Winston Churchill - Will He Become Tainted Now?
Discussion
I had no idea he held such controversial and frankly abhorrent views.
In light of current events and the change in societal values that appears to be taking place is his legacy about to become very-very tainted?
Just a couple of his comments:
Churchill was asked about a visit to China, he replied: “I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don’t like the look of them or the smell of them — but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.”
Churchill once told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
I, along with millions of others, grew up admiring him and his war time leadership but have to say he's somewhat diminished in my eyes since I read those quotes. Apparently they are not the only controversial things he's said, just two that I stumbled upon.
In light of current events and the change in societal values that appears to be taking place is his legacy about to become very-very tainted?
Just a couple of his comments:
Churchill was asked about a visit to China, he replied: “I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don’t like the look of them or the smell of them — but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.”
Churchill once told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
I, along with millions of others, grew up admiring him and his war time leadership but have to say he's somewhat diminished in my eyes since I read those quotes. Apparently they are not the only controversial things he's said, just two that I stumbled upon.
Good on you for educating yourself. I suspect most historical figures held views and opinions that were very much of their time, and most would look quite dreadful when view through the eyes of a modern liberal person, never mind through the Twittersphere.
Is there anyone who I hold up as a shining light? No, not really. We are all of our time. Do I think a lot of our history as an Englishman is a bit suspect? Yes. Do statues bother me? No. Can I empathise with those who actually have an issue with them? Probably yes.
Is there anyone who I hold up as a shining light? No, not really. We are all of our time. Do I think a lot of our history as an Englishman is a bit suspect? Yes. Do statues bother me? No. Can I empathise with those who actually have an issue with them? Probably yes.
Churchill was the man needed at the time with regards to his leadership during the war
However if you look at his actions prior to this (such as when he was First Sea Lord, Chancellor etc.) you will find many errors and some rather abhorrent views by modern standards
This is not to taint the leadership that he brought during the fight against Hitler, but he was not the perfect man by any stretch of the imagination
However if you look at his actions prior to this (such as when he was First Sea Lord, Chancellor etc.) you will find many errors and some rather abhorrent views by modern standards
This is not to taint the leadership that he brought during the fight against Hitler, but he was not the perfect man by any stretch of the imagination
Gadgetmac said:
I had no idea he held such controversial and frankly abhorrent views.
In light of current events and the change in societal values that appears to be taking place is his legacy about to become very-very tainted?
Just a couple of his comments:
Churchill was asked about a visit to China, he replied: “I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don’t like the look of them or the smell of them — but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.”
Churchill once told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
I, along with millions of others, grew up admiring him and his war time leadership but have to say he's somewhat diminished in my eyes since I read those quotes. Apparently they are not the only controversial things he's said, just two that I stumbled upon.
Those views were commonplace amongst those born in Victorian times.He was a man of his time. However he did a fine job of leading the country during war time, including initiating the British atom bomb project and backing Bletchley Park to the hilt. Not to mention his contribution to D-Day.In light of current events and the change in societal values that appears to be taking place is his legacy about to become very-very tainted?
Just a couple of his comments:
Churchill was asked about a visit to China, he replied: “I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don’t like the look of them or the smell of them — but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.”
Churchill once told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
I, along with millions of others, grew up admiring him and his war time leadership but have to say he's somewhat diminished in my eyes since I read those quotes. Apparently they are not the only controversial things he's said, just two that I stumbled upon.
Gadgetmac said:
I had no idea he held such controversial and frankly abhorrent views.
In light of current events and the change in societal values that appears to be taking place is his legacy about to become very-very tainted?
Just a couple of his comments:
Churchill was asked about a visit to China, he replied: “I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don’t like the look of them or the smell of them — but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.”
Churchill once told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
I, along with millions of others, grew up admiring him and his war time leadership but have to say he's somewhat diminished in my eyes since I read those quotes. Apparently they are not the only controversial things he's said, just two that I stumbled upon.
Whatever you do, don't watch any 70s sitcoms. It'll scar you, badly.In light of current events and the change in societal values that appears to be taking place is his legacy about to become very-very tainted?
Just a couple of his comments:
Churchill was asked about a visit to China, he replied: “I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don’t like the look of them or the smell of them — but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.”
Churchill once told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
I, along with millions of others, grew up admiring him and his war time leadership but have to say he's somewhat diminished in my eyes since I read those quotes. Apparently they are not the only controversial things he's said, just two that I stumbled upon.
s2art said:
Those views were commonplace amongst those born in Victorian times.He was a man of his time. However he did a fine job of leading the country during war time, including initiating the British atom bomb project and backing Bletchley Park to the hilt. Not to mention his contribution to D-Day.
You could pick virtually any historical figure usually considered to be "good" and find them not only using politically incorrect language but language we would find shocking.Someone posted Lincoln's views on racial equality on another thread for example. The language used would very certainly get a Twitter mob going today.
People are products of their time but they can be either good or bad within that constraint.
I don't think so.
We celebrate him, and have statues of him, because of his success and leadership in the second world war, not because he was a racist.
The fact that todays standards paint him as one is neither here nor there: it has been forgotten by the general public for many years, and it will be forgotten again. The fact that we can sit here discussing this topic is his legacy. Those that are in the street and on the internet complaining about him would do well to remember this.
Those complaining seem to believe that we should only remember saints: if this were the case, I don't believe we'd celebrate or remember anyone at all. Look hard and deep enough, and everyone will have done something that someone today disagrees with. I do not think that the current politicing/campaigning will smear his legacy long term.
We celebrate him, and have statues of him, because of his success and leadership in the second world war, not because he was a racist.
The fact that todays standards paint him as one is neither here nor there: it has been forgotten by the general public for many years, and it will be forgotten again. The fact that we can sit here discussing this topic is his legacy. Those that are in the street and on the internet complaining about him would do well to remember this.
Those complaining seem to believe that we should only remember saints: if this were the case, I don't believe we'd celebrate or remember anyone at all. Look hard and deep enough, and everyone will have done something that someone today disagrees with. I do not think that the current politicing/campaigning will smear his legacy long term.
I think you have to judge historical figures against the standards of the day whilst accepting that the standards of the day were often shocking to us now, particularly regarding speech. Cruel and sadistic behaviour though, I think can be judged across the centuries for what they are.
I took the kids on one of those open top bus rides round London last year; the guide had a right go at Florence Nightingale for being a "massive racist" and said her statue should be removed!
I took the kids on one of those open top bus rides round London last year; the guide had a right go at Florence Nightingale for being a "massive racist" and said her statue should be removed!
Matthen said:
I don't think so.
We celebrate him, and have statues of him, because of his success and leadership in the second world war, not because he was a racist.
The fact that todays standards paint him as one is neither here nor there: it has been forgotten by the general public for many years, and it will be forgotten again. The fact that we can sit here discussing this topic is his legacy. Those that are in the street and on the internet complaining about him would do well to remember this.
Those complaining seem to believe that we should only remember saints: if this were the case, I don't believe we'd celebrate or remember anyone at all. Look hard and deep enough, and everyone will have done something that someone today disagrees with. I do not think that the current politicing/campaigning will smear his legacy long term.
Pragmatism is the right approach, as he was certainly a positive for many...which is what he will mostly be remembered for.We celebrate him, and have statues of him, because of his success and leadership in the second world war, not because he was a racist.
The fact that todays standards paint him as one is neither here nor there: it has been forgotten by the general public for many years, and it will be forgotten again. The fact that we can sit here discussing this topic is his legacy. Those that are in the street and on the internet complaining about him would do well to remember this.
Those complaining seem to believe that we should only remember saints: if this were the case, I don't believe we'd celebrate or remember anyone at all. Look hard and deep enough, and everyone will have done something that someone today disagrees with. I do not think that the current politicing/campaigning will smear his legacy long term.
Equally we should be transparent about the 'other' stuff he did that wasn't quite so salubrious...but I guess that is more of a challenge as the victors are those that seem to write the history that sticks.
(added the he)
Edited by trails on Wednesday 10th June 16:39
fblm said:
I think you have to judge historical figures against the standards of the day whilst accepting that the standards of the day were often shocking to us now, particularly regarding speech. Cruel and sadistic behaviour though, I think can be judged across the centuries for what they are.
I took the kids on one of those open top bus rides round London last year; the guide had a right go at Florence Nightingale for being a "massive racist" and said her statue should be removed!
Though it should also be recognised that things we think of as right or wrong were also regarded as the same by many people in the past.I took the kids on one of those open top bus rides round London last year; the guide had a right go at Florence Nightingale for being a "massive racist" and said her statue should be removed!
Jane Austen for example has a subtle critique of slavery in Mansfield park and she also has a number of feminist messages in her work. A moral person in 1800 was most likely to be against the slave trade and would also respect women.
They might use unacceptable language to our ears but there are a number of enduring moral principles.
fblm said:
I think you have to judge historical figures against the standards of the day whilst accepting that the standards of the day were often shocking to us now, particularly regarding speech. Cruel and sadistic behaviour though, I think can be judged across the centuries for what they are.
I dont think it can. Look at capital punishment over the centuries. I dont think we can judge it based upon modern values. They were a product of their time.Pieman68 said:
Churchill was the man needed at the time with regards to his leadership during the war
However if you look at his actions prior to this (such as when he was First Sea Lord, Chancellor etc.) you will find many errors and some rather abhorrent views by modern standards
This is not to taint the leadership that he brought during the fight against Hitler, but he was not the perfect man by any stretch of the imagination
Indeed. Although I'm sure if you did a survey of anyone born pre 1900 you'd find the vast majority were racist and/or able to hold views that we now think are unacceptable. However if you look at his actions prior to this (such as when he was First Sea Lord, Chancellor etc.) you will find many errors and some rather abhorrent views by modern standards
This is not to taint the leadership that he brought during the fight against Hitler, but he was not the perfect man by any stretch of the imagination
Yes it is correct that we can reevaluate past events and behaviours and learn from them but that's not the same as this current trend of trying to cleanse history and attack people for having broadly "normal" views for their time.
He shouldn't, no. Without him, Europe wouldn't be the kind of place where you could pull a statue down and throw it in the river. All Jews, Homosexuals, Disabled people and 'Useless eaters', as the Nazis described them, would be murdered. Eugenics would be a real thing. There wouldn't be any free speech, or the ability to get into an argument with strangers on Twitter.
Truth is, context is everything. He said some things that we find unacceptable today. He did one or two things that were marginal in their context and time.
However you look at it, though, he was one of the greatest ever Britons. The world we would live in if the Axis powers won the war would be so very different to one we do live in, 75 years later.
Truth is, context is everything. He said some things that we find unacceptable today. He did one or two things that were marginal in their context and time.
However you look at it, though, he was one of the greatest ever Britons. The world we would live in if the Axis powers won the war would be so very different to one we do live in, 75 years later.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff