Winston Churchhill's Cigar Airbrushed

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
The face is instantly familiar, the two-fingered salute unmistakable.

But are these actually the same photograph of Sir Winston Churchill?

In the original photograph the war leader has his cigar gripped firmly in the corner of his mouth.

But in the other image - currently greeting visitors to a London museum - his favourite smoke has been digitally extinguished.

It seems the man who steered Britain through the most dangerous period of its recent history may have fallen victim to the modern curse of political correctness.

Last night the question of who removed the cigar and when was something of a mystery.

The Winston Churchill's Britain At War Experience, in South-East London, confessed to being astonished to discover that the image may have been doctored.

Which is a little embarrassing for the staff at the charitable trust, because the photograph features on a giant poster hanging above the museum's main door.

So just who did pinch the great man's Havana?

It wasn't the anti-smoking lobby, which has had no known contact with the museum; it certainly wasn't Churchill's family - his grandson Nicholas Soames said 'it doesn't matter one way or the other'; and it wasn't the museum itself - in fact it's got wartime posters advertising cigarettes on the walls.

But intriguingly the museum, which gives all profits to charity, declined to name who put together the display and, crucially, who enlarged the image for the poster.

Museum manager John Welsh was astonished to be told the image was missing one vital ingredient.

'We've got all sorts of images in the museum, some with cigars and some without,' he said. 'We've even got war-time adverts for cigarettes in the lift down to the air raid shelter, so we wouldn't have asked for there to be no cigar.'

Museum owner Don Robinson, who handed the museum to a charitable trust 20 years ago, was equally surprised.

'If we'd known we would have said "no it stays as it is". Everything we do we try to do accurately and the cigar symbolises Churchill.'

Mr Robinson insisted the person who designed the posters would not have removed the cigar and said he would like to get to the bottom of the mystery too.

The original picture was taken in 1948 when Churchill was opening the new HQ of 615 County of Surrey Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force of which he was commodore.

The altered image was spotted by museum visitor David McAdam.

He said: 'I pointed out this crude alteration to a museum steward who said she hadn't noticed the change before, nor had anyone else pointed it out.

'Viewing the now disfigured image reveals just how unhinged the vociferous anti-smoking lobby has become. So much for the notion that only communist tyrants airbrushed history.'

Allen Packwood, of Churchill Archives Centre, said he had never known of the leader's cigar being airbrushed out before.

'The cigar is part of what makes Churchill an iconic figure and of course it was very much part of his image as war leader - it went hand in hand with his victory salute and the uniforms he wore.

'What's politically correct for 2010 was not politically correct for 1940.'

Churchill is not the first figure to fall foul of such meddling.

A much-reproduced photograph of engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel posing against the backdrop of the huge launching chains of his ship the SS Great Eastern in 1857 shows him smoking a cigar.

However, in a copy which has been used on the front of a school textbook, the cigar was airbrushed out to avoid 'offence'.

article-1286620-0A096455000005DC-885_306x297.jpg
article-1286620-0A07E66A000005DC-306_306x297.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-How-todays-PC-censors-airbrushed-cigar.html

the anti-smoking movement is huge in the uk and the us, but cmon...
 
[quote name='Rex_Banner']Political Correctness strikes yet again.

America, wake the fuck up.[/QUOTE]

Did you even read that thing?

America wake up? Its a UK based website saying the image in a LONDON museum. Last time I checked the UK and London were not in america.

Despite what you may want to think, not everything in the world revolves around america. Shit does happen in the world that has nothing to do with us.
 
[quote name='gargus']Did you even read that thing?

America wake up? Its a UK based website saying the image in a LONDON museum. Last time I checked the UK and London were not in america.

Despite what you may want to think, not everything in the world revolves around america. Shit does happen in the world that has nothing to do with us.[/QUOTE]


This could happend to America, I mean certainly in the movies we have. Remember E.T.? Guns for walkie-talkies?
 
[quote name='Rex_Banner']This could happend to America, I mean certainly in the movies we have. Remember E.T.? Guns for walkie-talkies?[/QUOTE]

Its to late for america, we have been doing that shit forever. Took out of the twin towers from the intro of friends show and banned a spiderman commercial because it showed them.

Like I said in the other thread we were talking in, americans dont really give a shit about what happens as long as they personally arent inconvienced.
 
[quote name='gargus']Its to late for america, we have been doing that shit forever. Took out of the twin towers from the intro of friends show and banned a spiderman commercial because it showed them.

Like I said in the other thread we were talking in, americans dont really give a shit about what happens as long as they personally arent inconvienced.[/QUOTE]

that's why shit needs to change.

And not that Obama "Yes we can" bs. Real change. Get in peoples face about it. Grow our fucking balls back.
 
[quote name='Rex_Banner']This could happend to America, I mean certainly in the movies we have. Remember E.T.? Guns for walkie-talkies?[/QUOTE]

Hahaha, the deflective battle cry of someone who refuses to admit they were bloody fucking wrong and ignorant about something.

Cling tenaciously to that point! Even though you're wrong, you're still kinda right!

:rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hahaha, the deflective battle cry of someone who refuses to admit they were bloody fucking wrong and ignorant about something.

Cling tenaciously to that point! Even though you're wrong, you're still kinda right!

:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Go support a women's rights protest, liberal shit.
 
Aww, porbrecito.

Look, your naivete is welcome here, but I simply can't allow anyone to be smug unless they're even coming close to being *right* about something first.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Aww, porbrecito.

Look, your naivete is welcome here, but I simply can't allow anyone to be smug unless they're even coming close to being *right* about something first.[/QUOTE]

:lol: @ the Liberal getting butthurt.
 
You know who also doctored photos? Stalin.

Yeah, I know... nowhere near the same level. However, I really would prefer to let history stand as it happened without having to get into a slippery slope argument about what's politically correct and whatnot. Next thing you know, we're drawing clothes on the screaming girl from the Vietnam War and redrawing the people jumping out of buildings during 9/11 as random debris.
 
[quote name='Guerrilla']UK is going to shit with stuff like that.[/QUOTE]

ANYWHERE that does stuff like this is going to shit. It's ridiculous. I'm sick and fuckin' tired of Political Correctness. You're not suffering from Post Traumatic Shock you're Shellshocked.
Also Churchill is KNOWN for his cigar, that's like his trademark. Whoever did this deserves to be punched in the face.
 
Dude post traumatic stress is a formal medical term for a particular disorder with a specific definition for diagnosis while shell shock is kind of a colloquial term that was particular to war (and not even necessarily the same thing, post traumatic stress is long term by definition).

That's like saying it's PC to call a cold a rhinovirus infection. I didn't fracture my tibia I broke my leg you PC asshole!
 
Exactly, PTSD doesn't even have to be caused from being in war. Any sort of trauma can cause it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Dude post traumatic stress is a formal medical term for a particular disorder with a specific definition for diagnosis while shell shock is kind of a colloquial term that was particular to war (and not even necessarily the same thing, post traumatic stress is long term by definition).

That's like saying it's PC to call a cold a rhinovirus infection. I didn't fracture my tibia I broke my leg you PC asshole![/QUOTE]

The issue is they put war terms LIKE Shellshocked in the closet and trot out Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which is used to minimize that which the person went through in the war. It's deliberate, how it diminishes the importance of it. Heck PTSD is used for all things so it further lumps that person's wartime experience in with other people's clandestine traumatic events. I hate to break it to people but there are very FEW parallel's in civilian life which have the right to be equated even NEAR the same level as organized warfare.
Anyway, in terms of the diminishing, they do it so it makes people use to it so they're at best accepting, at worst for the option without remembering the true gravity that happens.
Let's look at the suite of the words PTSD. There's no bang to the words regardless of who delivers them, they're cold, clinical and most especially flat. I think that entymology(I know I probably spelled this wrong) is a huge part in not catching people's attention to it as much as the term "Shellshocked".
If you use the right words I believe you can head off more wars or at least delay them. There's no power to PTSD, there is to "surge" and some of these war terms we've kept. They're also a bit sexy, ya know?
 
[quote name='Sarang01']The issue is they put war terms LIKE Shellshocked in the closet and trot out Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which is used to minimize that which the person went through in the war. It's deliberate, how it diminishes the importance of it.[/quote]

It's not deliberate, it's terminology meant for accuracy. "Shell shock" doesn't mean anything medically. Post traumatic stress means exactly that - stress after a traumatic event.

[quote name='Sarang01']Heck PTSD is used for all things so it further lumps that person's wartime experience in with other people's clandestine traumatic events. I hate to break it to people but there are very FEW parallel's in civilian life which have the right to be equated even NEAR the same level as organized warfare.[/quote]

It's used for what fits the diagnosis. You don't need multiple terms for similar effects just so that people don't get offended by it.

[quote name='Sarang01']Let's look at the suite of the words PTSD. There's no bang to the words regardless of who delivers them, they're cold, clinical and most especially flat.[/quote]

Exactly! Because it's a clinical term! You don't need "bang" in a medical diagnosis.

[quote name='Sarang01']If you use the right words I believe you can head off more wars or at least delay them. There's no power to PTSD, there is to "surge" and some of these war terms we've kept. They're also a bit sexy, ya know?[/QUOTE]

Calling it "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" didn't prevent any wars (not to mention that also saying they're sexy would be contradictory). Also, like I was saying before, PTSD is a long-term disorder and doesn't always fit with the condition known as "shell shock." If it's a short term effect from war it's a "combat stress reaction." Another reason "shell shock" doesn't really work medically is because there's a difference between psychological shock and physiological shock. If you're talking about stress it's best to have stress in the term.

So the point is that there's a difference between medically accurate diagnoses and political correctness. You shouldn't get your information from comedy routines.
 
As much as i loved Carlin and hate that he's gone, his rant on the same issue always struck me as uninformed. He said it took the humanity out of it, but medical terminology needs to be as accurate as possible, and "shell shock" doesn't really describe anything, unless you actually have shock from being struck by a shell.
 
But...but...its not Winston Churchill without the cigar!

In protest, I think from now on all my pics I take, I'm going to photoshop cigars into them.
 
If I were Churchill's family I wouldn't license that image airbrushed...Thats just me though. The man was known for his love of cigars.
 
[quote name='hhhdx4']I really dont see how this is a big deal.[/QUOTE]

In itself its not but I cant understand how you could not understand why its a big deal, anyone with a functional brain can. But its just the fact they are taking a historical figurehead of their own country and changing it just because they dont like smoking, not to mention its also in a museum. So whats to say they cant just go into the museum and change other things simply because they dont like them.

Its no different than going to say, the statue of david and someone saying "We dont think its right you can see his penis. So were going to chisel it off and then put some underwear on him". There is no difference between that and airbrushing out winstons cigar simply because someone thinks smoking is wrong.

Its also one of those things where someone else is deciding what others should and do. SOmeone else decided "I dont like smoking, so no one else should see winston smoking a cigar because I think its bad for them and I should decide what they see and dont see".
 
[quote name='gargus']In itself its not but I cant understand how you could not understand why its a big deal, anyone with a functional brain can. But its just the fact they are taking a historical figurehead of their own country and changing it just because they dont like smoking, not to mention its also in a museum. So whats to say they cant just go into the museum and change other things simply because they dont like them.

Its no different than going to say, the statue of david and someone saying "We dont think its right you can see his penis. So were going to chisel it off and then put some underwear on him". There is no difference between that and airbrushing out winstons cigar simply because someone thinks smoking is wrong.

Its also one of those things where someone else is deciding what others should and do. SOmeone else decided "I dont like smoking, so no one else should see winston smoking a cigar because I think its bad for them and I should decide what they see and dont see".[/QUOTE]

Actually if you go over and see the frescos in Italy they will tell you that Adam and Eve have had fig leaves put on and taken off so many times that their privates have really gotten a workout. It all depended on the Pope's sensibilities.

This is nothing new, taken alone it's not even all that influential, but it is a visual reminder that we should never get cozy with the rhetoric that we live in the land of the free. He who controls the past controls the future.
 
bread's done
Back
Top