Poll: Churchill Statue

[Eddi]

There is a big statue of Churchill, outside the UK parliament

It has recently been defaced by Black Lives Matter protesters, who claim he was racist

There have been calls to have it removed

Question: Should the statue of Churchill outside the UK parliament be removed, or should we keep it?

For me: We should keep it, because on balance he did more good than bad. Also, he was of his time and cannot be judged by today's standards. And it's not just colonialism which is bad about him, he was also very tyrannical towards the Welsh miners (and the working class in general) before he became PM. Yet as war-time PM he was very successful at leading a war-effort that was in the best interest of all sections of society. And in the best interests of the entire world too.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's absolutely amazing how people want to wantonly destroy historic monuments all of a sudden.

The ignorance of people in terms of history is mind-boggling.

Suddenly statues have been there for a very long time are all of a sudden vilified out of the blue just because they don't like it so the mentality is nobody should have it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's absolutely amazing how people want to wantonly destroy historic monuments all of a sudden.

The ignorance of people in terms of history is mind-boggling.

Suddenly statues have been there for a very long time are all of a sudden vilified out of the blue just because they don't like it so the mentality is nobody should have it.

Why some people accuse Winston Churchill of being racist

Despite his achievements, there is evidence to suggest Mr Churchill was a white supremacist. He referred to British imperialism as being for the good of the “primitive” and “subject races”. In 1937 he said: “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 those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” Mr Churchill once said: “I hate Indians… they are beastly people with a beastly religion.” He also referred to Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung”. A known supporter of eugenics, he approved of the separation of “feeble-minded” people, alongside being intrigued by the idea of sterilisation, to halt the breeding of “unfit” people posing “a very terrible danger to the race”. Mr Churchill was also allegedly so confident Britain would be victorious over Nazi Germany due to his belief in the superiority of the British “race”, over the Prussians, a formerly “barbarous tribe”.

When considering the restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the “squeamishness” of his colleagues, who were not in “favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Additionally, when quashing insurgents in Sudan in his early career, Mr Churchill boasted of killing three “savages.” Then, as a junior member of parliament, Mr Churchill supported Britain’s plan for additional conquests, stressing that “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”. However, his attitude to the Bengal famine of 1943-44 is the most well-known source of contention, with Mr Churchill accused of murdering over 3 million Indians. Historians have reached a consensus that his actions significantly contributed to the Bengal famine of 1943. When concerned British officials wrote to Mr Churchill and said he was causing a needless loss of life, he responded “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?” and then went on to say the famine was caused by Indians for “breeding like rabbits”.

Not sure where I stand on this, given that he probably did so much for Britain during WWII, but one can hardly dismiss the above as just nonsense and having no relevance.

 

[Lyndon]

Churchill was horribly racist and responsible for the famine deaths of millions of Indian citizens

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Winston Churchill had the same attitude to race as a vast majority of his generation.
He was not overtly racist. However he did share the common belief that the "English gentleman" had superior qualities over the Foreigner. (of what ever colour).

My step father believed that the "Wogs" started at Dover. a common belief for those born in the early 1900's.
It was not a "colour" thing.
( look up the derivation of "Wog" it has interesting connotations, especially in Australia)

Unlike the Americans, there was no segregation in the British forces or the civilian population. Racism was more a problem of the working classes. The upper classes gave it little thought, as they "Knew" that they were superior to everyone else.

While some of the Upper classes had become the beneficiaries of slavery, it was largely an occupation of the merchant adventurers.
By Churchill's generation Slavery was long in the past.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why some people accuse Winston Churchill of being racist

Despite his achievements, there is evidence to suggest Mr Churchill was a white supremacist. He referred to British imperialism as being for the good of the “primitive” and “subject races”. In 1937 he said: “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 those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” Mr Churchill once said: “I hate Indians… they are beastly people with a beastly religion.” He also referred to Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung”. A known supporter of eugenics, he approved of the separation of “feeble-minded” people, alongside being intrigued by the idea of sterilisation, to halt the breeding of “unfit” people posing “a very terrible danger to the race”. Mr Churchill was also allegedly so confident Britain would be victorious over Nazi Germany due to his belief in the superiority of the British “race”, over the Prussians, a formerly “barbarous tribe”.

When considering the restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the “squeamishness” of his colleagues, who were not in “favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Additionally, when quashing insurgents in Sudan in his early career, Mr Churchill boasted of killing three “savages.” Then, as a junior member of parliament, Mr Churchill supported Britain’s plan for additional conquests, stressing that “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”. However, his attitude to the Bengal famine of 1943-44 is the most well-known source of contention, with Mr Churchill accused of murdering over 3 million Indians. Historians have reached a consensus that his actions significantly contributed to the Bengal famine of 1943. When concerned British officials wrote to Mr Churchill and said he was causing a needless loss of life, he responded “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?” and then went on to say the famine was caused by Indians for “breeding like rabbits”.

Not sure where I stand on this, given that he probably did so much for Britain during WWII, but one can hardly dismiss the above as just nonsense and having no relevance.

That's why I think the statue was there in the first place, honoring his accomplishments during the war. Not because of his character or personal thoughts and views.

Obviously, we got problems ourselves over this side of the pond with us Yanks.

Although it's not with weapons anymore, we are still fighting the Civil War and World War II. Maybe even a bit of the Revolutionary War as well.

And they say Muslims wage war for a long time.

 

[February-Saturday]

Why not compromise?

Take the statue out of a public setting and move it into a museum. I would even keep the vandalism, because that itself is a part of history we should preserve and remember.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why some people accuse Winston Churchill of being racist

Despite his achievements, there is evidence to suggest Mr Churchill was a white supremacist. He referred to British imperialism as being for the good of the “primitive” and “subject races”. In 1937 he said: “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 those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” Mr Churchill once said: “I hate Indians… they are beastly people with a beastly religion.” He also referred to Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung”. A known supporter of eugenics, he approved of the separation of “feeble-minded” people, alongside being intrigued by the idea of sterilisation, to halt the breeding of “unfit” people posing “a very terrible danger to the race”. Mr Churchill was also allegedly so confident Britain would be victorious over Nazi Germany due to his belief in the superiority of the British “race”, over the Prussians, a formerly “barbarous tribe”.

When considering the restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the “squeamishness” of his colleagues, who were not in “favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Additionally, when quashing insurgents in Sudan in his early career, Mr Churchill boasted of killing three “savages.” Then, as a junior member of parliament, Mr Churchill supported Britain’s plan for additional conquests, stressing that “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”. However, his attitude to the Bengal famine of 1943-44 is the most well-known source of contention, with Mr Churchill accused of murdering over 3 million Indians. Historians have reached a consensus that his actions significantly contributed to the Bengal famine of 1943. When concerned British officials wrote to Mr Churchill and said he was causing a needless loss of life, he responded “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?” and then went on to say the famine was caused by Indians for “breeding like rabbits”.

Not sure where I stand on this, given that he probably did so much for Britain during WWII, but one can hardly dismiss the above as just nonsense and having no relevance.

Do not forget that his generation in both The UK and the USA, would have agreed with his attitude. it was largely the norm for his time. he had both British and American nationality though his parents and later citizenship.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Churchill was horribly racist and responsible for the famine deaths of millions of Indian citizens

So was Gandhi. I hear he was a horrible racist as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why not compromise?

Take the statue out of a public setting and move it into a museum. I would even keep the vandalism, because that itself is a part of history we should preserve and remember.

I think that's always the best recourse.

I think it's important to preserve history as it unfolds for which you're correct, the vandalized lettering should remain to show what has transpired for future generations who may look at it and make their own determinations based on past history as to which direction they want to go.

 

[exchemist]

There is a big statue of Churchill, outside the UK parliament

It has recently been defaced by Black Lives Matter protesters, who claim he was racist

There have been calls to have it removed

Question: Should the statue of Churchill outside the UK parliament be removed, or should we keep it?

For me: We should keep it, because on balance he did more good than bad. Also, he was of his time and cannot be judged by today's standards. And it's not just colonialism which is bad about him, he was also very tyrannical towards the Welsh miners (and the working class in general) before he became PM. Yet as war-time PM he was very successful at leading a war-effort that was in the best interest of all sections of society. And in the best interests of the entire world too.

I agree with you. Many significant figures in history have been complex characters, with strengths and weaknesses and a mixture of good and bad motives. We also need to be careful not to judge historical figures by standards that may be very different from those that prevailed in their day. Churchill was in some ways rather an idiot, with his absurd notion of the "soft underbelly" of Europe. His wartime strengths were chiefly his determination, energy and ability to communicate. He may also have been racist - but no more so, I think, than the world in which he grew up. We are all products of our time.

If we start taking down statues of everyone who held or expressed views we find unacceptable today, we won't have many of them left and our knowledge of our own history will be impoverished. Indeed, the statues of tyrants, bigots and fools can sometimes serve as a visible reminder to us of the danger of these traits.

I see some people in Ireland are now calling for the statue of Oliver Cromwell to be removed from Westminster. I've never been a fan of Cromwell, but this seems silly to me. Once we start down this road of airbrushing out unpleasant or contentious figures, I'm not sure where we stop. Ivan the Terrible? Henry VIII? Elizabeth I? Thomas Jefferson? Karl Marx?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why not compromise?

Take the statue out of a public setting and move it into a museum. I would even keep the vandalism, because that itself is a part of history we should preserve and remember.

There would be outrage if Churchill's statue were removed or even if there were a serious proposal to that effect.
Which there most definitely is not.

It is difficult to think of any national hero whose opinions and beliefs would not scandalise the modern sensibilities.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with you. Many significant figures in history have been complex characters, with strengths and weaknesses and a mixture of good and bad motives. We also need to be careful not to judge historical figures by standards that may be very different from those that prevailed in their day. Churchill was in some ways rather an idiot, with his absurd notion of the "soft underbelly" of Europe. His wartime strengths were chiefly his determination, energy and ability to communicate. He may also have been racist - but no more so, I think, than the world in which he grew up. We are all products of our time.

If we start taking down statues of everyone who held or expressed views we find unacceptable today, we won't have many of them left and our knowledge of our own history will be impoverished. Indeed, the statues of tyrants, bigots and fools can some serve as a visible reminder to us of the danger of these traits.

I see some people in Ireland are now calling for the statue of Oliver Cromwell to be removed from Westminster. I've never been a fan of Cromwell, but this seems silly to me. Once we start down this road of airbrushing out unpleasant or contentious figures, I'm not sure where we stop. Ivan the Terrible? Henry VIII? Elizabeth I? Thomas Jefferson? Karl Marx?

I definitely do not advocate destroying history which is what some people seem to be set out to do. That includes the unpopular statues such as the Confederacy and even the Union as well. I also would like to remain inclusive of the Native Americans with their opinions in history. The reservation near by me has their own Native American museum, and it was a very interesting place with the accounts you will not find in history books off the reservation.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to know true history is to put all the pieces on the table and assemble them together for the big picture as to what really transpired and all sides accounted for. That's proper preservation of history in my opinion.

 

[exchemist]

I definitely do not advocate destroying history which is what some people seem to be set out to do. That includes the unpopular statues such as the Confederacy and even the Union as well. I also would like to remain inclusive of the Native Americans with their opinions in history. The reservation near by me has their own Native American museum, and it was a very interesting place with the accounts you will not find in history books off the reservation.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to know true history is to put all the pieces on the table and assemble them together for the big picture as to what really transpired and all sides accounted for. That's proper preservation of history in my opinion.

As @February-Saturday says, I think there may be grounds for moving the occasional statue that seems particularly insensitively displayed, to a museum or to a less public spot, just to show that people are not expected, or assumed, to revere them today. This might apply to Colston in Bristol for instance. But on the whole I think being reminded of the bad figures in history helps us avoid repeating their errors.

 

[Nimos]

Question: Should the statue of Churchill outside the UK parliament be removed, or should we keep it?

Keep it, These are historical!!

Racism is bad and should be fought, but I bet you that most people from early history were racists or had a racial preference could you ask them. Before that we had slavery etc. Racism have to be fought with the mind and not emotions.

Ruining these statues and historical monuments are stupid as they are gone forever.

 

[Lyndon]

some memories are better off gone forever

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Keep it, These are historical!!

Racism is bad and should be fought, but I bet you that most people from early history were racists or had a racial preference could you ask them. Before that we had slavery etc. Racism have to be fought with the mind and not emotions.

Ruining these statues and historical monuments are stupid as they are gone forever.

Some statues are of people who have no redeeming features at all, Like the Bristol one. Perhaps a museum of slavery and horrors might be a suitable home for them, but a place of honour, in public, is certainly not.
But fortunately such people are a very small minority.

At the time, the people of Bristol were very grateful for the wealth that he brought to the City, and were as guilty as he was, for perpetuating the slave trade. The port also became a major trading port on the back of it.

 

[Nimos]

Some statues are of people who have no redeeming features at all, Like the Bristol one. Perhaps a museum of slavery and horrors might be a suitable home for them, but a place of honour, in public, is certainly not.
But fortunately such people are a very small minority.

At the time, the people of Bristol were very grateful for the wealth that he brought to the City, and were as guilty as he was, for perpetuating the slave trade.

Move it to a museum or just in storage would be fine, no issue with that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Move it to a museum or just in storage would be fine, no issue with that.

which statue are you talking about.?
The Churchill one is in exactly the right place.
I and many others would have a lot of issues with it being moved.

There are also replicas and variants of it in other countries.
Prague, Czech Republic, Canberra, Australia: Oslo, Norway; New Orleans, USA.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd say keep it. If someone wants to suggest the statue isn't there for positive contributions he made, then have at it.

For what it's worth, I'm not much a fan of Churchill, and have said as much on RF before.