: COVID-19, Climate Change, Trump. I don’t feel particularly positive about any of those to be honest. It’s almost as if 2021 is a continuation of 2020 and the change of one day makes no difference. But something slipped through my ignorance gap – which has included deleting Facebook and Twitter.

It was the storming of the Capitol building. It was outrageous when my parents told me about it. I thought they must be confusing the Capitol building with another famous building in Washington. I was wrong. I visited the Capitol on a school trip to Washington, even standing in front of it you get a sense of its importance – both symbolic and real. It has been the scene of so many important laws, wars, conflicts, political leaders and it was just stormed by a bunch of gun-toting red-necks.

A lot of people instantly jumped on the argument that if these protestors had been Black or a member of a minority community there would be far more than four dead. Indeed, if the BLM movement had ever reached that far (before being constantly beaten, harassed and arreseted) far more violence would have ensued. I can assure you. I have done a few pieces on the BLM movement and their treatment by the police, despite their anti-violent protests, is absolutely stunning when compared to how these white armed citizens were able to storm the United States legislature building. It’s shocking. But not surprising and the only common denominator is the pigment colour of their skin.

But we all know that. We all know that the establishment cannot attack it’s supporters, no matter how many or how mad they may be. What, for me, is more scary is the fact that this was even possible. For those people who have followed Trump’s politics this was entirely predictable if he lost the election. He built his campaign around mocking war veterans, disabled reporters and getting into Twitter arguments with basically anyone famous. He may not have specifically said violent things (although this is entirely possible) … but this was always building. I’ll admit even I didn’t predict to this unprecedented extent. But still.

The problem, however, in this case is not about race it is about constitutional authority. Read on, it’ll get more less boring after those two words, promise. After the 1860 election in the USA Abraham Lincoln, then a famous anti-Slavery candidate and the first Republican President (how the Republicans and Democrats switched their rhetoric and policies over time and how Lincoln, the greatest US President was the first Republican President, has led to the last Republican President, Donald Trump, will be tackled another time).

A lot of people like to focus the American Civil War on slavery. The Southern states needed it, the Northern states did not. However, much like the arms race prior to World War 1, slavery was just powder keg. The spark, in the First World War was when Gavrilo Princip incidentally ran into and assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, sparking a long list of alliances and sparking a World War. On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln famously gave his Gettysburg Address, after the Battle of Gettysburg, in it, he famously stated:

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war … that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – Abraham Lincoln 1863

Because that’s the truth of the American Civil War. Slavery was always a key issue. But the bigger issue was the constitutional democracy and whether that would maintain and endure. When Lincoln was elected the Southern states decided that they did not like this election outcome and seceded – forming the Confederacy and their own state. That was what the war was fought about. Because democracy cannot function if the losing side is not willing to concede defeat. It is a never-ending cycle. What if the newly formed Confederacy don’t like the next President they elect? Will part of that group secede? What about that group? And so on. The American Civil War was fought to maintain a respectable, fairly new, type of democracy where you accept loss with good grace because there is a mutual understanding that both parties want what’s best for the country.

What happened in the Capitol was not only shocking but showed similarities to a country so deeply divided that violence was the only recourse. Some political commentators have suggested that this is all a build up for his 2024 campaign. Personally, I find this highly unlikely for several reasons.

A) Will he live that long?

B) These people are literally rebels. They must be prosecuted and held to account.

C) How does he plan to survive the impending charges of rape, indecent assault, fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, perjury?

D) I like to think that Americans are smart enough to realise they made a grave error and I trust them not to repeat it.

Fool me once …

Winston Churchill – Hero AND Villain?

Pretend, for a moment, that you did not read the title to this article and picture for me two European leaders in the first half of the 20th century. One is bipolar, an alcoholic and rarely seen without a cigar in his mouth. The other, a tee-total, animal-loving vegetarian who remained abstinent for most of his life. One is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (twice) and one is the Chancellor of Germany.

Hailed as the saviour of the world in some desperate British people’s eyes, British school children are taught to love and adore Churchill in the way we would Charles Darwin or Margot Robbie. Maybe not the latter .

We are taught that it was Churchill’s stern resistance, his refusal to bow to Hitler’s demands, that won World War 2 for the Allies and secured the defeat of fascism in Germany. Whilst some aspects are true, most are not. Churchill himself once famously, as an addage to the famous quotation ‘history is written by the winners’, commented that ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. That he did and that it is.

If we want to go into details of battleplans during World War 2 it is important to remember the idea which many historians share that ‘the UK gave us time, the USA gave money and the Soviets gave their lives’. This is true.

People think the war was won because of Churchill? Hitler’s decision to invade Russia forced him to move most of his forces East and ended the Blitz which had brought London to its knees. Hitler’s poor planning saved us there.

Then we get onto my real point. The Bengal Famine of 1943. Don’t worry, I know you haven’t heard of it, because it makes Britain, Churchill and both their legacies look bad. Why would it be taught in school?

Bengal (now Bangladesh) was part of the British Indian Empire. Despite millions of Indians volunteering to fight in Europe and Japan to support the Empire, who had been oppressing them for years, Churchill decided that blockades, sanctions and restrictions in that region had to be upheld. To support the war effort. Churchill’s detractors point to his well-documented bigotry, articulated often with shocking callousness and contempt. “I hate Indians,” he once trumpeted. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Cheers for that Winston.

It is estimated that of the 60 million Bengalis, 2-3 million died of starvation because of this decision.

Want more? He referred to Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.” When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three “savages.” Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the “squeamishness” of his colleagues, who were not in “favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Read that again. Then once more. I’ll stop now but it goes on.

This may sound like an angry rant against Churchill but it’s not. The man displayed great courage and leadership at a time when Britain needed it most. But he is not the hero we have been taught throughout our lives. He was not the Second Coming. In a recent poll he was ranked as the Greatest Briton of all time. Not Darwin? Not Shakespeare? Newton, Lennon, Hawking? None of them ever sanctioned genocide or expressed views which are inexplicable.

Famed for his quick wit, he once entered into an argument with Lady Astor. Lady Astor, infuriated, snapped and commented “Well Winston, if I was your wife I would poison your tea.” To which he replied, “and if I was your husband I would drink it.” A war veteran, a well-versed politician, an excellent public speaker and a Nobel Prize winner for Literature. No one denies the gifts God gave Churchill and it would be difficult to suggest he did not utilise these gifts. But the white-washing of his history is terrifying.

It was in the darkest of times that we needed a man like Churchill. A man of principle and conviction. A complicated man and, if we’re honest, were his incredibly offensive comments so much different from what other politicians at the time were spouting? There is no doubt, however, that in modern times a politician who switched from the Conservatives, to the Liberals, then back to the Conservatives whilst having a drinking problem and advocating policies that many who class as “insane” could ever become PM – twice.

Hero or Villian? Perspective or fact?

Winston Churchill – Hero AND Villain?

July 21st 2020 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Pretend, for a moment, that you did not read the title to this article and picture for me two European leaders in the first half of the 20th century. One is bipolar, an alcoholic and rarely seen without a cigar in his mouth. The other, a tee-total, animal-loving vegetarian who remained abstinent for most of his life. One is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (twice) and one is the Chancellor of Germany.

Hailed as the saviour of the world in some desperate British people’s eyes, British school children are taught to love and adore Churchill in the way we would Charles Darwin or Margot Robbie. Maybe not the latter .

We are taught that it was Churchill’s stern resistance, his refusal to bow to Hitler’s demands, that won World War 2 for the Allies and secured the defeat of fascism in Germany. Whilst some aspects are true, most are not. Churchill himself once famously, as an addage to the famous quotation ‘history is written by the winners’, commented that ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. That he did and that it is.

If we want to go into details of battleplans during World War 2 it is important to remember the idea which many historians share that ‘the UK gave us time, the USA gave money and the Soviets gave their lives’. This is true.

People think the war was won because of Churchill? Hitler’s decision to invade Russia forced him to move most of his forces East and ended the Blitz which had brought London to its knees. Hitler’s poor planning saved us there.

Then we get onto my real point. The Bengal Famine of 1943. Don’t worry, I know you haven’t heard of it, because it makes Britain, Churchill and both their legacies look bad. Why would it be taught in school?

Bengal (now Bangladesh) was part of the British Indian Empire. Despite millions of Indians volunteering to fight in Europe and Japan to support the Empire, who had been oppressing them for years, Churchill decided that blockades, sanctions and restrictions in that region had to be upheld. To support the war effort. Churchill’s detractors point to his well-documented bigotry, articulated often with shocking callousness and contempt. “I hate Indians,” he once trumpeted. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Cheers for that Winston.

It is estimated that of the 60 million Bengalis, 2-3 million died of starvation because of this decision.

Want more? He referred to Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.” When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three “savages.” Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the “squeamishness” of his colleagues, who were not in “favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Read that again. Then once more. I’ll stop now but it goes on.

This may sound like an angry rant against Churchill but it’s not. The man displayed great courage and leadership at a time when Britain needed it most. But he is not the hero we have been taught throughout our lives. He was not the Second Coming. In a recent poll he was ranked as the Greatest Briton of all time. Not Darwin? Not Shakespeare? Newton, Lennon, Hawking? None of them ever sanctioned genocide or expressed views which are inexplicable.

Famed for his quick wit, he once entered into an argument with Lady Astor. Lady Astor, infuriated, snapped and commented “Well Winston, if I was your wife I would poison your tea.” To which he replied, “and if I was your husband I would drink it.” A war veteran, a well-versed politician, an excellent public speaker and a Nobel Prize winner for Literature. No one denies the gifts God gave Churchill and it would be difficult to suggest he did not utilise these gifts. But the white-washing of his history is terrifying.

It was in the darkest of times that we needed a man like Churchill. A man of principle and conviction. A complicated man and, if we’re honest, were his incredibly offensive comments so much different from what other politicians at the time were spouting? There is no doubt, however, that in modern times a politician who switched from the Conservatives, to the Liberals, then back to the Conservatives whilst having a drinking problem and advocating policies that many who class as “insane” could ever become PM – twice.

Hero or Villian? Perspective or fact?