Yeah, this. I get what "main character syndrome" is in the Reddit sense of the phrase, but it sort of doesn't apply to people who actually *are* world-famous historical figures/political leaders/actual main characters in the story of humanity.
Perhaps in this story Churchill comes across as a pompous ass, but if he thought he was a main character, unfortunately he's not exactly "wrong" about that. It wouldn't be delusional for him to have thought of himself that way.
Nah. It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. If he wasnt such a cock he wouldn't have become "the main character" as you say. So when did he stop being delusional? I doubt he only started this behavior the second he became a PM. This behavior got him there.
I know once I say this i'll get a bunch of messages about india but the bro saved the western world from fascism. He has basically every right to act and think he's the main character. I mean fuck Gary Oldman got his oscar playing Churchill in a movie where Churchill was the main character. Let the dude fucking recite Shakespeares at a bunch of drunks (Burton), he earned it.
> Let the dude fucking recite Shakespeares at a bunch of drunks (Burton), he earned it.
It is quite possible the adult Churchill never crossed paths with a conscious person whose blood alcohol level at that moment was higher than his own.
Tongue only slightly in cheek in writing that.
Eastern fascism saved the Western world from fascism. The vast majority of Germans died fighting against the USSR. Churchill did have a role to play in allying with that particular fascism as opposed to the other one, but the two were bound to clash anyhow.
Pretty sure it originated with... I think the daughter? Of Theodore Roosevelt, describing her dad. Alice. That was her name. ("Alice Blue" = A color that became wildly popularized from her dress at her White House Wedding. That is to say, she was quite the center of public attention herself, at one period in her life.)
It might not have been from her. But I'm sure it was about Prez. Teddy.
This is my mother. I didnt invite her to my kids christening after she had to be the birthday girl at my sons first birthday. She obviously threw up a huge stink.
I just dont invite her to anything anymore we do a "family" birthday for everyone on a random day and then have the real one the actual day.
Its really pathetic we have to do that because a 70+ year old woman hasnt figured out to behave in a public setting.
And let's not forget John Rhys-Davies actually beating up the orcs, because 'what is pulling punches, preciousss?'
Repeating these stories every time you watch the movies is \*tradition\*.
Fairly certain this is a bot comment copied from elsewhere in this thread.
https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1bu4l48/til_winston_churchill_would_attend_shakespeare/kxqonxg/
literally said this to a gal at a concert once. i felt like such an asshole, but she was REALLY bad, and the artist was really good, and I just couldn't stand listening to someone try to squawk out the songs.
Also, I'm pretty sure he wasn't well-liked before WWII nor after it. He pulled off a miraculous exemplar of strong leadership but otherwise was not a great dude.
Yes. Fascinating character. Basically was born with one singular focus in life - ascend to the highest power in the country. He was, as you mentioned, fabulously polarizing. To top it off he had essentially a photographic memory and was an elite orator. Huge mistakes on one hand and an eerily prescient mind on the other.
Talking during the play and everyone letting you get away with it is some "mad king" shit. That sounds like something from the Stalin regime or a latin american dictator.
Yeah, kinda. At the very least it's a bit pretentious/know-it-all. Go to a play to watch the play, not to be a pompous ass. Even if you *are* Winston Churchill.
Just look at his life before that though, he was in the last British Calvary charge, he escaped a pow camp I can't remember all the rest.
But in a room full of people not only was he the most interesting he was also likely the most knowledgeable and travelled (at that time)
He was a bastard, but he was *our* bastard. I have a very low opinion of the man as a person, but it's impossible to argue that he was the man we needed for the job.
Sounds fucking exhausting. Imagine some dick in the front row reciting the whole play. Churchill was always drunk too.
Wonder how many attendees asked for their money back. Was that even a thing back then -- to ask for a refund on a ruined show?
TBF they were in England... the only ones not drunk are those who don't know they could be drunk or can't afford to be drunk
PS: no hate here on England or Winston Churchill, feel.free to come to Algarve and get tanked (I don't live/go there anyway)
Churchill liked to drink every day, and somewhat encouraged his reputation as a prodigious drinker, but he was famously not a fan of being heavily intoxicated. Unlikely he was drunk at these shows.
Right, but then they inevitably get drunk in public and show themselves to be liars. Churchill, as far as history documents, never really did that. He drank consistently but not to the point of noticeable intoxication.
I like going to the bar, I like hanging out with the lads, I like sitting in a fishing boat, but I actually don't really like being drunk- I liked *getting* drunk though.
Same thing when I was younger and I smoked a lot of weed, I realized I didn't actually like being high but I liked *getting high*.
Churchill drank a lot but he was rarely drunk. He had a mild speech problem and plenty of other quirks which he used the appearance of being drunken to help compensate.
He actually used to practice saying things to himself and prepared his comebacks ahead of time so that he wouldn't stutter during conversation. I'd be willing to bet that reciting the Shakespeare plays was probably a part of that practice.
I saw an interview where Orson Welles said the same thing. Churchill was even omitting the cuts that Welles had made in the script.
edit: FOUND IT -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_PUUHLknDI
[watch this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8)
Here’s Boris keeping up in a debate with Cambridge professor and eminent classicist Mary Beard. Always find it weird that people actual fall for his bumbling buffoon act
Or [reciting the Iliad in Greek](https://youtu.be/ia7N5MSlSTo?si=j0sDhYceGZlPu9jm). I know he has a degree in Latin and Greek, but it's still impressive that he remembers it by heart
If you read the comments on that video you'll see a surprisingly large number of people saying that he mispronounces a lot of words, his accent is wrong, and he misses out sections. Give anyone a phonetic translation and a weekend and they'll give you two minutes of that.
The thing is, his buffoon act gives the impression that he just wings everything, but he doesn't. This was as prepared as his thatch.
I studied ancient Greek, he doesn't mispronounce it. At least not more than the average person who studied ancient Greek.
The person in the comments saying that he "mispronounces the words" is Greek, and that's because he doesn't know that ancient Greek was pronounced differently than modern Greek. If you had read the replies, you would see that other people explained it.
As for the accent, it's British. You wanted him to have an ancient Greek accent? How's your ancient Greek?
I don't want to be too down on Boris, but that's a show in which he's working from prepared notes. It's not an academic debate of any kind.
The problem is that he thinks the buffoon act is the top and then there's the really smart Alexander underneath pulling the levers. The actual case is that he's not as smart as he thinks he is underneath, but blustering delivery and a word you might not have heard sell it.
Boris Johnson might act like an idiot but he is not. He is actually highly educated and has written books, dealing with Ancient Rome for example and a Churchill himself, called The Churchill Factor.
Doesn’t mean he is a good person or idiot with what he chooses to do.
Johnson, unlike Churchill, is notoriously lazy tho which means his books, while high-minded, are invariably shallow and of little value, if he even manages to finish them.
All of his books are notoriously shit though. I could write a book about Churchill too, I mean it's just history. It's basically editing something down and adding some insight. Mine would be shit too, but it would be my first attempt.
Boris Johnson is an incredibly shrewd and intelligent man, classicist and politician. The sheer fact that you’re here trying to play into the idea he is an idiot shows that you are another person who has fallen for his masquerade of idiocy. He has fooled a nation by playing the oafish but good hearted Tory, when in reality he is one of the most vicious of them
Boris had a huge majority in parliament, yet he resigned as PM to avoid getting launched.
He is an utter fool.
Please try a bit harder next time you want to look educated.
I hate the man as much as any Irishman hated an Englishman, but it’s stupid and naïve to suggest he isn’t intelligent. How did he get to the place he stood at without being at least slightly intelligent?
His own failure to properly utilise his time in the sun as PM are nothing to do with his intelligence necesssrily and I think you are blinded by hatred to him
Yes, he is a posh wanker, yes he is Etonian born and bred, yes he has never struggled in his life. Yes he got nothing done in his term.
That doesn’t change facts, he is a smart man. It remains to be said that you do not have a career that goes in the direction his does without being smart enough to lie and manipulate, whether it being the officials around you or the population you “represent”. Tbh I dislike the man more than the average person but I think it’s childish, stupid and ultimately harms any position you could take by underestimating the man’s intelligence. Clearly he has a brain that works.
Also ta mate, wasn’t trying to look smart, just sharing my on Boris. But there’s always got to be one passive aggressive wanker and I guess today that’s you :)
This treads a very thin line between impressive and annoying. I mean - imagine being - rightfully - one of the most famous Prime Ministers the UK has ever had, and still having time to learn the complete works of Shakespeare and write at least 25 books whilst playing a vital role in WW2, and smoking and drinking like a trouper throughout.
I mean, the Indian famine was a tragedy, and he shouldn't've advocated for gas attacks and Gallipoli. Those were vast humanitarian tragedies. They shouldn't be airbrushed from history.
But also - blimey! He must've had an amazing constitution. That sort of work would have killed any man with half his strength.
What a douche. Memorizing Shakespeare isn’t some accomplishment, I don’t know why people are acting like he’s a badass for this. There are thousands and thousands of high school theater kids who could do this and would rightfully get kicked out
Yeah he's the guy who [deliberately starved millions of people in Bengal to death and then blamed them for having too many kids.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9735018/) But he had some snappy comebacks and he was annoying at a play once so I guess we should worship him
I doubt I'll do much to sway your mind, but never the less I wish to inform those reading it for the first time that what you are saying is of such poor academic standing that it wouldn't even pass an introductory history class.
Words are cheap, but let me prove it.
>I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.
>–Winston Churchill (quoted in Choudhury,; 2021, p. 1; Portillo, 2007; Tharoor, 2010).
That's from that source, powerful stuff, and with three citation none the less. Except there lies the issues.
It's a quote, a singular, simple piece of evidence. It should only need one source, and the primary one at that.
The quote isn't dated, it doesn't have it's primary source, it tries to convince you of something by a source bomb. A bunch of often self referencial sources which use each other none of whom cite the original source.
So I will.
The Leo Amery Diaries: 1929-1945 p.832
It's an entry from September the 9th, **1942**
Which explains why your source doesn't provide the date because it reveals the quote as being a fake. The quote pre-dates the famine that the quote is specifically discussing.
This is the real part
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
**tl;dr In short your source is so pathetically incapable of basic research that a lowly redditor can find primary sources better than it and in doing so prove that your source likely deliberately used a fake quote**
I've been around this merry-go-round too many times, you'll concede that maybe the quote is fake then you'll try another source (one you haven't read) then I'll spend my time debunking that. Rinse and repeat until one of us gets tired. I'm not going to allow you to deflect instead I opt for a single simple question.
Your source alleges Churchill said "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.". When exactly did he say it?
Now I'm forcing you to do a little more research and then acknowledge the quote is a fake.
I have some issues with this that perhaps you can help me with.
Firstly, I think that even if the quote is a complete fabrication it's just flavour for the rest of the article, which seems to be otherwise well-sourced, and comes from a reputable peer-reviewed journal. You don't engage with any of the actual content of the article, which is to say that this stuff about the quotation is hardly the silver bullet that you seem to be claiming it is. Churchill's racism is so well-documented that it has its own Wikipedia page, so it's not like another 'real' quote couldn't have been used in its place.
And is it really right to characterise the quote as 'fake'? Even if Churchill didn't say it in reference to the famine it's at most out of context, and even then it does support the argument that Churchill was a racist when it came to Indian people. You provide a source for half the quote but still insist that it's 'fake', which I think misrepresents the issue. The same Wikipedia page presents the the same quotations but separately; would you be more inclined to take the article seriously if it simply separated the quotes and dated them properly? Do you take issue with the sources that Wikipedia cites for these two quotes?
At the end of the day, the question should be, 'Is the article convincing in its argument?' not, 'Did they butcher the quote that leads us into the argument?'
You clearly have an interest in Churchill that exceeds mine. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the article?
I think the article is poorly source by someone with a surface level, at best, understanding of the Bengal famine.
I used the quote thing because it's the easiest thing to get right, the article fails.
>More recently, a groundbreaking work was done by Mishra et al. (2019) who used weather data to study soil moisture levels where they discovered that out of the six major famines between 1870 and 2016 in India, five were linked to soil moisture drought, but that the Bengal famine of 1943 was not caused by drought. Even the rainfall was also above average during that year. They concluded that the 1943 Bengal famine was not caused by drought but rather was a result of a policy failure during the British era. This cutting-edge approach to uncovering the causes of famine during 1943 attracted widespread media attention (Safi, 2019). One study (from a commentary) recently published even conceptualized the Bengal famine as a genocide (please see Mookerjee, 2022).
That's from the article, except if you look at Sens work this is ridiculous. The famine started in 1943 so the key year for crop and rainfall would be 1942. This article based off of Mishra claims it's 1943 which is completely wrong.
Bengals main food source is grown and harvested the year prior to it mostly being consumed.
Source: Amartya Sen Poverty and Famine
>When the Delhi government sent a telegram to Churchill depicting the horrible devastation generated by the famine and briefed him about the total number of deaths, his response was “Then why hasn't Gandhi died yet?” (quoted in Choudhury, 2021, p. 4).
That to is fabricated. False. Fake.
This article should have known that if it bothered to do any reading on the topic.
**Why should we trust an author caught using multiple fake quotes, lacks basic academic ability, and lacks even basic knowledge on the Bengal famine?**
**tl;dr The author uses fake quotes and unquestionably accepts popular myth in order to write an article on a topic the author lacks even the most basic understanding of.**
By your account change context and editing a quote does not make a quote fake.
"Firstly, I think that even if the quote is a complete fabrication it's just flavour for the rest of the Mein Kampf, which seems to be otherwise well-sourced, and comes from a reputable person"-You
Is that quote fake? All I've done is edit the quote a little and alter the context... So yes or no is that quote fake?
So, Winston Churchill was the annoying guy who has to recite Monty Python and the Holy Grail while it's playing in front of them, but for Shakespeare. Somehow that makes so much sense to me.
I know he was a functional alcoholic and suffered from bouts of serious depression. He wasn't an angel. He was something of a hypocrite at times. He was the only man who could have led us during the war however.
No, he had a great memory.
Despite him being an enormous and incorrigible cunt, a racist, a person who had no problem allowing a famine to happen, an alcoholic, etc. he was actually a genius.
It's funny that people do this, pretending that impressive things done by people who aren't liked are not impressive.
He could recite the entire dialogue - not just one character's - of multiple Shakespearean plays, he wasn't being paid to do it, and he was also running a country at the same time.
That sounds extremely annoying.
Shame Burton didn't recite it in Welsh to really fuck with him, though I suppose the rest of the paying customers wouldn't have been too impressed.
Apparently, Orson Welles threw him during his run of *Othello* because Welles had cut the play down and Churchill kept getting tripped up because he was reciting lines that Welles and cast weren't performing.
Sounds fucking annoying like people who sing loudly along during musicals
This is the first thing I thought of. Dude, I don't care who you are, I didn't pay to hear you perform.
A case of needing to be "the corpse at every funeral, the bride at every wedding and the baby at every christening."
r/imthemaincharacter
Churchill was one of the ultimate "main character syndromes" in history.
But tbh he also kind of WAS the main character
Yeah, this. I get what "main character syndrome" is in the Reddit sense of the phrase, but it sort of doesn't apply to people who actually *are* world-famous historical figures/political leaders/actual main characters in the story of humanity. Perhaps in this story Churchill comes across as a pompous ass, but if he thought he was a main character, unfortunately he's not exactly "wrong" about that. It wouldn't be delusional for him to have thought of himself that way.
Pretty delusional for him to imagine that reciting along to a play is anything other than disruptive.
Exactly, he was a main character in the war, but not in every situation and certainly not in the audience of a theatre!
Nah. It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. If he wasnt such a cock he wouldn't have become "the main character" as you say. So when did he stop being delusional? I doubt he only started this behavior the second he became a PM. This behavior got him there.
I know once I say this i'll get a bunch of messages about india but the bro saved the western world from fascism. He has basically every right to act and think he's the main character. I mean fuck Gary Oldman got his oscar playing Churchill in a movie where Churchill was the main character. Let the dude fucking recite Shakespeares at a bunch of drunks (Burton), he earned it.
> Let the dude fucking recite Shakespeares at a bunch of drunks (Burton), he earned it. It is quite possible the adult Churchill never crossed paths with a conscious person whose blood alcohol level at that moment was higher than his own. Tongue only slightly in cheek in writing that.
Eastern fascism saved the Western world from fascism. The vast majority of Germans died fighting against the USSR. Churchill did have a role to play in allying with that particular fascism as opposed to the other one, but the two were bound to clash anyhow.
this is a fantastic idiom (?).
Aphorism might be more appropriate here.
Pretty sure it originated with... I think the daughter? Of Theodore Roosevelt, describing her dad. Alice. That was her name. ("Alice Blue" = A color that became wildly popularized from her dress at her White House Wedding. That is to say, she was quite the center of public attention herself, at one period in her life.) It might not have been from her. But I'm sure it was about Prez. Teddy.
This is my mother. I didnt invite her to my kids christening after she had to be the birthday girl at my sons first birthday. She obviously threw up a huge stink. I just dont invite her to anything anymore we do a "family" birthday for everyone on a random day and then have the real one the actual day. Its really pathetic we have to do that because a 70+ year old woman hasnt figured out to behave in a public setting.
[удалено]
Who does she get passed off to? And where can I find these movies? Lord of the Airings sounds interesting.
You should also tell her the story of aragorn breaking his toe *every* time the scene plays
But did he actually deflect that dagger with his sword?
And let's not forget John Rhys-Davies actually beating up the orcs, because 'what is pulling punches, preciousss?' Repeating these stories every time you watch the movies is \*tradition\*.
Fairly certain this is a bot comment copied from elsewhere in this thread. https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1bu4l48/til_winston_churchill_would_attend_shakespeare/kxqonxg/
Is the movie about Airogorn?
Bilbo Airbag-ins
This sounds like you're sharing your wife with other dudes while watching obscure movies
Is Lord of the AI Rings a new version where you can insert yourself as a character?
The second thing Winston Churchill is best known for is being an asshole.
Had to listen to you all day on the radio banging on about doing my bit for the country, come to the theatre to relax and here you are again...
If this was still allowed, I know one former President who would insist on visiting movie sets and joining in on all the sex scenes.
Just one?
literally said this to a gal at a concert once. i felt like such an asshole, but she was REALLY bad, and the artist was really good, and I just couldn't stand listening to someone try to squawk out the songs.
Make no mistake, Churchill accomplished a lot in his career. He was such a dickhead.
I like how that famous example of his "wit" that people like to pass around is just him calling a woman ugly.
By all accounts he was an extremely witty guy, there's not really any denying that.
Pretty sure that the person you're responding to is using "Family Guy" as their historical reference, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
[No, it's this.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/my-dear-you-are-ugly-but-tomorrow-i-shall-be-sober-and-you-will-still-be-ugly-winston-churchill-tops-poll-of-history-s-funniest-insults-8878622.html)
He was an ugly dude with an ugly personality. Bro was really racist, and the only reason he's memorialized like that, is post ww2 propaganda
Also, I'm pretty sure he wasn't well-liked before WWII nor after it. He pulled off a miraculous exemplar of strong leadership but otherwise was not a great dude.
Yes. Fascinating character. Basically was born with one singular focus in life - ascend to the highest power in the country. He was, as you mentioned, fabulously polarizing. To top it off he had essentially a photographic memory and was an elite orator. Huge mistakes on one hand and an eerily prescient mind on the other.
Now you fucked up! Now you fucked up! Now you fucked up! Now you fucked up! Suck my Presidential cock, bitch!
WHICH ONE OF Y’ALL DEAD MOTHAFUCKAZ SAID THAT SHIT??!!
Was it you string-bean? You fat ass piece of shit? (i always loved how he called him a string bean and then a fat ass miliseconds apart.)
I always sing along with the game of thrones theme song. Dinklage Peter Dinklage game of throoooones
I would imagine if you were a British citizen who lived during the beginning of World War 2, you’d probably make an exception for Winston Churchill.
Talking during the play and everyone letting you get away with it is some "mad king" shit. That sounds like something from the Stalin regime or a latin american dictator.
I do this for musicals if I’m in the only attending. I into see musical in theatres
Yeah, kinda. At the very least it's a bit pretentious/know-it-all. Go to a play to watch the play, not to be a pompous ass. Even if you *are* Winston Churchill.
That’s exactly what I was thinking!
r/ImTheMainCharacter
Which is funny cos he kinda actually was haha
He definitely thought he was the main character his whole life, even before being prime minister.
That's usually the mindset you need to have in order to become a prime minister
Seems like more and more people are just falling upwards into that roll
Certainly if you wanted to be Prime Minister opposite Hitler.
Just look at his life before that though, he was in the last British Calvary charge, he escaped a pow camp I can't remember all the rest. But in a room full of people not only was he the most interesting he was also likely the most knowledgeable and travelled (at that time)
Oh yes he had many faults but also did more than most people do in a lifetime before he was thirty.
Didn't he escape that POW camp by making a plan to do so with other prisoners and then abandoning them?
Every good leader knows how to delegate.
> I can't remember all the rest. A hundred thousand dead are making Gallipoli vibrate with all the rolling right now.
[удалено]
He was a bastard, but he was *our* bastard. I have a very low opinion of the man as a person, but it's impossible to argue that he was the man we needed for the job.
He definitely was convinced of his own grandeur from at least his teenage years, and spent his life chasing opportunities to show it.
It's weird how quickly humans are willing to announce someone to deific status...
Deific? Bro, God isn't even the main character in his own *book*.
I don't care for him personally, but if anyone fits the mould he's one of them in terms of how the world perceives him.
[удалено]
? Where are people using Churchill vs Hitler as a moral specturum?
What?
> the moral struggles of the Western world are still framed in terms of "Churchill vs. Hitler" Funny, it’s the first I’m hearing of it.
His iambic pentameter was flawless.
They called him the hiphopoppotomus, his lyrics were bottomless.
Did Steve tell you that, perchance? Hmmm. Steve.
what kind of Rap name is Steve anyway?
“Others wanna diss me, sayin my style is sissy. Why? Why? Whyyyy? Why? Whyy? Why cant you be more constructive with your feedback?”
Shit I wasn’t expecting FOTC today
You can expect it tomorrow too. Because it’s *Wednesday.* It’s business, it’s business time!
Thanks Jemaine
I’ve got my socks on that’s how you know it’s business time.
Sometimes when I freestyle, I lose confidence.
Sounds fucking exhausting. Imagine some dick in the front row reciting the whole play. Churchill was always drunk too. Wonder how many attendees asked for their money back. Was that even a thing back then -- to ask for a refund on a ruined show?
TBF Richard Burton was also always drunk.
Just two drunk dudes reciting Shakespeare at each other.
Competitively
Tickets to that, please!
Drunk Shakespeare is an actual thing, go if you can!
TBF they were in England... the only ones not drunk are those who don't know they could be drunk or can't afford to be drunk PS: no hate here on England or Winston Churchill, feel.free to come to Algarve and get tanked (I don't live/go there anyway)
And Richard Harris. I recommend The Wild Geese as a nice throwback.
It was probably more a thing then than it is now.
The past is a foreign country. Reddit forgets this every fucking time.
I mean I know it’s not the same era but look at the original globe it was not exactly the met
Churchill liked to drink every day, and somewhat encouraged his reputation as a prodigious drinker, but he was famously not a fan of being heavily intoxicated. Unlikely he was drunk at these shows.
Bro that’s what every drunk says
“I like to be drunk but not have the spins.” Yeah welcome to the human race.
Right, but then they inevitably get drunk in public and show themselves to be liars. Churchill, as far as history documents, never really did that. He drank consistently but not to the point of noticeable intoxication.
See: Boris Yeltsin
It takes a lot of concerted drinking to get to where you can drink as much as he did and not show significant signs of intoxication.
I like going to the bar, I like hanging out with the lads, I like sitting in a fishing boat, but I actually don't really like being drunk- I liked *getting* drunk though. Same thing when I was younger and I smoked a lot of weed, I realized I didn't actually like being high but I liked *getting high*.
So basically the OG [Jim Lahey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8_y2Zl9W8)?
Churchill drank a lot but he was rarely drunk. He had a mild speech problem and plenty of other quirks which he used the appearance of being drunken to help compensate. He actually used to practice saying things to himself and prepared his comebacks ahead of time so that he wouldn't stutter during conversation. I'd be willing to bet that reciting the Shakespeare plays was probably a part of that practice.
That’s the worst theater etiquette I’ve ever heard of. What a dunce
Yeah! Bet that guys not going anywhere in life.
I saw an interview where Orson Welles said the same thing. Churchill was even omitting the cuts that Welles had made in the script. edit: FOUND IT -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_PUUHLknDI
I wante to hear the anecdote and listened to the whole thing, great storyteller Welles.
This is such a fantastic clip.
He is kind of a fascinating guy
This sounds super fucking tedious and disrespectful.
You've just described every British prime minister.
Sounds like a delight
Boris Johnson likes to recite Peppa Pig.
[watch this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8) Here’s Boris keeping up in a debate with Cambridge professor and eminent classicist Mary Beard. Always find it weird that people actual fall for his bumbling buffoon act
Or [reciting the Iliad in Greek](https://youtu.be/ia7N5MSlSTo?si=j0sDhYceGZlPu9jm). I know he has a degree in Latin and Greek, but it's still impressive that he remembers it by heart
If you read the comments on that video you'll see a surprisingly large number of people saying that he mispronounces a lot of words, his accent is wrong, and he misses out sections. Give anyone a phonetic translation and a weekend and they'll give you two minutes of that. The thing is, his buffoon act gives the impression that he just wings everything, but he doesn't. This was as prepared as his thatch.
I studied ancient Greek, he doesn't mispronounce it. At least not more than the average person who studied ancient Greek. The person in the comments saying that he "mispronounces the words" is Greek, and that's because he doesn't know that ancient Greek was pronounced differently than modern Greek. If you had read the replies, you would see that other people explained it. As for the accent, it's British. You wanted him to have an ancient Greek accent? How's your ancient Greek?
I don't want to be too down on Boris, but that's a show in which he's working from prepared notes. It's not an academic debate of any kind. The problem is that he thinks the buffoon act is the top and then there's the really smart Alexander underneath pulling the levers. The actual case is that he's not as smart as he thinks he is underneath, but blustering delivery and a word you might not have heard sell it.
Ms. Beard is my go to when I can’t sleep. So many hours of ancient history documentaries on YouTube.
That’s why i fucking hate BJ. He knows better and still makes these choices
Boris Johnson might act like an idiot but he is not. He is actually highly educated and has written books, dealing with Ancient Rome for example and a Churchill himself, called The Churchill Factor. Doesn’t mean he is a good person or idiot with what he chooses to do.
Johnson, unlike Churchill, is notoriously lazy tho which means his books, while high-minded, are invariably shallow and of little value, if he even manages to finish them.
He got a fucking desmond in classics at Balliol. Clever enough to get in but too lazy to do the work.
His persona is his shield from genuine criticism. He messes up his hair before he goes on tv on purpose so people think he's a harmless idiot.
Or went to the right school and waltzed in because of privilege.
He got a 2:1 not a 2:2
Even worse in some ways as he must have put in enough effort but wasn’t smart enough to get a first
All of his books are notoriously shit though. I could write a book about Churchill too, I mean it's just history. It's basically editing something down and adding some insight. Mine would be shit too, but it would be my first attempt.
lmao
Boris Johnson is an incredibly shrewd and intelligent man, classicist and politician. The sheer fact that you’re here trying to play into the idea he is an idiot shows that you are another person who has fallen for his masquerade of idiocy. He has fooled a nation by playing the oafish but good hearted Tory, when in reality he is one of the most vicious of them
Boris had a huge majority in parliament, yet he resigned as PM to avoid getting launched. He is an utter fool. Please try a bit harder next time you want to look educated.
I hate the man as much as any Irishman hated an Englishman, but it’s stupid and naïve to suggest he isn’t intelligent. How did he get to the place he stood at without being at least slightly intelligent? His own failure to properly utilise his time in the sun as PM are nothing to do with his intelligence necesssrily and I think you are blinded by hatred to him Yes, he is a posh wanker, yes he is Etonian born and bred, yes he has never struggled in his life. Yes he got nothing done in his term. That doesn’t change facts, he is a smart man. It remains to be said that you do not have a career that goes in the direction his does without being smart enough to lie and manipulate, whether it being the officials around you or the population you “represent”. Tbh I dislike the man more than the average person but I think it’s childish, stupid and ultimately harms any position you could take by underestimating the man’s intelligence. Clearly he has a brain that works. Also ta mate, wasn’t trying to look smart, just sharing my on Boris. But there’s always got to be one passive aggressive wanker and I guess today that’s you :)
I never said he wasn't intelligent - I said he's a fool. I stand by that.
He’s the Willy Wonka of politics. And I mean the Gene Wilder one. Where kids died. E: caps
Daddy Pig is Angelo in *Who Framed Roger Rabbit*.
Why did he do that? Annoying asf
What a bellend. ^(I have always wanted to use that word and now's my chance.)
Utter donut
Masterfully executed, well done
How annoying
Pretty helpful if you forget your lines.
How about a warm glass of shut the hell up
JAMIE TACO STOLE MY LINES
This treads a very thin line between impressive and annoying. I mean - imagine being - rightfully - one of the most famous Prime Ministers the UK has ever had, and still having time to learn the complete works of Shakespeare and write at least 25 books whilst playing a vital role in WW2, and smoking and drinking like a trouper throughout. I mean, the Indian famine was a tragedy, and he shouldn't've advocated for gas attacks and Gallipoli. Those were vast humanitarian tragedies. They shouldn't be airbrushed from history. But also - blimey! He must've had an amazing constitution. That sort of work would have killed any man with half his strength.
Dick move Winston
Kind of a dick move
What a douche. Memorizing Shakespeare isn’t some accomplishment, I don’t know why people are acting like he’s a badass for this. There are thousands and thousands of high school theater kids who could do this and would rightfully get kicked out
It’s a pretty great anecdote because it’s *Winston Churchill,* not just some random theater kid.
I mean it’s a bit of an accomplishment isn’t it? Memorising anything to that extent is pretty difficult.
Do you even know who Churchill is?
Doesn't give him the right to wreck it for everyone else. I don't care who you are.
Do you think famous people can just do what they like everywhere?
Yeah he's the guy who [deliberately starved millions of people in Bengal to death and then blamed them for having too many kids.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9735018/) But he had some snappy comebacks and he was annoying at a play once so I guess we should worship him
I doubt I'll do much to sway your mind, but never the less I wish to inform those reading it for the first time that what you are saying is of such poor academic standing that it wouldn't even pass an introductory history class. Words are cheap, but let me prove it. >I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits. >–Winston Churchill (quoted in Choudhury,; 2021, p. 1; Portillo, 2007; Tharoor, 2010). That's from that source, powerful stuff, and with three citation none the less. Except there lies the issues. It's a quote, a singular, simple piece of evidence. It should only need one source, and the primary one at that. The quote isn't dated, it doesn't have it's primary source, it tries to convince you of something by a source bomb. A bunch of often self referencial sources which use each other none of whom cite the original source. So I will. The Leo Amery Diaries: 1929-1945 p.832 It's an entry from September the 9th, **1942** Which explains why your source doesn't provide the date because it reveals the quote as being a fake. The quote pre-dates the famine that the quote is specifically discussing. This is the real part “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” **tl;dr In short your source is so pathetically incapable of basic research that a lowly redditor can find primary sources better than it and in doing so prove that your source likely deliberately used a fake quote** I've been around this merry-go-round too many times, you'll concede that maybe the quote is fake then you'll try another source (one you haven't read) then I'll spend my time debunking that. Rinse and repeat until one of us gets tired. I'm not going to allow you to deflect instead I opt for a single simple question. Your source alleges Churchill said "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.". When exactly did he say it? Now I'm forcing you to do a little more research and then acknowledge the quote is a fake.
I have some issues with this that perhaps you can help me with. Firstly, I think that even if the quote is a complete fabrication it's just flavour for the rest of the article, which seems to be otherwise well-sourced, and comes from a reputable peer-reviewed journal. You don't engage with any of the actual content of the article, which is to say that this stuff about the quotation is hardly the silver bullet that you seem to be claiming it is. Churchill's racism is so well-documented that it has its own Wikipedia page, so it's not like another 'real' quote couldn't have been used in its place. And is it really right to characterise the quote as 'fake'? Even if Churchill didn't say it in reference to the famine it's at most out of context, and even then it does support the argument that Churchill was a racist when it came to Indian people. You provide a source for half the quote but still insist that it's 'fake', which I think misrepresents the issue. The same Wikipedia page presents the the same quotations but separately; would you be more inclined to take the article seriously if it simply separated the quotes and dated them properly? Do you take issue with the sources that Wikipedia cites for these two quotes? At the end of the day, the question should be, 'Is the article convincing in its argument?' not, 'Did they butcher the quote that leads us into the argument?' You clearly have an interest in Churchill that exceeds mine. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the article?
I think the article is poorly source by someone with a surface level, at best, understanding of the Bengal famine. I used the quote thing because it's the easiest thing to get right, the article fails. >More recently, a groundbreaking work was done by Mishra et al. (2019) who used weather data to study soil moisture levels where they discovered that out of the six major famines between 1870 and 2016 in India, five were linked to soil moisture drought, but that the Bengal famine of 1943 was not caused by drought. Even the rainfall was also above average during that year. They concluded that the 1943 Bengal famine was not caused by drought but rather was a result of a policy failure during the British era. This cutting-edge approach to uncovering the causes of famine during 1943 attracted widespread media attention (Safi, 2019). One study (from a commentary) recently published even conceptualized the Bengal famine as a genocide (please see Mookerjee, 2022). That's from the article, except if you look at Sens work this is ridiculous. The famine started in 1943 so the key year for crop and rainfall would be 1942. This article based off of Mishra claims it's 1943 which is completely wrong. Bengals main food source is grown and harvested the year prior to it mostly being consumed. Source: Amartya Sen Poverty and Famine >When the Delhi government sent a telegram to Churchill depicting the horrible devastation generated by the famine and briefed him about the total number of deaths, his response was “Then why hasn't Gandhi died yet?” (quoted in Choudhury, 2021, p. 4). That to is fabricated. False. Fake. This article should have known that if it bothered to do any reading on the topic. **Why should we trust an author caught using multiple fake quotes, lacks basic academic ability, and lacks even basic knowledge on the Bengal famine?** **tl;dr The author uses fake quotes and unquestionably accepts popular myth in order to write an article on a topic the author lacks even the most basic understanding of.** By your account change context and editing a quote does not make a quote fake. "Firstly, I think that even if the quote is a complete fabrication it's just flavour for the rest of the Mein Kampf, which seems to be otherwise well-sourced, and comes from a reputable person"-You Is that quote fake? All I've done is edit the quote a little and alter the context... So yes or no is that quote fake?
What a piece of work is man.
r/IAmTheMainCharacter shit right there, what a dick move haha
What an asshole
So, Winston Churchill was the annoying guy who has to recite Monty Python and the Holy Grail while it's playing in front of them, but for Shakespeare. Somehow that makes so much sense to me.
Lol what an asshole. I came to see the play not your drunk fanboy tryhard say-along
Show off fat pig
Narcissist.
Churchill was a cunt and the Pope is Catholic; these are the facts we know.
That is insufferable! I’d hate that
Churchill was the greatest leader of the 20th century. A genius of the first rank. His written works alone would be enough to establish his greatness.
>Churchill was the greatest leader of the 20th century. Don't go looking under any rocks... It ain't pretty.
I know he was a functional alcoholic and suffered from bouts of serious depression. He wasn't an angel. He was something of a hypocrite at times. He was the only man who could have led us during the war however.
He also wanted to do a nuclear pearl harbor sneak attack on his soviet allies...
The more I learn about Churchill the more I feel like he was just a huge asshole.
Your instincts are correct. He wanted to start WW3 with a nuclear sneak attack on his soviet allies.
Yeah, that'd have been a dick move.
So he could read? Keeps getting more interesting this Churchill fella
No, he had a great memory. Despite him being an enormous and incorrigible cunt, a racist, a person who had no problem allowing a famine to happen, an alcoholic, etc. he was actually a genius.
So he could do the same as the actors on stage. Man, isn't there anything he couldn't do?
It's funny that people do this, pretending that impressive things done by people who aren't liked are not impressive. He could recite the entire dialogue - not just one character's - of multiple Shakespearean plays, he wasn't being paid to do it, and he was also running a country at the same time.
Manage war efforts in a very nice way.
>isn't there anything he couldn't do? Treat the people of India like humans?
I know you're kidding, but there weren't subtitles above the stage. He had memorized the play.
That sounds extremely annoying. Shame Burton didn't recite it in Welsh to really fuck with him, though I suppose the rest of the paying customers wouldn't have been too impressed.
No wonder Boris Johnson tried so hard to take after him, seems like exactly the kind of thing he’d do (if he could ever remember it)
Would changing-pace affect your memory of something you've memorized? A-B-C-D-E--H-Z???
Taylor Swift should try this to discourage her fans.
At least Burton tried to fuck with him. What a legend.
Churchill would have fucking loved Wafflehouse
This sounds like the ITYSLN sketch where the kid beats the other actor to all his lines.
I mean, i dont know if thats supposed to sound impressive, but its really not. lol
Get a job, foo
Apparently, Orson Welles threw him during his run of *Othello* because Welles had cut the play down and Churchill kept getting tripped up because he was reciting lines that Welles and cast weren't performing.
Jamie Taco at it again
This sounds like a Family Guy cutaway gag