|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 12:06:49 GMT
A lot of people seem to want a big say in it. If your that keen go make a banner yourself, these guys do a great job and suggested a idea of using an iconic image with a clever play on an iconic phrase. It's not racist , it's not to wind anyone up, if your that easily offended I suggest football may not be the place for you. sometimes there is swearing! 5-17 year olds are being taught about winston Churchill and what he achieved for our country in school everyday. It's political correctness gone mad. Be saying we shouldn't wear yellow next as it can be used to describe a skin type
that's a weak argument.
I'm disappointed
This is where this stuff leads
www.irishpost.co.uk/sport/green-brigade-wrong-bring-ira-slogans-celtic-park
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25127707
www.philmacgiollabhain.com/ibrox-racist-banner-criticised/
to imply because there is swearing we therefore have to put up with political banners is absurd
to imply that because I don't want politics and football muddled I don't belong at my own club is f*cking insulting
get stuffed
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 19, 2015 12:24:32 GMT
I didn't say you don't belong, I said if u can find things in every situation that comes up, its not the place. Why still teach it in school if he's so bad, don't try and liken a banner with pm who helped win a world war to that of an ira flag? I agree it's not a place for political banners, but when your using the image in a clearly different context with the words "we will fight them on the pitches". It's not a political statement
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 12:34:09 GMT
Football grounds arent full of political banners? Celtic, Rangers, and most italian clubs are hugely political? I rest my case. A much loved icon. www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/25/greatbritons_final.shtmlYou may have your personal opinion but imposing it on the indigenous people of Oxfordshire may be a struggle. It's lovely that you have a different view. That is of course the liberty and freedom that Churchill is responsible for protecting. Personally I disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 13:16:24 GMT
I've been waiting for the faux freedom argument. Its complete b*llshit. Either a banner of Churchill is hung at matches or it isn't - there is no middle ground. So either your freedom to hoist such a banner triumphs and my freedom to attend matches free of WWII kitsch is trampled or vice versa. I'm not against Churchill particularly - he was a man of his era, a gifted orator and wartime leader. I have a certain admiration and fondness for his speeches and never-say-die spirit as many British people do. He was the right man at a critical juncture in world history. But there is Dresden and many other instances where he was a deeply controversial figure (to put it mildly) and how about and who could forget or
or his decision to send troops against striking welsh miners?
I could go on - but you get the point surely?
I would agree that the soft focus BBC documentary with stirring music is the prevailing view of Churchill - but its far from the only view.
(So popular was Churchill after the war that he was thrown out office at the earliest opportunity.)
Churchill is an iconic figure and a controversial one.
We live in a free country and if you want to hoist banners and flags praising the historical legacy of the man then go ahead.
But he has nothing whatsoever to do with Oxford United and we start down a very slippery slope if we hoist his image in the arena of football.
The issue is not about Churchill - my views are mixed on him - it is about policy. Once you have a Churchill banner the question you have to ask is where will it lead and do you risk alienating sections of the support.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 13:25:21 GMT
No to a Churchill banner. Nothing to do with him as an historical figure. If OUFC is to use an image, let it be of a club servant or an actual supporter of the club.
If Lincoln City used a similar image of Margaret Thatcher, we, and the football community at large, would rightly laugh at them.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Feb 19, 2015 13:35:31 GMT
Round we go again.
As a non-liberal democrat I feel that the club colours contravene my freedom to attend matches free of political symbolism.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Feb 19, 2015 13:40:53 GMT
A good thread has degenerated. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 13:47:02 GMT
A good thread has degenerated. Again. well rescue it then
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Feb 19, 2015 13:53:29 GMT
How about banner of Maurice Evans? Surely he's not that controversial that someone somewhere may get offended. Then again, he worked for Robert Maxwell...
Personally, I don't see an issue with Churchill. Any major person used will cause someone offence. Someone's war criminal is another's freedom fighter.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 14:05:40 GMT
A good thread has degenerated. Again. well rescue it then You have to understand, PRB's role on this forum is to be unswervingly destructive. He will lambast anyone he thinks is trying to shackle opinion, then he'll be critical when honest opinions are being displayed. There's really no pleasing him. That's why we love him.
|
|
|
Post by swissyellow on Feb 19, 2015 14:08:48 GMT
At work We once received death threats from putting a Spartan warrior in a game, from people who said that King Leonidas was a racist, a rapist and that violent child abuse was widespread in Spartan society. Quite passionate they were too, especially the old death threats bit. History is far too debateable, usually told from the victors point of view and no matter how old, someone somewhere will be offended. Churchill the politician is far removed from the Chubby V for Victory saluting characature that you see on tea towels and mugs, a hero to "most" people in Oxfordshire. A cartoon, a well known UK brand that we, as Oxford fans could tailor and edit for our own bit of fun. Sticking the V's up to Swindon. Che Guevara lined hundreds of people up against the wall in firing squads but he's a pretty funky T-shirt... The flag/Banner idea I thought was a bit of fun, a bit intimidating. I feel sorry for the Poor Slavs, Huns, Goths and mongols offended by the "This is Russia" banner depicting the vile Druzhina Knight, so much insult. Stick a Spitire on a flag, pilots would fly their damaged planes to Cowley, They'd get fixed and get sent straight back off to fight on...stick a Yellow and Blue Spitfire on a flag, shooting down a Red and White bomber. Job done.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:02:28 GMT
I admire greenmurphys stance on this.
When the first suggestion of Churchill was mentioned I thought it was a great idea. Having time to think about it I have changed my mind. He is a political figure which would strike debate that is not needed at a football game.
We also have lots of cult figures who have managed or played for the club to choose from.
I would personally like a poster of the legend Mateo Corbo nailing Lee Trundle at the Vetch!
|
|
|
Post by stokeu on Feb 19, 2015 15:30:47 GMT
I'd prefer Jim Smith tbh.
Or a montage of the 86 team.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:33:45 GMT
I've been waiting for the faux freedom argument. Its complete b*llshit. Either a banner of Churchill is hung at matches or it isn't - there is no middle ground. So either your freedom to hoist such a banner triumphs and my freedom to attend matches free of WWII kitsch is trampled or vice versa. I'm not against Churchill particularly - he was a man of his era, a gifted orator and wartime leader. I have a certain admiration and fondness for his speeches and never-say-die spirit as many British people do. He was the right man at a critical juncture in world history. But there is Dresden and many other instances where he was a deeply controversial figure (to put it mildly) and how about and who could forget or
or his decision to send troops against striking welsh miners?
I could go on - but you get the point surely?
I would agree that the soft focus BBC documentary with stirring music is the prevailing view of Churchill - but its far from the only view.
(So popular was Churchill after the war that he was thrown out office at the earliest opportunity.)
Churchill is an iconic figure and a controversial one.
We live in a free country and if you want to hoist banners and flags praising the historical legacy of the man then go ahead.
But he has nothing whatsoever to do with Oxford United and we start down a very slippery slope if we hoist his image in the arena of football.
The issue is not about Churchill - my views are mixed on him - it is about policy. Once you have a Churchill banner the question you have to ask is where will it lead and do you risk alienating sections of the support.
Utilitarianism. You can't keep everyone happy all of the time. Of course anyone can quote anyting out of context to try and make their point. His issue was the tryanny of aggregated belief in Islam rather than the individuals themselves. he himself had high respect for Muslims and a fascination for the religion. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11314580/Sir-Winston-Churchill-s-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:34:27 GMT
I'd prefer Jim Smith tbh. Or a montage of the 86 team. we had banners for the milk cup final my mum seriously wanted me to stand next to a banner reading 'JOHN ALDRIDGE GOLDEN BALLS 86' (true story) we changed it to 'golden boots'...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:36:06 GMT
I'd prefer Jim Smith tbh. Or a montage of the 86 team. What about one of Andy Burgess hiding in his car too scared to go to training because big bad Jim Smith might raise his voice?!
|
|
|
Post by ox4eva on Feb 19, 2015 16:01:17 GMT
Is see GM time in Dublin lead him to be brain washed by republican propaganda
Maybe a nice Oliver Cromwell banner wearing a U's scarf would be better
Last few posts and GM mask slips!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 19, 2015 16:01:23 GMT
What about one of the big arch at the entrance to London rd, with "this is our manor" written on it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 16:01:35 GMT
If we're going to invoke normative ethics then surely the best route for a banner is one we can all get behind? That clearly ain't WSC. If we were a chapter of the Sealed Knot I might be surprised by that but as a struggling provincial football club based in a culturally diverse city I'm not.
The article is fascinating though so thanks for that.
This line leapt out at me.
but its clear he had shifted many of his perceptions in the latter part of his political career (he switched to the Liberals)
perhaps he would have approved of my earlier banner suggestion of Sultan Moulay Ismail. A Churchill kind of guy it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 19, 2015 22:23:45 GMT
If we're going to invoke normative ethics then surely the best route for a banner is one we can all get behind? That clearly ain't WSC. If we were a chapter of the Sealed Knot I might be surprised by that but as a struggling provincial football club based in a culturally diverse city I'm not. The article is fascinating though so thanks for that. This line leapt out at me. but its clear he had shifted many of his perceptions in the latter part of his political career (he switched to the Liberals)perhaps he would have approved of my earlier banner suggestion of Sultan Moulay Ismail. A Churchill kind of guy it would seem. He switched to the Liberals 'in the latter part of his career?'The fact is that if you put up a Churchill banner, only a very small minority of individuals are going to be uncomfortable with it. This is football we're talking about. In other walks of life there might be an issue here but in football, a sport where intellectual depth is absolutely the last thing you think of, I just can't see much of a controversy. Churchill is in many ways the perfect figure for a banner such as this because he is visual shorthand for so many things which are relevant to football: defiance, a never say die spirit and, above all, success. 'We will fight them on the beaches' is going to be the limit of 99% of peoples' deeper thoughts about an image of him at an OUFC match. It really doesn't matter whether he is an Oxonian or not, he is a figure who can rightly be said to belong to everyone (or mostly everyone,) so I don't see a particular need for an overt link to Oxfordshire or OUFC. I like to think of myself as a fairly intellectual person who does not view the world in black and white terms and looks out for the nuance. I know all about the controversial sayings and doings of Winston Churchill, but at the end of the day football is not an intellectual sport, and football supporters are not an intellectual bunch. The wider implications of a Churchill banner would not be spotted by any but the smallest minority, and ultimately there comes a point when you have to decide that the minority is just so small as to be of no significance. You would get nowhere in life if you made every action subject to the caveat that nobody would be discomfited physically or intellectually by it. As a final note I'd also like to say that while I respect GM's opinion I don't think he's doing himself many favours by continuing to quote an article which is nothing more than a hatchet-job written by a largely discredited journalist. I know its an opinion piece, but Hari comes across as a guy who has a serious chip on his shoulder about the fact that so many people have a deep admiration for a man who he doesn't like.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 23:42:42 GMT
If we're going to invoke normative ethics then surely the best route for a banner is one we can all get behind? That clearly ain't WSC. If we were a chapter of the Sealed Knot I might be surprised by that but as a struggling provincial football club based in a culturally diverse city I'm not. The article is fascinating though so thanks for that. This line leapt out at me. but its clear he had shifted many of his perceptions in the latter part of his political career (he switched to the Liberals)perhaps he would have approved of my earlier banner suggestion of Sultan Moulay Ismail. A Churchill kind of guy it would seem. in football, a sport where intellectual depth is absolutely the last thing you think ofI know all about the controversial sayings and doings of Winston Churchill, As a final note I'd also like to say that while I respect GM's opinion I don't think he's doing himself many favours by continuing to quote an article which is nothing more than a hatchet-job written by a largely discredited journalist. I think you underestimate football fans - this thread has had a broad spectrum of views - I don't see why that isn't representative. I think we must simply agree to disagree on that one.
You pay lip service to the 'sayings and doings' of Winston Churchill but decide to turn a blind eye - that's your moral choice. I can acknowledge the 'only-Nixon-could-go-to china' element of Winston and be repulsed by other actions in his life. On balance he's not a banner I want in my life - on principle (I agree it makes logical footy sense)
I take your point about Hari - he was actually caught touching up quotes - the Churchill piece relies on matters of fact and historical record and uses quotes from Winston's own book (which were deleted in later editions) - also I have used the article by Robert Fisk in the same paper who I believe remains beyond reproach.
Winston refused to send famine relief to India when millions were starving. He sent the black and tans against Irish civilians. He sent troops against unarmed striking miners.
These and many more things cannot be wished away.
If nothing else I think we would look daft claiming him as our talisman - he belongs to the nation. Beyond his birth and burial does he have any connection with Oxfordshire at all?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 20, 2015 0:18:45 GMT
in football, a sport where intellectual depth is absolutely the last thing you think ofI know all about the controversial sayings and doings of Winston Churchill, As a final note I'd also like to say that while I respect GM's opinion I don't think he's doing himself many favours by continuing to quote an article which is nothing more than a hatchet-job written by a largely discredited journalist. I think you underestimate football fans - this thread has had a broad spectrum of views - I don't see why that isn't representative. I think we must simply agree to disagree on that one.
You pay lip service to the 'sayings and doings' of Winston Churchill but decide to turn a blind eye - that's your moral choice. I can acknowledge the 'only-Nixon-could-go-to china' element of Winston and be repulsed by other actions in his life. On balance he's not a banner I want in my life - on principle (I agree it makes logical footy sense)
I take your point about Hari - he was actually caught touching up quotes - the Churchill piece relies on matters of fact and historical record and uses quotes from Winston's own book (which were deleted in later editions) - also I have used the article by Robert Fisk in the same paper who I believe remains beyond reproach.
Winston refused to send famine relief to India when millions were starving. He sent the black and tans against Irish civilians. He sent troops against unarmed striking miners.
These and many more things cannot be wished away.
If nothing else I think we would look daft claiming him as our talisman - he belongs to the nation. Beyond his birth and burial does he have any connection with Oxfordshire at all?
I'm not trying to wish anything away, and we can chat 'till the cows come home about the individual incidents to which you refer: Bengal Famine, Black and Tans, striking miners etc but I don't think they're all that relevant in this instance because I don't think 9 out of 10 football fans (or indeed 9 out of 10 members of the public) are going to see a picture of Winston Churchill and think there's a genocidal, alcoholic, authoritarian, racist. You think we'd look daft using him, but then go on to say (as I do) that he 'belongs to the nation,' so why does he have to have an intimate link to the club? I don't think the intention has ever been to co-opt Churchill as some sort of 'talisman,' but rather merely to create a striking, vaguely topical and somewhat humorous banner that may well not get any more airings after this season. Ultimately, as I said, you've every right to be opposed to a Churchill banner, but you have to admit you're in a minority in terms of people who are going to take that view. Just so we're clear, I'm not falling over myself to see this banner, its just I don't think the objections to it are really strong enough for it to be flat-out rejected.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 6:25:35 GMT
"He refused to send famine relief"
Of course worth noting we were getting annihilated by the most brutal Army the world has ever seen at the time and subject to heavy rationing.
It wasn't the 1990s where we could all just tune into Comic Relief and wire some money over. You need some time related relativism. He also found it a very tough decision and hadn't realised the scale of the famine at the time. Sky News didn't exist.
Probably worth mentioning that
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 9:52:40 GMT
"He refused to send famine relief" Of course worth noting we were getting annihilated by the most brutal Army the world has ever seen at the time and subject to heavy rationing. It wasn't the 1990s where we could all just tune into Comic Relief and wire some money over. You need some time related relativism. He also found it a very tough decision and hadn't realised the scale of the famine at the time. Sky News didn't exist. Probably worth mentioning that the brutal army you refer to was on retreat in almost every arena - and diverting some food supplies to India would not have changed that - indeed much of the fighting (and the winning) was being done by the Russians and the Americans. and India at the time was under British rule - not a foreign country. Probably worth mentioning those things too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 10:27:07 GMT
We could do this all day ;-)
"Mr. Polya, who talks of the Bengali Famine, begins by dismissing all historians who disagree with him as Anglo-American and Zionist propagandists, including official biographer Sir Martin Gilbert—who, since it’s always a good idea to question the accused, we asked for comment. “Churchill was not responsible for the Bengal Famine,” Sir Martin replied. “I have been searching for evidence for years: none has turned up. The 1944 Document volume of the official biography [Hillsdale College Press] will resolve this issue finally.” We next turned to Arthur Herman’s excellent and balanced Gandhi & Churchill (New York: Bantam, 2008, reviewed in Finest Hour 138: 51-52). There is quite a lot on the Bengal Famine (pp 512 et. seq.), which Herman believes “did more than Gandhi to undermine Indian confidence in the Raj.” Secretary of State for India Leo Amery, Herman writes, “at first took a lofty Malthusian view of the crisis, arguing that India was ‘overpopulated’ and that the best strategy was to do nothing. But by early summer even Amery was concerned and urged the War Cabinet to take drastic action.... “For his part, Churchill proved callously indifferent. Since Gandhi's fast his mood about India had progressively darkened.....[He was] resolutely opposed to any food shipments. Ships were desperately needed for the landings in Italy....Besides, Churchill felt it would do no good. Famine or no famine, Indians will ‘breed like rabbits.’ Amery prevailed on him to send some relief, albeit only a quarter what was needed.”A quarter of what was needed may also have been all that was possible by ship; but Churchill was also hoping for more aid from India itself. The Facts We asked author Herman to elaborate. He writes: “The idea that Churchill was in any way ‘responsible’ or ‘caused’ the Bengal famine is of course absurd. The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India's main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short, which they did in Eastern Bengal after a devastating cyclone in mid-October 1942. It is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theaters to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime. Some of his angry remarks to Amery don't read very nicely in retrospect. However, anyone who has been through the relevant documents reprinted in The [India] Transfer of Power volumes knows the facts: "Churchill was concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe taking place there, and he pushed for whatever famine relief efforts India itself could provide; they simply weren't adequate. Something like three million people died in Bengal and other parts of southern India as a result. We might even say that Churchill indirectly broke the Bengal famine by appointing as Viceroy Field Marshal Wavell, who mobilized the military to transport food and aid to the stricken regions (something that hadn't occurred to anyone, apparently).” The salient facts are that despite his initial expressions about Gandhi, Churchill did attempt to alleviate the famine. As William Manchester wrote, Churchill “always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of his pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity.” (The Last Lion, Boston: 1982, I: 843-44). The Unconsidered Factor: World War II If the famine had occurred in peacetime, it would have been dealt with effectively and quickly by the Raj, as so often in the past. At worst, Churchill’s failure was not sending more aid—in the midst of fighting a war for survival. And the war, of course, is what Churchill’s slanderers avoid considering. Martin Gilbert writes about the situation at the time: “The Japanese were on the Indian border with Burma—indeed inside India at Kohima and Imphal in the state of Assam. Gandhi’s Quit India movement, and Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army then fighting alongside the Japanese, provided the incentive for a full-scale Japanese invasion. The Royal Air Force and the Army were fully stretched. We know what terrors the Japanese wreaked n non-Japanese natives in Korea, the Philippines, and Malaya.” If the RAF planes supporting India’s defense were pulled off for a famine airlift, far more than three million would have died. The blame for insufficient famine relief lies with those who prevented those planes from being used: the Japanese. This article is a prize-winning example of non-history: the myopic determination to find feet of clay in a man who was human and made mistakes, like everybody else, but who remains admirable, warts and all, mostly because he gave all his papers to an archive where carpers can pore over them. One of his more balanced critics observed recently that Churchill may have had one foot of clay, but that the other foot was anchored firmly in his innate decency. His biographer once remarked that, as he sorted through the tons of paper in Churchill’s archive, “I never felt that he was going to spring an unpleasant surprise on me. I might find that he was adopting views with which I disagreed. But I always knew that there would be nothing to cause me to think: ‘How shocking, how appalling.’” Yes, Churchill had a blind spot where Gandhi was concerned, despite the positive things he wrote and said to Indians, from Birla and Gandhi in 1935 to Nehru in 1953, which his critics never bother to quote. And Thomas Malthus may have influenced Amery’s initial view that the famine was caused by overpopulation. But Winston Churchill did not cause or wish for the death of Bengalis. His impulses in situations of human suffering were the opposite of hateful. After World War I, for example, it was Churchill who urged the Cabinet to send boatloads of food to the blockaded Germans—a proposal greeted with derision by colleagues such as Prime Minister Lloyd George, who preferred to “squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.” Their policy prevailed—and we all know what it led to twenty years later.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 11:09:35 GMT
hardly surprising that you can rustle up some huff and puff (and that's all it is) from the establishment to defend the myth.
but we could do this all day - I won't bother with his quotes about Hitler, Mussolini and Jews.
I won't bother with his views on white supremacy, empire, Ireland and Dresden.
I have said my own views on him are mixed - that is obviously the right objective position. To rubbish him entirely is churlish, false and ungrateful - to buy into the myth a dangerous precedent albeit an understandable one.
But he is, as this thread demonstrates, a poor choice for a football banner.
To me he is divisive and irrelevant and to those who regard him as the greatest product of the 'golden' days of empire - draping him in an Oxford scarf will doubtless seem disrespectful and tasteless.
and its the NEXT banner I worry about if we go down this route - a point no-one has addressed yet.
AS a policy (and this was my opening comment on this thread) - its best not to mix football and politics.
(but if we are I vote for Edward Snowden - now there IS a hero)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 11:32:59 GMT
Let's agree on the last line and move on!!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Feb 20, 2015 13:45:40 GMT
Should we plump for Nigel Farage then?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 13:53:30 GMT
Should we plump for Nigel Farage then? Why not? Sort of bloke you could have a pint with. In fact, there was a photo in yesterday's Evening Standard of him with ex-public schoolboy Josh Parsons, one of the Chelsea chaps who threw a black man off the Metro in Paris. Man of the people. (Well, some of the people).
|
|
|
Post by swissyellow on Feb 20, 2015 13:55:23 GMT
King Charles 2 flicking the v's.
Riding a big Ox, the Ox is wearing a yellow and blue bowler hat.
"Oxford, Capital of the Kingdom" written in big letters.
This is a big cartoon flag or banner we're taking about. Enough now.
|
|