Airbrushing history, so long cigars.

What is it with the modern world and its need to change history to suit its own particular needs and wants. Yes, both good things and bad things happened.

But they happened and people should told what and why it happened.

You can understand perhaps some countries reluctance to admit certain events which paint it in a bad light. But then you come down to the real pathetic examples, which is changing history because its bad for us.

That's right, seeing historical pictures of people smoking are bad for you. This photo is above the entrance of a museum about Winston Churchill.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...p_1657976c.jpg

I don't know anyone who started smoking or even continued smoking because Winston Churchill or Isambard Kingdom Brunel had historical photos of them smoking.

So much for being truthful or factual about history, I'm pretty sure that some pressure groups would love to say that smoking only started in the last couple of decades. But why get rid of it, because it encourages the weak willed to smoke.

Stupid people. :Shake:

I have to concur, it is stupid. I never mind the addition of information about smoking and how it is unhealthy but to just change things is silly. What's next carefully changing Groucho Marx to having a carrot instead of a cigar?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

What's next carefully changing Groucho Marx to having a carrot instead of a cigar?

---

They kind of already did that: Bugs Bunny was practically Groucho in a fursuit.

This has been going on for a while. A picture of Robert Johnson, the hell-hounded bluesman, was edited to remove a dangling cigarette before it could be used for a U.S. postage stamp.

Remember, children: Selling your soul at a crossroads is one thing, but don't you be puttin' a death stick in your mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

They kind of already did that: Bugs Bunny was practically Groucho in a fursuit.

---

Well that was why I specifically mentioned carrots. :lol:

Not only do I strongly dislike the concept of revising history with photoshop, but the end result isn't that great. He went from having a cigar in his mouth to looking like he had a stroke. Winston Derphill.

Also it's a bad shop, there's too many artifacts on his lip for it to look real.

"Undoubtedly Churchill would have wanted to be photographed without the cigar, but the technology to create such an image did not exist at that time," said museum design consultant George Lucas. This is only one facet of a bold new museum strategy to attract more visitors by depicting history with fewer ass-ugly people.

I guess I owe Arthur C. Clarke a belated apology. In one of his books, he predicted that society would eventually use computer technology to edit smoking out of classic movies and the like. At the time I thought the notion was as far-out as the major premise of the book, which was raising the Titanic with ping-pong balls.

What the hell? In what context is the second photo being used? That is fucking outrageous, and Ryan is right that he looks like a stroke victim.

And sometimes they make him look younger as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMsg...eature=related

I feel as if we're in the old Soviet Union, only it's Sr. Cohiba getting the zap instead of Comrade Trotsky. This decigarification is fairly innocuous as an isolated act, but the thinking behind it is really dangerous and insidious. I think it's very valid to ask "What's next?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

I feel as if we're in the old Soviet Union, only it's Sr. Cohiba getting the zap instead of Comrade Trotsky. This decigarification is fairly innocuous as an isolated act, but the thinking behind it is really dangerous and insidious. I think it's very valid to ask "What's next?"

---

I'm going to learn Photoshop just so that I can contribute. Keep an eye open for........

Dreadlocks Reagan
Drag Hitler
Franklin Delano Eyestalks
Six Arms Lincoln
Richard Lobster Claws Nixon

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Muffin

And sometimes they make him look younger as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMsg...eature=related

---

Too bad that baby is white or I would have thought it was a baby Rymer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

What the hell? In what context is the second photo being used? That is fucking outrageous, and Ryan is right that he looks like a stroke victim.

---

In History 2.0, Churchill's characteristic vice is not his cigar, but rather his amusing Edward G. Robinson impression.

"We shall not flag or fail, shee? We shall fight on the beaches, shee? You want us, you're gonna have to come in and get us, Hitlah! We're gonna rub ya out, flatfoot! Mmyeah!"

Also, Churchill 2.0's beverage of choice is Glaceau^TM electrolyte-enhanced vitamin water.

Oh yes, making him look like an inbred stroke victim with Bell's Palsy is much better. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

That's right, seeing historical pictures of people smoking are bad for you. This photo is above the entrance of a museum about Winston Churchill.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...p_1657976c.jpg

---

Which picture, and what museum?

ETA: I'll answer my own question. I can reasonably assume you're referring to the second, altered picture. According to this article,, it's at the War Experience museum in London.

Here's a more informative article on the subject.

OTOH it certainly makes him look as if he's totally sloshed, which may help restore some of the lost historical accuracy. :hist:

So, from this article,, it appears that the original version of the altered picture was created, not by somebody who wanted to censor history, but as an illustration for an article about a story about Turner Broadcasting supposedly censoring Tom & Jerry cartoons: Here.

Then somebody picked that picture for use at the museum, without knowing it was altered, and with, as far as we know, no intention to censor history.

Then people nevertheless got upset about the museum censoring history.

So, to review:

1) Turner Broadcasting (apparently) is going to censor Tom & Jerry cartoons to remove exploding cigars because they might encourage cats to smoke, or something.

2) The Washington Post has a story about it.

3) The South Puget Sound Libertarian runs a humorous editorial about the Washington Post story. The Libertarian editorial is illustrated by an animated gif showing the Winston Churchill picture with and without the cigar.

4) The image with the cigar removed winds up here, in a gallery on Fanpix.

5) Somebody at the War Experience museum, looking for suitable Churchill pictures, picks that one.

6) A visitor to the museum gets upset and mistakenly thinks they deliberately censored the picture. (NOTE: At no point has anyone censored the picture with the intent of making people think Churchill was not smoking a cigar.)

7) The outraged visitor's point of view is presented as fact in The Daily Mail and picked up elsewhere.

8) Like The Daily Mail, CatInASuit skimps a little bit on research.

9) We enjoy a little misplaced outrage.

Damn it Baldwin, I was all nicely riled up with outrage. :fail:

Although the same point about Brunel still stands I believe. Besides general ranting about airbrushing history is still good.

PS. You missed a step between the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

:fail:

Sorry CIAS, it's necessary to untangle seven or eight steps of convoluted history before commenting on news stories or taking them at face value or even using them as a launching point for a larger discussion. If you're not willing to treat every image as a potential conspiracy theory, we just can't trust anything. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

So, from this article,, it appears that the original version of the altered picture was created, not by somebody who wanted to censor history, but as an illustration for an article about a story about Turner Broadcasting supposedly censoring Tom & Jerry cartoons: Here.

Then somebody picked that picture for use at the museum, without knowing it was altered, and with, as far as we know, no intention to censor history.

Then people nevertheless got upset about the museum censoring history.

So, to review:

1) Turner Broadcasting (apparently) is going to censor Tom & Jerry cartoons to remove exploding cigars because they might encourage cats to smoke, or something.

2) The Washington Post has a story about it.

3) The South Puget Sound Libertarian runs a humorous editorial about the Washington Post story. The Libertarian editorial is illustrated by an animated gif showing the Winston Churchill picture with and without the cigar.

4) The image with the cigar removed winds up here, in a gallery on Fanpix.

5) Somebody at the War Experience museum, looking for suitable Churchill pictures, picks that one.

6) A visitor to the museum gets upset and mistakenly thinks they deliberately censored the picture. (NOTE: At no point has anyone censored the picture with the intent of making people think Churchill was not smoking a cigar.)

7) The outraged visitor's point of view is presented as fact in The Daily Mail and picked up elsewhere.

8) Like The Daily Mail, CatInASuit skimps a little bit on research.

9) We enjoy a little misplaced outrage.

---

You're a virgin, aren't you?