It seems now that to be patriotic in this country, makes people who are not " British or English " excluded.
Teachers now it seems are reluctant to teach kids about patriotism as it now seems it is not " hip hop " to do so.
I thought to be patriotic about your country is being able to identify yourself with that country. It may have been your place of birth, or have moved here years ago, but still have strong feeling about where you are from. Your roots and that sense of belonging.
IF I was to move to Spain whilst I would love the country enough to want to move there, would I be patriotic about it? Probably not as Britain is where my roots are so hence my inner feeling would always lie here.
I watched the last night of the proms on Saturday, and that is what Britain is all about. Songs like Land of Hope and Glory, and Jerusalem get the blood flowing through ones veins, as it is all about national pride as well.
I do not for one minute expect people from other countries to understand ort even want to understand about the last night of the proms. Last year there were " some " who stated that the last night of the proms should be stopped, as minority groups could feel offended by it. :shock:
There are many things that make me patriotic like, the Trouping of the colour, the last night of the proms, watching the armed forces displays, our history.
So because so many schools now have a large section of immigrant children, is it right that patriotism should be stopped being taught about?
In some schools British history is not being taught as much as it used to be. It is now about world history, but should that be allowed to happen?
Being patriotic about Britain is not racist and should be taught but....is our British identity being eroded away and should teachers ( for which this article is about ) be allowed to interfere in such issues?
I am British/English, and proud of it. In America most houses have the stars and stripes hanging proudly from their properties. Why do we not show that same spirit?
The last night of the proms with the people waving their Union Jack flags and the St. Georges flags, fills people with immense pride. Why does that not happen more often. The football world cup next year will see flags flying everywhere, but why does it take a major sporting event to show such patriotism here?
People inferring that to be patriotic is " racist " are playing a very dangerous game, but nothing in this country surprises me anymore.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is being patriotic racist?
last reply
29 replies
1.8k views
0 watchers
0 likes
The emotion often refered to as "racism" is both basic and natural. Having said that hatred of other races is truely pathetic. Unfortunately the insistance of the ruling classes to junk all race related issues into the same big bag of crap merely clouds the issue. The word itself (racist) is losing whatever meaning it ever had because people who live in exclusive areas in Islington (for example) are constantly shouting it from the rooftops.
So in answer to your question, no patriotism is not racist. National pride, (which is vastly deminishing under noo liebour), and love of your own people is very different from hatred of others.
Should anyone accuse you of it just tell em to feck off.
BG.
So in answer to your question, no patriotism is not racist. National pride, (which is vastly deminishing under noo liebour), and love of your own people is very different from hatred of others.
Should anyone accuse you of it just tell em to feck off.
BG.
I agree with your sentiments here Mr K. As Brighton Geezer says, being patriotic can only be deemed as being racist if you celebrate the part of our mixed history that we should perhaps not. Our role in the slave trade for example. However there is a great deal we can be justifiably proud of and indeed should continue to do so.
As you rightly say, there is nothing wrong with feeling pride in your own country, people, county, city or even street. I only take issue with the fact that somehow this is the fault of the teaching profession (a point which I wonder if it has been raised to simply raise hackles again, not that the Mail would do that of course... By the way is Diana off the front page yet? I would read it (that's a lie but I'll continue anyway), but every time I see the paper I feel an all consuming desire to use it for lavatorial purposes) that to me is just utter bollocks. Teachers can no more decide not to "teach" patriotism as they can decide not to teach maths, English, good manners or honesty. What teachers teach is prescribed for them by the national curriculum, there is leeway in how they can present this but not to the point of being able to leave something out... I don't really get this article to be honest Mr K, it just seems to me to be another attack on teachers by a vitriolic hack with chip on her shoulder.
I fear what the good lady journalist really means, is not that we don't celebrate our culture and history, but that schools also celebrate others. Even that of (spit) asylum seekers and other low life foreign folk. Only she can't say that because that isn't patriotism, it's racism dressed as patriotism. The very thing she is purporting to be against.
The patriotism you call for Mr K, I'd love to see. Although I did enjoy your choice of "Jerusalem" as an example of a great British song. It's actually from a poem, I think by Blake , and it is about Jesus popping over to the UK and coming to Glastonbury (I doubt he camped in a field, shit in a bag and listened to Neil Young however) and making it a great place to be and that how we now have to strive for that again. Kind of "Hmmm... Well It's ok now crap in some bits, good in others, but it can be so much better", which in an odd way, despite the title, sums up the UK pretty well. However I have a problem with Jesus popping over here to do stuff, that's kind of what the Mormons believe happened in America. Still it went well with the Rugby World Cup so bugger it.
I think a lot of this fear of patriotism stems from our inherent British reservedness. We are not a particularly ebullient nation, we don't shout things from the rooftops and certain things, such as patriotism, are seen as some as a bit wet, limp and laughable. Certainly not as cool as being non-commital, sarcastic and diffident. I think that, and the fear that what we say will upset someone somewhere does put people off.
It is odd that it takes sport to unify us this way, I think that is because sport appeals across the board, whereas the Proms, rightly or wrongly, doesn't. Or is it that sport allows us to be patriotic, without fear of reprisal in some other way?
I'll have my flag in the window in the summer anyway.
As you rightly say, there is nothing wrong with feeling pride in your own country, people, county, city or even street. I only take issue with the fact that somehow this is the fault of the teaching profession (a point which I wonder if it has been raised to simply raise hackles again, not that the Mail would do that of course... By the way is Diana off the front page yet? I would read it (that's a lie but I'll continue anyway), but every time I see the paper I feel an all consuming desire to use it for lavatorial purposes) that to me is just utter bollocks. Teachers can no more decide not to "teach" patriotism as they can decide not to teach maths, English, good manners or honesty. What teachers teach is prescribed for them by the national curriculum, there is leeway in how they can present this but not to the point of being able to leave something out... I don't really get this article to be honest Mr K, it just seems to me to be another attack on teachers by a vitriolic hack with chip on her shoulder.
I fear what the good lady journalist really means, is not that we don't celebrate our culture and history, but that schools also celebrate others. Even that of (spit) asylum seekers and other low life foreign folk. Only she can't say that because that isn't patriotism, it's racism dressed as patriotism. The very thing she is purporting to be against.
The patriotism you call for Mr K, I'd love to see. Although I did enjoy your choice of "Jerusalem" as an example of a great British song. It's actually from a poem, I think by Blake , and it is about Jesus popping over to the UK and coming to Glastonbury (I doubt he camped in a field, shit in a bag and listened to Neil Young however) and making it a great place to be and that how we now have to strive for that again. Kind of "Hmmm... Well It's ok now crap in some bits, good in others, but it can be so much better", which in an odd way, despite the title, sums up the UK pretty well. However I have a problem with Jesus popping over here to do stuff, that's kind of what the Mormons believe happened in America. Still it went well with the Rugby World Cup so bugger it.
I think a lot of this fear of patriotism stems from our inherent British reservedness. We are not a particularly ebullient nation, we don't shout things from the rooftops and certain things, such as patriotism, are seen as some as a bit wet, limp and laughable. Certainly not as cool as being non-commital, sarcastic and diffident. I think that, and the fear that what we say will upset someone somewhere does put people off.
It is odd that it takes sport to unify us this way, I think that is because sport appeals across the board, whereas the Proms, rightly or wrongly, doesn't. Or is it that sport allows us to be patriotic, without fear of reprisal in some other way?
I'll have my flag in the window in the summer anyway.
Sex God
A recent survey of teachers by London University's Institute of Education found that some three-quarters of them believed it was their duty to warn their pupils about the dangers of patriotism.
It strikes me that the operative word in this paragraph is "dangers" i.e. not that patriotism per se is wrong, but there are dangers inherent in the stance of many who claim patriotism and preach nationalism and racism.
There is always the danger that a patriotic stance is misinterpreted as racism or that it is indeed B.N.P. is a prime example of racism hidden (though not too deeply) within a patriotic principle.
I would suggest that the article quoted above is yet another example of our beloved press' prediliction for deliberate misinterpretation of academic studies to suit their own not too well concealed right wing (and frequently racist ) straw man argument,another nail in the coffin of British equality.
Look for "winterval", look for the truth behind the story,look for nurseries banning "baa baa black sheep",look for schools banning christmas cards,the truth behind all these stories is far different to the lie reported by the press.....though I doubt there is any kind of conspiracy I KNOW there is an agenda.....look behind the story the truth is usually very different
After 2 mins. research...
a somewhat slightly different take on the subject from the horses mouth.
It strikes me that the operative word in this paragraph is "dangers" i.e. not that patriotism per se is wrong, but there are dangers inherent in the stance of many who claim patriotism and preach nationalism and racism.
There is always the danger that a patriotic stance is misinterpreted as racism or that it is indeed B.N.P. is a prime example of racism hidden (though not too deeply) within a patriotic principle.
I would suggest that the article quoted above is yet another example of our beloved press' prediliction for deliberate misinterpretation of academic studies to suit their own not too well concealed right wing (and frequently racist ) straw man argument,another nail in the coffin of British equality.
Look for "winterval", look for the truth behind the story,look for nurseries banning "baa baa black sheep",look for schools banning christmas cards,the truth behind all these stories is far different to the lie reported by the press.....though I doubt there is any kind of conspiracy I KNOW there is an agenda.....look behind the story the truth is usually very different
After 2 mins. research...
a somewhat slightly different take on the subject from the horses mouth.
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
A recent survey of teachers by London University's Institute of Education found that some three-quarters of them believed it was their duty to warn their pupils about the dangers of patriotism.
It strikes me that the operative word in this paragraph is "dangers" i.e. not that patriotism per se is wrong, but there are dangers inherent in the stance of many who claim patriotism and preach nationalism and racism.
There is always the danger that a patriotic stance is misinterpreted as racism or that it is indeed B.N.P. is a prime example of racism hidden (though not too deeply) within a patriotic principle.
I would suggest that the article quoted above is yet another example of our beloved press' prediliction for deliberate misinterpretation of academic studies to suit their own not too well concealed right wing (and frequently racist ) straw man argument,another nail in the coffin of British equality.
Look for "winterval", look for the truth behind the story,look for nurseries banning "baa baa black sheep",look for schools banning christmas cards,the truth behind all these stories is far different to the lie reported by the press.....though I doubt there is any kind of conspiracy I KNOW there is an agenda.....look behind the story the truth is usually very different
After 2 mins. research...
a somewhat slightly different take on the subject from the horses mouth.
Surely you don't mean the Mail could be biased Staggerlee?
I refuse to believe it... no honestly... Next you'll be telling me Fox News isn't impartial ;-)
Sex God
Far be it from me to suggest any bias in our media....but i would suggest that perhaps it is peopled by corrupt evil bastards...merely an opinion you understand
Sex God
Quote by Resonance
I refuse to believe it... no honestly... Next you'll be telling me Fox News isn't impartial ;-)
sssssssh....... you can't say that.. they have ears everywhere!!!! mind you.... great comedy though!!!
What is so funny is the people who constantly " knock " the papers at every opportunity, when they don't believe a story.
I never heard one person slag the papers off over the reporting of the banking scandal. I never heard one person say anything negative about the reporting of the MP's expenses scandal.
But as soon as a paper reports things about useless Mothers, or teachers wanting to ban the Army from school visits, it is the papers over zealous reporting.
You cannot have it both ways. I am aware that the papers can distort the truth,but I am confused as to the way people pick and choose what they believe whenever they hear a story or a news artical from one of the papers.
Selective believing I would call it.
I never heard one person slag the papers off over the reporting of the banking scandal. I never heard one person say anything negative about the reporting of the MP's expenses scandal.
But as soon as a paper reports things about useless Mothers, or teachers wanting to ban the Army from school visits, it is the papers over zealous reporting.
You cannot have it both ways. I am aware that the papers can distort the truth,but I am confused as to the way people pick and choose what they believe whenever they hear a story or a news artical from one of the papers.
Selective believing I would call it.
Sex God
or may be it's just that 'some' people take what they read in ANY newspaper as a journalists view of a story and only comment on the ones about the other topics you mention as these are the ones you've brought up on here.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
What is so funny is the people who constantly " knock " the papers at every opportunity, when they don't believe a story.
I never heard one person slag the papers off over the reporting of the banking scandal. I never heard one person say anything negative about the reporting of the MP's expenses scandal.
But as soon as a paper reports things about useless Mothers, or teachers wanting to ban the Army from school visits, it is the papers over zealous reporting.
You cannot have it both ways. I am aware that the papers can distort the truth,but I am confused as to the way people pick and choose what they believe whenever they hear a story or a news artical from one of the papers.
Selective believing I would call it.
Whilst I may not have been critical of the media's reporting of these topics on this forum I am fully aware that the likes of the Barclay brothers and the murdochs are far from blameless in the fields of nepotism and tax avoidance...the problem is that on the stories you quote above they also appear to have been fairly accurate...on the stories you constantly bring up for debate they remain misleading,misinformed,and blatently untrue.
It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people--who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations--do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.
- "License of the Press" Mark Twain
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are - Mark Twain
I don't criticise the media because I dislike it,I criticise it because it deserves for the truth behind the story.
P.S. Did you follow the link to the original story? did you notice any difference between it and the story you linked to? do you think there may be a reason why the emphasis is different?what do you think the reason is?
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
What is so funny is the people who constantly " knock " the papers at every opportunity, when they don't believe a story.
I never heard one person slag the papers off over the reporting of the banking scandal. I never heard one person say anything negative about the reporting of the MP's expenses scandal.
But as soon as a paper reports things about useless Mothers, or teachers wanting to ban the Army from school visits, it is the papers over zealous reporting.
You cannot have it both ways. I am aware that the papers can distort the truth,but I am confused as to the way people pick and choose what they believe whenever they hear a story or a news artical from one of the papers.
Selective believing I would call it.
Whilst I may not have been critical of the media's reporting of these topics on this forum I am fully aware that the likes of the Barclay brothers and the murdochs are far from blameless in the fields of nepotism and tax avoidance...the problem is that on the stories you quote above they also appear to have been fairly accurate...on the stories you constantly bring up for debate they remain misleading,misinformed,and blatently untrue.
It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people--who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations--do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.
- "License of the Press" Mark Twain
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are - Mark Twain
I don't criticise the media because I dislike it,I criticise it because it deserves for the truth behind the story.
P.S. Did you follow the link to the original story? did you notice any difference between it and the story you linked to? do you think there may be a reason why the emphasis is different?what do you think the reason is?
Yes I did Staggers. I cannot explain what the difference is to be honest.
I am fully aware that there are usually two sides to every story, and one side is either usually a lie or a distortion of the truth.
What I do know and have seen for myself, is the ability for " some " to think that being patriotic, is a form of Nationalism, so therefore must have racist undertones attatched to it.
I cannot understand why some councils for example grant late drinking for say St Patricks day celebrations, but the same councils turn down St Georges celebrations. That is not newspaper over exaggerations, but a reality which I know to be fact.
I wonder why they would do that? Or am I being too cynical?
It seems to some to be offensive for others to fly the St Georges flag, some feel offended by it. So when I read stories like the one I highlighted, I am sorry but there is an element of truth in it, even if it may be a minority who think it, it happens.
It may not be the teachers themselves who are thinking this, but like the Army thing it was discussed at grass root level within the NUT, and even I believe how far left that union can be...history tells us that.
Sex God
There seems to me to be an obvious and sinister difference between the two articles...one is a brief synopsis of an academic study the other takes one small detail from this study distorts its intent and then proceeds to build an argument based on this distortion
“Since all national histories are at
best morally ambiguous, it is an open
question whether citizens should love
their countries. The only educationally
defensible approach to patriotism is to
teach it as an issue on which students
must make up their own minds,â€
A survey of over 300 teachers and
students (47 teachers and 299 Year 9
students) in 20 London secondary
schools found overwhelming support for
this approach. Ninety-four per cent of the
teachers and 77 per cent of the students
replied that schools should give a
balanced presentation of opposing
views on the subject.
While there was little support for the
idea that schools’ overall stance towards
patriotism should be discouraging
or challenging, 74 per cent of teachers
agreed that they had an obligation to
point out to students the danger of
patriotic sentiments.
Interviews with citizenship and history
teachers revealed that the favoured
strategy for dealing with patriotic ideas in
the classroom is open discussion combined
with correction of factual errors.
no mention of any of this in the mail article..no suggestion that the majority of teachers and pupils believe that an even handed approach should be applied or that pupils should be allowed to reach their own conclusions .
Do you really not see the difference?or does the mails' article just fit your preconceptions better?
Racists are almost to a man self avowed patriots,racists are almost exclusively nationalists of some description....patriots are not all racists but there is a large crossover and failure to recognise this is dangerously short sighted..failure to address the dangers inherent in the position taken by many "patriots" including the press is a route to fascism.
The press' constant distortions and lies on the subjects of race,religion,culture and immigration are in no small part responsible for the rise of the B.N.P. and their ilk.
For someone who so frequently mentions WW2 surely you wouldn't want the sacrifice of so many to have been in vain...WW2 was a war fought against fascim to allow this country to slip down that path would be an unforgivable failure to learn the lesson of history,and to allow the press to publish such brazen and malicious distortions as the one we're debating is a step down that I said before this and every article like it is another nail in the coffin of the idea of equlity in this country.
It is the media's job to report not to distort the news.
“Since all national histories are at
best morally ambiguous, it is an open
question whether citizens should love
their countries. The only educationally
defensible approach to patriotism is to
teach it as an issue on which students
must make up their own minds,â€
A survey of over 300 teachers and
students (47 teachers and 299 Year 9
students) in 20 London secondary
schools found overwhelming support for
this approach. Ninety-four per cent of the
teachers and 77 per cent of the students
replied that schools should give a
balanced presentation of opposing
views on the subject.
While there was little support for the
idea that schools’ overall stance towards
patriotism should be discouraging
or challenging, 74 per cent of teachers
agreed that they had an obligation to
point out to students the danger of
patriotic sentiments.
Interviews with citizenship and history
teachers revealed that the favoured
strategy for dealing with patriotic ideas in
the classroom is open discussion combined
with correction of factual errors.
no mention of any of this in the mail article..no suggestion that the majority of teachers and pupils believe that an even handed approach should be applied or that pupils should be allowed to reach their own conclusions .
Do you really not see the difference?or does the mails' article just fit your preconceptions better?
Racists are almost to a man self avowed patriots,racists are almost exclusively nationalists of some description....patriots are not all racists but there is a large crossover and failure to recognise this is dangerously short sighted..failure to address the dangers inherent in the position taken by many "patriots" including the press is a route to fascism.
The press' constant distortions and lies on the subjects of race,religion,culture and immigration are in no small part responsible for the rise of the B.N.P. and their ilk.
For someone who so frequently mentions WW2 surely you wouldn't want the sacrifice of so many to have been in vain...WW2 was a war fought against fascim to allow this country to slip down that path would be an unforgivable failure to learn the lesson of history,and to allow the press to publish such brazen and malicious distortions as the one we're debating is a step down that I said before this and every article like it is another nail in the coffin of the idea of equlity in this country.
It is the media's job to report not to distort the news.
Well...
As a person of Mixed Race Background, my feelings are....
I do feel proud when I look at the English National Football Team, as people that look like me play a major role in that first XI.
In terms of history, I recommend you read my several posts in the recent B.N.P thread on my feelings on this subject.
As a person of Mixed Race Background, my feelings are....
I do feel proud when I look at the English National Football Team, as people that look like me play a major role in that first XI.
In terms of history, I recommend you read my several posts in the recent B.N.P thread on my feelings on this subject.
As a nation we need to wake-up & realize what negative things the U.K has done to others, before I feel proud of being British.
We tend to look at the positive but judge others negatively.
An clear example, I would like you all to do is the following:
Tell people that Churchill not only won World War 2 but the General Election afterwards
:
This is wrong he got beat by Clement Attlee, quite possibly the most important person this nation has ever produced. Yet they don't teach Children about Attlee, only thee great Churchill.
How many of you whilst in school did any lessons on the impact of Attlee on British Society, when in Compulsory Education :idea:
The reason the majority of you didn't was due to 'the common people' using Democracy to overthrow a member of the Eton Establishment. Once could happen again, perhaps :shock:
Another example on the selective memory of the British.
We tend to look at the positive but judge others negatively.
An clear example, I would like you all to do is the following:
Tell people that Churchill not only won World War 2 but the General Election afterwards
: This is wrong he got beat by Clement Attlee, quite possibly the most important person this nation has ever produced. Yet they don't teach Children about Attlee, only thee great Churchill.
How many of you whilst in school did any lessons on the impact of Attlee on British Society, when in Compulsory Education :idea:
The reason the majority of you didn't was due to 'the common people' using Democracy to overthrow a member of the Eton Establishment. Once could happen again, perhaps :shock:
Another example on the selective memory of the British.
Wunder....seeing as you are so up on history and are quite correct that Churchill was defeated in the election of 1945, you obviously fail to mention that he was re-elected in 1951 AGAIN.
He remains the ONLY PM ever to be granted a state funeral and still is in all the polls, the most talked about and greatest PM. If you cannot understand the importance of this man during the war years, then what can I say but....for the record seeing as you are not too up on the History of the great man, have a gander at this and it may enlighten you.
" Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician known chiefly for his leadership of the United Kingdom during World War II. He served as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman and orator, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, historian, writer, and artist. He is the only British Prime Minister who has ever received the Nobel Prize in Literature and the second person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States.
During his army career, Churchill saw action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He gained fame and notoriety as a war correspondent and through contemporary books he wrote describing the campaigns. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.
At the forefront of the political scene for almost fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government. During the war he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He returned as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. In the interwar years, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative government.
After the outbreak of the Second World War, Churchill was again appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on 10 May 1940, he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and led Britain to victory against the Axis powers. Churchill was always noted for his speeches, which became a great inspiration to the British people and embattled Allied forces.
After losing the 1945 election, he became Leader of the Opposition. In 1951, he again became Prime Minister before finally retiring in 1955. Upon his death, the Queen granted him the honour of a state funeral, which saw one of the largest assemblies of statesmen in the world ".
Makes for very interesting reading!
He remains the ONLY PM ever to be granted a state funeral and still is in all the polls, the most talked about and greatest PM. If you cannot understand the importance of this man during the war years, then what can I say but....for the record seeing as you are not too up on the History of the great man, have a gander at this and it may enlighten you.
" Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician known chiefly for his leadership of the United Kingdom during World War II. He served as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman and orator, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, historian, writer, and artist. He is the only British Prime Minister who has ever received the Nobel Prize in Literature and the second person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States.
During his army career, Churchill saw action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He gained fame and notoriety as a war correspondent and through contemporary books he wrote describing the campaigns. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.
At the forefront of the political scene for almost fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government. During the war he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He returned as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. In the interwar years, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative government.
After the outbreak of the Second World War, Churchill was again appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on 10 May 1940, he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and led Britain to victory against the Axis powers. Churchill was always noted for his speeches, which became a great inspiration to the British people and embattled Allied forces.
After losing the 1945 election, he became Leader of the Opposition. In 1951, he again became Prime Minister before finally retiring in 1955. Upon his death, the Queen granted him the honour of a state funeral, which saw one of the largest assemblies of statesmen in the world ".
Makes for very interesting reading!
I respect Churchill as his negative traits where
the things that beat Hitler.
Still, he wasn't perfect & his views on 'the working classes' are shocking. Also check his views on none-White people especially around Indian Independence.
According to what I've read when Maggie finally goes, she will be given a State Funeral.
Therefore does that make great or good. :shock:
the things that beat Hitler.
Still, he wasn't perfect & his views on 'the working classes' are shocking. Also check his views on none-White people especially around Indian Independence.
According to what I've read when Maggie finally goes, she will be given a State Funeral.
Therefore does that make great or good.
:shock: Quote by kentswingers777
It seems now that to be patriotic in this country, makes people who are not " British or English " excluded.
Teachers now it seems are reluctant to teach kids about patriotism as it now seems it is not " hip hop " to do so.
my roots are so hence my inner feeling would always lie here.
Alright.... I missed the above kentswingers777.
Let's get right in, shall we.
Firstly, what's this or what you mean by "hip hop"... am not going to give you my opinion. I want your own as you typed it
My roots are here & in pure economic terms this country is more mine than it is yours. :idea:
Due to....
Britain could only still be ahead of an entire Continent due to taking vast massive natural resources & free forced Labour = profits.
Still playing 'the game' with poorer nations by saying they are not democratic...
Me thinks the U.K needs to focus on improving itself
instead of 'pointing the finger'.
Get one's own House in order.
As I've said you can only be proud of this nation that you sooooo love until you know the entire truth, good & bad.
I wonder if you have ever read or done some research about how millions of West Africans helped your nation for centuries, all for free :?:
Still playing 'the game' with poorer nations by saying they are not democratic...
Me thinks the U.K needs to focus on improving itself
instead of 'pointing the finger'.
Get one's own House in order.
As I've said you can only be proud of this nation that you sooooo love until you know the entire truth, good & bad.
I wonder if you have ever read or done some research about how millions of West Africans helped your nation for centuries, all for free :?:
Quote by Wunderhorse
It seems now that to be patriotic in this country, makes people who are not " British or English " excluded.
Teachers now it seems are reluctant to teach kids about patriotism as it now seems it is not " hip hop " to do so.
my roots are so hence my inner feeling would always lie here.
Alright.... I missed the above kentswingers777.
Let's get right in, shall we.
Firstly, what's this or what you mean by "hip hop"... am not going to give you my opinion. I want your own as you typed it
My roots are here & in pure economic terms this country is more mine than it is yours. :idea:
Due to....
I have not got a clue what you are talking about there at all.
Care to enlighten me, or as a clever guy here, I think I can take a calculated guess on what your mind is thinking.....same old....same old...
Isn't it funny how just about any kind of debate can become lead to arguments and accusations? I must admit that the idea of discussing current affairs with other swingers fascinates me, but every time that race is mentioned it all gets way too serious.
I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of prejudism I've been to Aberdeen, and it is no joke getting abuse from people who absolutely hate the English, and I still don't know what goffy means!
As things stand there is a backlash against political correctness, and so there should be as it has gone way too far. I do blame teachers for some of it, but what about the lovies on tv? What about the pencil pushers in town halls? What about the all powerful social services?
Me? I just say it the way I see it, if people have a problem with that then it is a problem of their own. They used to say that talk is cheap, but in this country, mother of the free, people are still prosecuted for voicing their opinion. And our forefathers fought and died for freedom of speech? Bollocks!!
I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of prejudism I've been to Aberdeen, and it is no joke getting abuse from people who absolutely hate the English, and I still don't know what goffy means!
As things stand there is a backlash against political correctness, and so there should be as it has gone way too far. I do blame teachers for some of it, but what about the lovies on tv? What about the pencil pushers in town halls? What about the all powerful social services?
Me? I just say it the way I see it, if people have a problem with that then it is a problem of their own. They used to say that talk is cheap, but in this country, mother of the free, people are still prosecuted for voicing their opinion. And our forefathers fought and died for freedom of speech? Bollocks!!
" Teachers now it seems are reluctant to teach kids about patriotism as it now seems it is not " hip hop " to do so ".
I would have thought it was obvious? The teaching union is so far left wing, that they do not want to talk about being patriotic as it is somehow too far right wing. Hence the term " HIP HOP " I have used many times to mean it is left wing.
From your comments on this subject I am at a loss as to what you are still doing in this country, as it seems you do not have a good word to say about it, but only bleat on about......well it is too confusing for me to fathom that one out.
I think every country has a negative history they would rather not talk about, Britain included.
But you cannot keep bleating on about things that happened hundreds of years ago. That was then and this is now. We have moved on a million miles from those days, why can't others?
I have many reasons as to why I do not like many things about England, for which I have talked about many times on here. Why do you dislike this country so much? As apart from you mentioning your supprt of the footie team, I cannot remember anything that you have said about England, being anything other than negative. Why do you stay?
I would have thought it was obvious? The teaching union is so far left wing, that they do not want to talk about being patriotic as it is somehow too far right wing. Hence the term " HIP HOP " I have used many times to mean it is left wing.
From your comments on this subject I am at a loss as to what you are still doing in this country, as it seems you do not have a good word to say about it, but only bleat on about......well it is too confusing for me to fathom that one out.
I think every country has a negative history they would rather not talk about, Britain included.
But you cannot keep bleating on about things that happened hundreds of years ago. That was then and this is now. We have moved on a million miles from those days, why can't others?
I have many reasons as to why I do not like many things about England, for which I have talked about many times on here. Why do you dislike this country so much? As apart from you mentioning your supprt of the footie team, I cannot remember anything that you have said about England, being anything other than negative. Why do you stay?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
" Teachers now it seems are reluctant to teach kids about patriotism as it now seems it is not " hip hop " to do so ".
I would have thought it was obvious? The teaching union is so far left wing, that they do not want to talk about being patriotic as it is somehow too far right wing. Hence the term " HIP HOP " I have used many times to mean it is left wing.
As an avid follower of your posts kenty I honestly can't recall the phrase "hip-hop" turning up in this context before.
As for the teaching unions ..Where did you get this information? I'd be curious to research this further,mainly as it seems so at odds with the study I quoted earlier in this thread
Sex God
Yes and the cheshire cat,the mad hatter and the queen of hearts.....doesn't matter who makes the comment or asks the question if it's valid
Sex God
can`t wait to flag up 4 world cup next year
