Poll: Churchill Statue

[lewisnotmiller]

Should we keep a statue of one of the most important figures in 20th C history and a key component in stopping the spread of Nazism throughout Europe?

Hmm, that's a tough one...

If we went through every single national hero in the world, how many of them would pass the 'woke' test of moral purity as defined by whatever is most fashionable at the time of asking? Modern 'progressive' puritanism is a very silly fad at that.

I think the statue should stay, too.
But I think suggesting Churchill is only questionable under a modern day test of 'woke' purity seems fairly dubious.

He had his critics right through his career, with the early 40s being somewhat of an exception.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I know it's not you saying it, but "murdering 3 million" is a very stupid claim by anyone who does actually make it. As if Churchill deliberately chose to kill every single one of them and had a totally free hand to do whatever he wanted in the middle of the biggest war in history

How many deaths are blamed on the famine itself? How many on the cyclones that damaged transportation infrastructure? How many on local officials who have much of the responsibility? How many on the leaders of other Indian provinces who were reluctant to share their harvests? How many on Hitler for starting the biggest war in history which made normal governance a little inconvenient at times? How many on the Japanese for conquering much of Asia and their food supplies? How many for the Axis navies for sinking so many ships that supply became much harder? How many on Axis navies for not letting the allies do exactly what they wanted at sea with their remaining ships (including the Bay of Bengal)? How many on the fact that food was in short supply pretty much everywhere and some people were always going to miss out?

Can hardly judge myself, as not knowing much about the event, but it sounds horrific:

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

As I said in the other thread, I've instituted a new rule: even one genocide and you lose the right to a monument.

Which genocide?

I should probably add to this that you also lose the right to a monument if you ever use chemical or biological weapons against civilians.

This would make Churchill probably 3- or 4- times disqualified at least.

Which 3-4 times?

Are you counting tear gas?

A departmental minute Churchill wrote in the War Office on 12 May 1919 has been used by detractors to suggest that he did indeed think frightfulness was acceptable, once again through selective quotation. ‘I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,’ he wrote about the British policy in Iraq. ‘We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare.’ Yet the rest of the minute, which often goes unquoted, makes it clear that Churchill was referring to tear gas, not to chlorine or lethal gases. ‘It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [tear-causing] gas,’ Churchill wrote. ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

Andrew Roberts - Churchill: Walking with Destiny

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

A huge factor should be what is the statue celebrating? It appears that this particular statue is celebrating Churchill for his leadership during WWII... which is something the man accomplished and that the people of England should rightfully acknowledge him for, regardless of how racists he may or may not have been. IF the statue was depicting him leading soldiers into battle against the Indian states he's accused of being so racists against THAT would be horrible offensive and should be removed.

The situation in the US concerning removing statues of General Lee is completely different, since Lee didn't accomplish ANYTHING that could be considered positive for the United States of America. In fact the offensive statues depict him leading his soldiers into battle in an attempt to tear this great nation apart. That's not something that ANY true America would want to see celebrated.

 

[Augustus]

But I think suggesting Churchill is only questionable under a modern day test of 'woke' purity seems fairly dubious.

He had his critics right through his career, with the early 40s being somewhat of an exception.

He's certainly not beyond reproach, but few people who led great powers have been.

What would you say the best argument for removing the statue would be based on the morality of the period it occurred in and without the benefit of hindsight?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think people should definitely remember Churchill for his accomplishents as First Lord of the Admiralty during WW1, when he was responsible for the Gallipoli campaign.

That's also the period when Churchill expressed his own views on honouring traditional values, right?

"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Damn, sounds like he and Hitler would've made better friends than enemies.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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 don't care if they pull it down and throw it in the Thames. He was a racist ******* and I never buy the "product of their time" arguments. They can tear down slave-owning Jefferson's statues, too. Time for new heroes.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Were you angered when Saddam's statues were toppled? Saddam has historical significance, after all.

 

[Shaul]

There should be a third poll option, remove the statue and replace it with a larger one.

 

[Lyndon]

Is this some kind of contest so see who can be the biggest supporter of Churchill's racist legacy??

 

[Tambourine]

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

Almost as bad as in 1989/1990, when people wantonly destroyed historic monuments in Central and Eastern Europe.
They even took down the Berlin Wall!

 

[Notanumber]

Damn, sounds like he and Hitler would've made better friends than enemies.

Hitler wanted to be friends but Winston had standards.

 

[Notanumber]

Is this some kind of contest so see who can be the biggest supporter of Churchill's racist legacy??

Where would the Jews be now without Churchill’s legacy?

 

[Lyndon]

hopefully not in Palestine!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He's certainly not beyond reproach, but few people who led great powers have been.

What would you say the best argument for removing the statue would be based on the morality of the period it occurred in and without the benefit of hindsight?

Churchill? I don't think there is a good reason to. I'd leave it alone.

My point was merely that his views were at times questionable. The simplest example would be his views on Hinduism. He was by no means alone in terms of British ruling class considerations, but neither was he visionary. There are plenty of questionable views today which are popular with certain segments of society. Just as it is problematic to judge historical figures through a modern lens, I think sometimes we fall into the trap of judging people by their peers only, rather than holistically in their own time.

At Gallipoli he was willing to sacrifice a lot of men to political expediency (in my opinion) and there were plenty of his contemporaries suggesting the same.

I'm sure we'd agree, all great figures are flawed. And I'd leave the statue.

I just don't think it's purely 'woke' people ignorant of history who need to balance his actions. There are plenty who lionize Churchill to the point of caricature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where would the Jews be now without Churchill’s legacy?

You do know that Churchill opposed a Jewish state, right?

Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

You do know that Churchill opposed a Jewish state, right?

Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia

You do know there is a bust of Churchill in Jerusalem for his support of Zionism, right?


Israel to give Churchill recognition for his warm ties with the State

A bust of Britain’s wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill, will be unveiled in central Jerusalem on Sunday in a ceremony commemorating his contribution to the founding of the state of Israel and his warm ties with the Jewish people.

Churchill’s relationship with the British Jewish community goes back to 1904, when he sat in Parliament for the North-West Manchester constituency where a third of the voters were Jewish.

Even before that, the young Churchill and his father, Lord Randolph, were notable for their open friendships with Jews in the openly antisemitic atmosphere of their time.

Throughout his career in ministerial positions and in the wilderness of opposition, Churchill was a staunch supporter of the Balfour Declaration, forcing the various governments to adhere to Britain’s commitment to establish a Jewish national homeland in Palestine, which he visited twice.

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/is...tion-for-his-warm-ties-with-the-state-1.37938

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, he was of his time and cannot be judged by today's standards.

We should hold him to the standards of his contemporaries. Like Hitler. Who was also of his time and of the same time.
Even with WW2, Churchill provided a good voice for the English public, but ultimately it was Stalin's early intervention and strikes against Hitler (while those such as Churchill still thought Hitler was a great guy) that enabled the possibility of an Allied victory, amd thus saving us from the Nazis. But Churchill, Stalin, and Uncle Sam (FD Truman, in this case?) won, so their crimea and wrong doings got to be swept under the rug and ignored.

 

[Notanumber]

Some would rather the Jews had been wiped off the face of the earth.

For clarification, I am not one of them.