February 17, 20196 yr Author So you admit you are only interested in one pov - that leaves you as just pure propaganda-fodder, a quality you always indicate as a negative where the Daily Mail is concerned - hypocrisy much! The use of the term shows bias, not an unbiased factual reporting. It would be like starting a factual report on Brexit in the Tory Party and saying "right-wing shit-stirrers who don't give a toss about people's lives" while reporting facts unrelated to the topic. You can make those observations but then it becomes opinion, not fact, because it's being selectively niterpreted through one viewpoint. The striking miners in 1984 were also slagged-off ruthlessly, they didn't riot and destroy property, they were people carrying out a highly-dangerous job, which has long-term health problems associated with it, and the government politically decided to give our energy needs to Russia by doing exactly what the miners accused them of doing. Killing mining and union power as if they were one and the same. My younger brother, BTW, now has serious health issues from years of mining, so I've little time for anyone trying to justify the need for people to know their place, shut up and put up. BTW my father was also in the armed forces so the insulting inference that being socialist is the "enemy" and being in the military is the "forces of good" is simplistic and insulting. My dad voted remain, my brother Leave. An inability to see the nuances of the real world just shows blinkered "my gang" viewpoints. I include people of all political and social views in that comment.
February 17, 20196 yr BTW my father was also in the armed forces so the insulting inference that being socialist is the "enemy" and being in the military is the "forces of good" is simplistic and insulting. My dad voted remain, my brother Leave. An inability to see the nuances of the real world just shows blinkered "my gang" viewpoints. I include people of all political and social views in that comment. A certain amount of socialism can be beneficial, but anyone who has blind faith in it alone (like our friend Michael), is extremely naive, given multiple examples of it being disastrous for those it is *supposed* to benefit...
February 17, 20196 yr So you admit you are only interested in one pov - that leaves you as just pure propaganda-fodder, a quality you always indicate as a negative where the Daily Mail is concerned - hypocrisy much! I'm always prepared to read reasoned argument. Opening with a phrase such s "socialist rabble rousers" is not a sign of a reasoned argument.
February 17, 20196 yr I'm always prepared to read reasoned argument. Opening with a phrase such s "socialist rabble rousers" is not a sign of a reasoned argument. But what John McDonnell said was more reasoned, just because it didn't include emotive phrases? I do my best to post in polite terms, but it does me little good, :banghead: Sometimes though, however polite you are, people just don't want to listen to what you have to say. Edited February 17, 20196 yr by vidcapper
February 17, 20196 yr Author But what John McDonnell said was more reasoned, just because it didn't include emotive phrases? I do my best to post in polite terms, but it does me little good, :banghead: Sometimes though, however polite you are, people just don't want to listen to what you have to say. He was asked a binary question with no space for nuance. he was asked if Churchill was a villain or hero. There were no other options so said 2 words. That's the problem with referendums that give you a yes no simplistic question, there is no room for discussion, a bit yes-no, hero for this, villain for that. Had it been an interview about the merits of Churchill for a programme about Churchill then a proper answer could have been formed. As it was, it was fake-outrage about a response to a moronically simplistic question, he should have said "That's a dumb question" and he should be criticised for being dumb enough to fall for it, rather than for his response. My take is: McDonnell is a politician and he should have thrown it back, so his judgement is questionable on that basis.
February 17, 20196 yr He was asked a binary question with no space for nuance. he was asked if Churchill was a villain or hero. There were no other options so said 2 words. That's the problem with referendums that give you a yes no simplistic question, Wow - I did not see that one coming... :P
February 17, 20196 yr https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/...entration-camps Boer War ones, that is.
February 17, 20196 yr https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/...entration-camps Boer War ones, that is. Funny how that hasn't generated as much outrage as McDonnell's comments.
February 17, 20196 yr Funny how that hasn't generated as much outrage as McDonnell's comments. Presumably because more people got the context?
February 17, 20196 yr Presumably because more people got the context? He was defending the use of concentration camps. How do you think a Labour MP defending Stalin's gulags would have been treated?
February 18, 20196 yr He was defending the use of concentration camps. How do you think a Labour MP defending Stalin's gulags would have been treated? I suspect such comments would be equally stripped of context... The camps the British set up in SA were not deliberately designed to kill their occupants - that is the crucial difference to the Nazi camps and the Soviet gulags.
February 18, 20196 yr Author I suspect such comments would be equally stripped of context... The camps the British set up in SA were not deliberately designed to kill their occupants - that is the crucial difference to the Nazi camps and the Soviet gulags. try telling that to George Takei who was imprisoned in a concentration camp for US Japanese citizens during WW2 just because they were thought to be a bit too Japanesey, while those Americans of german and Italian descent werent thought to be a bit too Germaney or Italianey. You are either guilty of actual crimes, or you are innocent because there is no such thing as "potential-crimes" or "sorta-guilty of being the wrong ethnicity/religion/sexuality/whatever"
February 18, 20196 yr I suspect such comments would be equally stripped of context... The camps the British set up in SA were not deliberately designed to kill their occupants - that is the crucial difference to the Nazi camps and the Soviet gulags. Except that they were. They deliberately starved people to death. They may not have had the same degree of brazen openness as the Nazi camps did, but to say they weren't designed with death in mind is a shameless attempt at whitewashing a vile chapter of British history.
February 18, 20196 yr I suspect such comments would be equally stripped of context... The camps the British set up in SA were not deliberately designed to kill their occupants - that is the crucial difference to the Nazi camps and the Soviet gulags. So the high death rate was just bad luck?
February 18, 20196 yr So the high death rate was just bad luck? No higher than the death rate in Glasgow, apparently - that was one of the points made.
February 18, 20196 yr try telling that to George Takei who was imprisoned in a concentration camp for US Japanese citizens during WW2 just because they were thought to be a bit too Japanesey, while those Americans of german and Italian descent werent thought to be a bit too Germaney or Italianey. You are either guilty of actual crimes, or you are innocent because there is no such thing as "potential-crimes" or "sorta-guilty of being the wrong ethnicity/religion/sexuality/whatever" Unfortunately the normal rules don't operate during wartime.
February 18, 20196 yr Except that they were. They deliberately starved people to death. They may not have had the same degree of brazen openness as the Nazi camps did, but to say they weren't designed with death in mind is a shameless attempt at whitewashing a vile chapter of British history. I take it you have proof of the above, then.
February 18, 20196 yr Author I take it you have proof of the above, then. Yes. "Try Googing!" Stop arguing about unresearched facts because it doesn't fit your world-view and save yourself looking foolish. The death rate was high, the British elitist government did what they did everywhere the British Empire went: subdued and conquered, either by force or economics. The crap comparison by one of the current wealthy elitist liars trying to manipulate the poor (and causing more deaths through his money-making business interests linked to cigarettes) is meaningless. The proportion of deaths of women & children were high, as recorded by British activists at the time, photos included. Arguing that it was "only" as many as die in Glasgow, or anywhere or any situation else is a nasty evil attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Cos that is Rees-Mogg all over, depending on people not rushing onto Wikipedia and swallowing his loathesome crap as usual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps There is no justification. There is no excuse. It happened.
February 18, 20196 yr Author Unfortunately the normal rules don't operate during wartime. Unfortunately facts are hard things to get over when you get exposed for doing things that are inexcusable for highly dubious and hypocritical reasons (or dumb public opinion. at the very least "it's for your own safety, and we have stored all your property and made sure your property is cared for" would the be very least to be expected.
February 18, 20196 yr No higher than the death rate in Glasgow, apparently - that was one of the points made. A point that many people dispute.
Create an account or sign in to comment