Spot the difference: How today's airbrushing PC censors decided Churchill could do without his cigarThere have been other recent examples of iconic pictures being airbrushed to remove tobacco from the sight of the terminally-nervous, most notably in France where Coco Chanel and M Hulot have been similarly treated.
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.
Therefore it's only natural to assume that this is all down to political correctness.
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.One commenter attempts to offer a less risible reason for the missing cigar.
What's politically correct for 2010 was not politically correct for 1940.'
I know who did this!This doesn't really stack up, though, considering that the 'after' picture looks a hell of a lot less like Churchill than the 'before'. In fact, the post-airbrushing is more reminiscent of Benny Hill rather than Winnie. If that was truly the justification, then he/she must be a woefully incompetent photo editor.
It was not due to Anti smoking it was simply he image was very low res and he took the decision to remove the cigar as it looked better in his opinion!
I guess we will be producing another one soon!
- JZ, London, 15/6/2010 14:25
Since the Mail is unable to track down the perpetrator, one can only guess at the real motive, but it may well be down to a rather gross characteristic of the anti-smoker ... pure, unadulterated, vindictive spite.
For example, let me introduce you to Rosie O'Neill, a famous New York socialite at the turn of the 20th century. Here she is pictured in 1907.
Now, if you click on the picture to enlarge it, you may just notice that a cigarette has been crudely scratched out (on the negative) of the fingers of her right hand. This was in the period where puritans and zealots were in the ascendancy prior to Prohibition and tobacco illegality in 15 US states. The irrepressible righteous rage which must have motivated someone to do something like that is bordering on the psychotic.Remember too, that this was decades before any science had been conducted into the harm caused by tobacco. There was no more to this desecration of a tranquil photo than stark hatred.
The more extreme tobacco haters have always possessed this trait, but now the anti-smoking juggernaut has reached top gear, they have a handy 'health' peg on which to hang their vitriol and bile. It's never been about health, though. This sentiment has always been there, as the picture of Rosie O'Neill proves.
It's why talk of sealed smoking rooms or separate smoking pubs can't be tolerated, even though there is no threat to the health of anyone except those who choose to use them. It's why even the suggestion of an amendment motivates anti-smokers to scuttle from the woodwork spitting condescension, insults, loathing and bigotry.
In a civil society, one would expect such behaviour to be frowned upon, but instead government feed and nurture it against all notions of common sense and reason.
We may never know why Churchill's photo was messed around with, but seeing as there is no valid reason why it was done - and that history, and the present, illustrates the dog in a manger mindset of the rabid anti-smoker - one can't rule out base, naked spite as a motive.
As for Rosie O'Neill, there is a charming end to the story of her photo portrait. Fellow jewel robber David G, who e-mailed me her story, is a superb photo restorer. He said:
"I hand-colorized the original B&W photo and added the cig back into her hand, thus restoring her spirit to its rightful truth of the actual way she wanted to be depicted in the world, post-humously of course since this was her back circa 1907. May her soul now rest in peace."I think Rosie would heartily approve, don't you?
22 comments:
I offer the following explanation. That in a society of rationing and scarcity, it wasn't a good idea for every picture of Winnie to show he could acquire the stogie that others could not. The airbrushing could have been a wartime alteration.
Just had an idea what to do on the annual smoking ban protest. Go down to the Imperial War Museum dressed up as Winston and/or as a soldier, airman, or sailor and light up there.
Whatever the explanation they've just made him look slightly brain damaged.
It's why even the suggestion of an amendment motivates anti-smokers to scuttle from the woodwork spitting condescension, insults, loathing and bigotry.
Oi, I'm anti-smoking. I stopped 27 years ago. The smell of tobacco makes me nauseous...however, I'm not condescending, I insult no one, I don't loathe smokers, although I think they're foolish and I'm certainly not a bigot.
"Oi, I'm anti-smoking. I stopped 27 years ago. The smell of tobacco makes me nauseous...however, I'm not condescending, I insult no one, I don't loathe smokers, although I think they're foolish and I'm certainly not a bigot."
Then you are not an anti-smoker. You are an ex-smoker.
The reply l received from the Exhibition puts it down to 'artistic reasons' :) Yeah, right!
Dear #####,
Thank you for your email. We would like to assure you; that we too at Winston Churchill’s Britain at War Experience are firmly against “airbrushing out history” and any suggestion that this is what we have been doing is very wide of the mark.
It does appear that the image used above the main entrance has been altered from the original,although we were not aware of this at the museum, until the recent reports. We are sure that such an alteration would have only been made for essentially artistic reasons, such as not allowing a cigar to break up the outline of the face when displayed on a relatively dark street and certainly not with any hidden agenda, such as presenting Winston Churchill as a non-smoker.
When you visit the museum and I sincerely hope that you will, you will see many images, photographs and models of Churchill both with and without a cigar. You will see that we have tried very hard to capture the sense and essence of London during the Blitz with our displays and exhibits and the genuineness of these is central to the museum’s purpose as a leading educational attraction, visited by thousands every year.
Yours sincerely,
Jan Rayment
Winston Churchill’s Britain at War Museum
Wow what a fantastic colouring job David G. made of the "original" photo. I wish I had the skills to do that.
"Oi, I'm anti-smoking. I stopped 27 years ago. The smell of tobacco makes me nauseous...however, I'm not condescending, I insult no one, I don't loathe smokers, although I think they're foolish and I'm certainly not a bigot."
Then you are not an anti-smoker. You are an ex-smoker.
Anon...please don't put words into my mouth. I may be an ex-smoker but I AM an anti-smoker.
Yay!
If you need to get your fix for Guido's PMQs Funnies then click here
Cato: I was referring to the comments under the linked article about a Tory MP calling for an amendment.
However, one might argue that calling people 'foolish' for enjoying something which you don't personally approve of could be termed 'condescension', no? ;-)
Just out of interest, as an anti-smoker, what would be your opinion towards an amendment which allows separate smoking rooms, where non-smokers would never need to go, for those who choose to be foolish?
Dick, you know as well as I do that smoking causes cancer(amongst other loathsome diseases)..people die from cancer....so, to call smoking 'foolish' is not condescension, it's an observation and, if you like, a truism.
If you want smoking rooms, then go ahead and have them. Just make sure that they're airtight and that no smoke is emitted.
Some time after I'd stopped smoking,(I was smoking 30 a day and did it cold turkey) my daughter started work as a croupier in a London casino. She used to come home at about 5am and inevitably woke us up...not because of the noise she made but because of the stench of tobacco: she stank like a ten day old ashtray.
It is now pleasant to walk into my local...even the smokers huddled outside will admit it...grudgingly.
"For example, let me introduce you to Rosie O'Neill, a famous New York socialite at the turn of the 20th century. Here she is pictured in 1907."
I can not believe how high quality that photo is. It looks more like it was taken in 1970 than 1907!
-WS
"It is now pleasant to walk into my local...even the smokers huddled outside will admit it...grudgingly."
Not a sentiment I've heard from smokers all over the UK from Aberdeen to Plymouth.
Lucky you've got one pal.
As a smoker and a fastidiously considerate one (cars, houses, shops, restaurants etc.)- up to the smoking ban - it is the fanatical, obsessional aspect of antismoker behaviour that riles me - these folk really will not do discussion - they've got something to hate and they cling to it. They want to extend the effects of their prejudice to places they never go and to things they don't like and know sweet FA about...
It is a fact of life that the squeaking wheel gets the grease - however, some folk have made a career out of being professional squeakers who can't resist inventing and embroidering their squeaking.
If there's a sign over the door saying "Smoking Allowed" they see it as a challenge.
As many other folk have pointed out - give 'em an inch and you'll pay.
There's many things I don't like but publicly funded members of the obsessional righteous club have wormed their way to the pinnacle of my sh1t list.
I have a supply of pins and can reccomend some of these for a little light relief.
@GTFPT
I'll discuss this with you anytime time you like.
I'm not particularly pro-ban, I'm just anti-smoking.
I don't like the smell of it and neither do I like going home after a night out smelling like an ashtray.
If you want to smoke that's fine by me but there's nothing written down anywhere that says I've got to breathe your second hand smoke.
Cato: Fair play for not objecting to our right to be 'foolish' as long as you aren't affected. It's a very important distinction. :-)
On the definition of foolishness, there are myriad pastimes and lifestyle choices which could be deemed foolish under your terms. That doesn't mean to say that individuals can't make their own judgement of risk and decide how to act accordingly. You say smoking causes cancer, but you omit one word. Smoking can cause cancer (about 10% I believe), there is a difference.
I wouldn't class you as an anti-smoker either, to be honest. You seem to accept that others enjoy smoking and don't actively campaign against their right to do so.
Anonymous said...
I can not believe how high quality that photo is. It looks more like it was taken in 1970 than 1907!
-WS
----
Back then it was probably a large format camera, 8x10 negative size and possibly a glass negative. That would be like using a super-megapixel digital camera these days for the amount of resolution and enlargement possible. The detail captured would have been a lot. Analogue isn't entirely bad when it is done right and large format is definitely high quality.
Everyone knows some people do not smoke, stopped cold turkey and need constantly to be away from the stuff or even the very thought, sight or smell of it will drive them bonkers and right back on to the weed. Some have gone out of their way to demonstrate their hatred for the smokers on all the boards and why some, like myself, no longer read certain boards, because I just get tired of hearing the repetition about how much certain ones hate smokers, smoke, tobacco, filth, disease and smokers disgust them and I frankly don't trust the opinions on boards authored by those displaying prejudice and bias, nor do I read them anymore. They have become so much more pleasant and better off these days, now that they've quit, turned into grouches and will live a full 6.5 months longer, statistically speaking, than those who have not followed in their footsteps. Not only would some permit separate rooms for smoking at the local pub, but it would have to be air-tight so that not a hint, peek, whiff or sniff of the stuff comes out and sets them off on a rage while trying to supress the very urge they more than likely fight to block at the subliminal level. If that is so, then having quit cold turkey sounds more like they are still attempting to quit, because they still sin mentally, when the image of smoking appears and has them not doing what their subconscious minds are still telling them to do, which is to smoke, mentally salivating like pavlovian dogs if they don't shoo off smokers. They must keep working at it. One day they'll be successfully quit smoking that it won't even bother them, even if someone is smoking in the same room or they catch the sight of it from blocks away, their anguish will have disappeared. And that is what it means to be a successful ex-smoker, not to harp on about it still, to this day. That's what I make of some of these rants. I've heard them for over two years, and from every ex-smoker turned anti-smoker, the same storyline.
Cato, I stand corrected. You are an anti-smoker. You demonstrate the typical mental dysfunction and ability to parrot “official” rhetoric.
“I don't like the smell of it and neither do I like going home after a night out smelling like an ashtray.”
Who cares that you don’t like the smell of it! The smell of smoke was never an issue until the inflammatory propaganda began in the late-1970s. Societies around the world are being undermined by a eugenics-driven Public Health and all that Cato is concerned about is that he doesn’t like the smell of smoke. It requires the easily brainwashed to allow eugenics, a dangerous ideology, to thrive.
Do yourself a favour, Cato, and go and find out about the sordid history of anti-smoking. The two most recent crusades were in early-1900s USA and in Nazi Germany.
Here’s a reasonable summary of the USA crusade. What is not pointed out in this summary is that eugenics was mainstream in the USA at this time. It is eugenics that legitimized anti-smoking, not religion. Smoking is a pet hatred of eugenicists, viewed as a racial poison. Eugenics is also tyrannical or fascist in disposition. The medical establishment plays the leading role in eugenics. What you should note from the summary is that the anti-smoking claims pre-date even a semblance of scientific enquiry. The plethora of anti-smoking claims were all inflammatory lies (propaganda) intended to turn non-smokers against smoking/smokers to provide a “basis” for legislating smoking bans. Anti-smokers are pathological liars that will say and do whatever is required to advance the “cause”. They have no problem in making criminals of ordinary people – as do fascists generally.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml
The other major antismoking crusade last century was in Nazi Germany. Nazism was a continuation/extremizing of USA eugenics. And, so, anti-smoking was rife, being aligned to eugenics ideology.
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
Eugenics did not die with Nazism. It has continued to the present time. It was low-key immediately post-WWII given the horrors of Nazism. And, the medical establishment does not use the “E” word any longer. However, lifestyle epidemiology and the preaching of statistical risk aversion is all part of negative eugenics, i.e., preventative medicine. And, you guessed it, eugenics has been driving anti-smoking since the 1960s. And it is again based on inflammatory propaganda (see Godber Blueprint www.rampant-antismoking.com) This time the derangement is not confined to a handful of nations but is a global phenomenon. A uniform medical establishment with a centralized headquarters (WHO) and eugenics-driven Public Health is undermining nations around the world towards global statism/fascism.
Cato, surely you can comprehend that this is more than about the smell of tobacco smoke. Where can we go to not be exposed to eugenics insanity?
“And that is what it means to be a successful ex-smoker, not to harp on about it still, to this day.”
Anon., you make a most valid point. I knew smokers that had quit pre-propaganda days. They did not go through the neurotic hand-waving to clear smoke. They socialized with smokers. They did not complain about the smell. They just didn’t smoke. And, they could obviously tell the critical difference between smoking and being exposed to ambient tobacco smoke.
But when the propaganda kicked in, everything changed. The propaganda plays on irrational belief, fear, and hatred. It is intended to divide smokers and non-smokers. It is intended to portray smokers as inferior and non-smokers as superior. The antics now of hating the smell and not wanting to be exposed to the “filth” is all bigotry in motion. And it gives an indication of how dangerously shallow societies have become.
"If you want to smoke that's fine by me but there's nothing written down anywhere that says I've got to breathe your second hand smoke."
That sounds like an anti-smoker to me. It's the classic mantra as seen adorning every comments page of articles about smoking. It may be slightly more politely expressed than usual (it normally takes a form like "Smoke yourself to death if you want, but don't puff your filthy poison near ME"), but it still carries the same bizarre, nonsensical and paranoid implication that anyone lighting a cigarette will immediately seek out the nearest antismoker and inflict their SHS on them.
Perhaps I'm unusual, but I'd rather have a cigarette in a situation where other people don't mind - my enjoyment of smoking (or anything else) is likely to be spoiled if there's somebody about who objects to what I'm doing.
So don't worry, Cato - you are in absolutely no danger of breathing my secondhand smoke.
Cato, as I never tire of reminding anti-smokers, there need not be smoking rooms in your local pubs. A far better solution is to have separate smoking and nonsmoking premises: be they pubs, cafes or restaurants. Under 18s would be excluded from the smoking premises, which would make them popular with many nonsmokers. The only major problem is that the majority of nonsmoking businesses might fail. Like the previous commenter, I never enjoyed smoking when I thought the people near me weren't happy. I felt far more comfortable in Colorado back in the 80s, where the two sections had separate entrances.
Dick, you wrote, "Now, if you click on the picture to enlarge it, you may just notice that a cigarette has been crudely scratched out (on the negative) of the fingers of her right hand. This was in the period where puritans and zealots were in the ascendancy prior to Prohibition and tobacco illegality in 15 US states. The irrepressible righteous rage which must have motivated someone to do something like that is bordering on the psychotic."
Dick, the psychotics made up most of the antismoking movement in the US until they started getting free TV time and access to millions of tax dollars. Back in the mid 80s on the early internet there were very few Antis, but the ones that were there often advocated things like sitting around doctors offices and ripping out cigarette ads from magazines. We've also seen the zealots who climb up ladders to paint various nasty things on advertising billboards while thinking they're immune to criminal damage penalties.
Thank you for finding and pulling up the story and the re-done imagery of that 1907 photo! It reminds us that the crazies aren't simply something new - they're just recycled and will go down again when they overplay their hand.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Post a Comment