Dunkirk ( the film )

[Bilboblue]

Also, the Churchill bit at the end was a bit cheesy and probably could have just finished with the drinking the beer (but then I think Churchill was a nobhead, so that's just a personal thing).

Can I ask why you think that?

 

[Magicpole]

You sit among them every home game.

Anyway, I'm going to see this before the weekend, is imax better, or a normal screen? (that's a general question, not to you in particular mp.

My family has a proud history of fighting for this country over the last 200 years mate. I still have a young cousin serving.

Nazis are not wanted at Celtic, either the German version, or the BNP, EDL or the National Front.

I think it's an aversion to moustaches.

As for imax I haven't a clue.

 

[i kne albert davy]

My family has a proud history of fighting for this country over the last 200 years mate. I still have a young cousin serving.

Nazis are not wanted at Celtic, either the German version, or the BNP, EDL or the National Front.

I think it's an aversion to moustaches.

As for imax I haven't a clue.

Wouldn't be enough room for the IRA members if you welcomed the Germans BNP, EDL and National Front as well.

 

[che_don_john]

Can I ask why you think that?

(sorry for late reply, been away past couple of weeks)

Mainly for what he did in India. He (in his army capacity) was quite brutal in suppressing the early independence movement (destroyed people’s houses, burned crops in poor agricultural areas, etc.). He is quite loathed there even to this day, and understandably so.

He also bragged that he personally shot 'savages' in Sudan; advocated concentration camps in South Africa; called for a programme of imperial conquests because he believed that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph" (if you heard that quote in isolation, I'm sure you might assume it came from another key figure of that time!); he supported/backed the Black and Tan thugs who terrorised Ireland's Catholic civilians; he also once said "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. It would spread a lively terror" when discussing taking action against the Kurds who rebelled against British rule.

There are also many quotes attributed to him that, in my personal view, make him come across as a bit of a tw@, but because he was old, British and had a funny face we just put it down to bulldog spirit and hijinks.

In summary, he was an aristocrat who viewed anyone who wasn't white British with imperialist contempt; which is ironic, given that he is known for his role in fighting against German white supremacist imperialism! But because he was on our side we seem to laud him and put him on our money.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

(sorry for late reply, been away past couple of weeks)

Mainly for what he did in India. He (in his army capacity) was quite brutal in suppressing the early independence movement (destroyed people’s houses, burned crops in poor agricultural areas, etc.). He is quite loathed there even to this day, and understandably so.

He also bragged that he personally shot 'savages' in Sudan; advocated concentration camps in South Africa; called for a programme of imperial conquests because he believed that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph" (if you heard that quote in isolation, I'm sure you might assume it came from another key figure of that time!); he supported/backed the Black and Tan thugs who terrorised Ireland's Catholic civilians; he also once said "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. It would spread a lively terror" when discussing taking action against the Kurds who rebelled against British rule.

There are also many quotes attributed to him that, in my personal view, make him come across as a bit of a tw@, but because he was old, British and had a funny face we just put it down to bulldog spirit and hijinks.

In summary, he was an aristocrat who viewed anyone who wasn't white British with imperialist contempt; which is ironic, given that he is known for his role in fighting against German white supremacist imperialism! But because he was on our side we seem to laud him and put him on our money.

You could put those kind of attributes onto any other powerful leaders of the time, many had exactly the same jingoistic
traits and attitudes towards other races, it was how it was and Churchill was of his time. Applying today's mores to yesterdays
is not a fair comparison, but then again, it's not up to me or anyone else to dictate who anyone should like or dislike.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

At home he was prepared to use the army against striking workers in the pre war years.
He voted against and vehemently opposed the setting up of the NHS.

 

[che_don_john]

You could put those kind of attributes onto any other powerful leaders of the time, many had exactly the same jingoistic
traits and attitudes towards other races, it was how it was and Churchill was of his time. Applying today's mores to yesterdays
is not a fair comparison, but then again, it's not up to me or anyone else to dictate who anyone should like or dislike.

I take your point and I'll often make concessions for the ambiguity and contexts of morality and ethics, but then there were plenty of people at that time who weren't like that, so I don't think that 'being of that time' is always necessarily a viable excuse. I'd happily make the same criticism of other world leaders of that time if warranted.

Also, by that same logic you would also have to excuse most of the Nazi hierarchy for their attitudes, but of course few would do so. Judging yesterday by today's moral standards is reasonable because that is the nature of morality and ethics; they evolve over time, through deliberation and considered philosophy, as we aim to improve them, which means that we can legitimately look back on things and say "we were wrong to think that". The human species wouldn't have survived this long had we not gone through the process of re-assessing our morals and ethics and critiquing our past.

Also, we're not talking about the medieval period here; Churchill was 20th century, well after the Enlightenment (when most of the values we take for granted today were born); so if anything, his attitudes were quite regressive. Much of what he did in India and the Middle East is still in living memory to some people.

 

[Blue Maverick]

You sit among them every home game.

Anyway, I'm going to see this before the weekend, is imax better, or a normal screen? (that's a general question, not to you in particular mp.

If you can see it in IMAX do it, apparently it has been shot in several different ways but IMAX is bigger, clearer and more impact the sound is also ramped up as the screens have better sound systems.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

You could put those kind of attributes onto any other powerful leaders of the time, many had exactly the same jingoistic
traits and attitudes towards other races, it was how it was and Churchill was of his time. Applying today's mores to yesterdays
is not a fair comparison, but then again, it's not up to me or anyone else to dictate who anyone should like or dislike.

Too much of this pseudo-revisionistic claptrap these days. It annoys me intensely that politicians jump on vote-catching opportunistic bandwagons by apologising for what the UK were upto a hundred or two hundred years ago.

But as for Churchill, he was a cigar-smoking, brandy-swilling drunken bastard, but I liked him. I've visited his grave to pay respects for what he achieved during the thirties and forties. There weren't many voicing concern at the rise of Adolf.

 

[Ban-jani]

At home he was prepared to use the army against striking workers in the pre war years.
He voted against and vehemently opposed the setting up of the NHS.

Churchill called for a National health service did he not? Even before Bevan.