What's next? Roosevelt without his cigarette? How Today's PC Censors Decided Churchill Could Do Without His Cigar No Cigar 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.
I think the same thing happened to pictures of Isambard Kingdom Brunel [Victorian engineer] who had his customary cigar airbrushed out at some exhibition/museum. Proof that you can change history, I suppose...
i saw somewhere that ol bc did not inhale his mj he always ate his he was smoking a fag?? hey wtf?? last time i smoked a fag and i got sick but i do know what a fag is to the uk's peeps
I'd heard somewhere that this is happening with current photos of Sarkozy (and probably other political leaders as well) when they are snapped holding a fag. There was one of Sarkozy, that sadly I can't find, where it is quite clear he was holding a cigarette between his nicotine stained fingers; but it was edited out. Personally, I find it all a bit insane. There should be no reason to rewrite history like that. I don't really think some little kid will see a photo of Churchill with his cigar hanging out of his mouth and want to go and get a cigar to smoke just like him. *shrugs*
the principle I suppose, though the powers that be just don't get it. By criminalizing every single thing, they are also offering it a stigma. Kids who rebel do just that, they do things that they aren't supposed to do. They are just increasing the chance that people will actually want to smoke, by hiding it away. It's not cool to conform. Look what they have done to my beloved Beano
It was a school book for pre-teens. If the museum removed all reference to smoking in all of their exhibits, as if nobody smoked in history, fair enough...that would be an issue, I guess. An issue to get worked up about. But, it wasn't the museum (the powers that be) that removed the cigar, they seem to not know who or why it was done. And have no agenda to do anything like that. It was the artist, who made the display, that removed the cigar. The museum isn't "criminalising" it - how could they anyway? I doubt this will be a major recruiting sergeant for the tobacco industry, somehow. I read the article and thought: "and?"... It's such a none story. I agree with you about the Beano, though...well, to a certain degree. The edges have been smoothed wich is annoying. But I guess you can't have gay bashing in a kids comic nowadays.
I actually think the picture looks better with out the cigar. I wouldn't be surprised if the cigar was removed for no other reason than it looked better with out it.
Tut...there's always one. The worst thing about this is a.) I actually took the time to make this and b.) I hate the inaccuracy...the spliff would obviously be facing outwards. Well someone was gonna do it!
