Churchill - not his finest hour...

[captain duff]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-as-a-young-man-churchills-views-on-race-and-democracy-beggared-belief-2118317.html

Good article on the lesser known parts of Churchill's career. Nothing new, but useful to understand nevertheless I think...

[Simon-JG-hr]

Possibly my favourite Churchill quote wasn't included, which is odd given the topic: "The strongest argument against democract is a five minute conversation with the average voter..."

He managed to be the world's biggest ever enigma. Being one of the greatest civilian leaders in history, whilst simultaneously managing to rub almost everyone up the wrong way. God knows how it did it, but let's be thankful - both for the intended and unintended consequences.

[Big_T_UK]

Sounds all very well and good to me, what am I missing?

[El Catador]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...f-2118317.html

Good article on the lesser known parts of Churchill's career. Nothing new, but useful to understand nevertheless I think...

A fascinating and genuinely shocking read.

Not the historical stuff, (others may want to debate that) I'm talking about the unethical and shoddy quality of the journalism employed.
Other than publications like 'The Sun' with its 'The Sun Says' editorial, I don't think I've ever read a piece so uncompromisingly and cynically manipulative and crude.

Every quote is preceded by the authors interpretation, judgement and condemnation.

i.e. "He gladly took part in raids"
"He bragged that he personally shot"
"The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities"
"Later, he boasted of his experiences there"

There is barely a single sentence in the article that isn't strewn with this type of prejudicial language. Sadly, for me, it had the effect of undermining the credibility of both the historian involved and in particular, the journalist behind the piece.

I can't speak for anyone else but I find this type of 'brain-washing' insulting and deeply sinister.
I thought the 'Independent' were about delivering 'facts' and leaving their interpretation to the reader?

Useful to understand? Yes.
But only for 'Media Studies' students wanting to look at how objectivity, integrity and truth are often manipulated in the press to serve an agenda.

In this case: a young historian out to make a name for himself, and a journalist with a child-like penchant for controversy.

[Puff Scotty]

The best thing about the article was the link to "Despicable Me" the new 3D cartoon - much more believable!

[Simon-JG-hr]

Damn, El Puss was all serious. I have to agree completely though - an extremely prejudicial way of delivery (more the sort of thing I'd expect to see in the Guardian or the Mail).

[senor_robusto]

i'm gonna toss a wee hand grenade into this debate.......

the 'great' britain churchill fought so hard for no longer exists!!! i reckon, if he could come back from the dead and the state of britain (and indeed europe) today, he would've wished he gave up the fight with the nazis!!

there's nothing sacred anymore, and churchill is as open to scrutiny as anyone....... the man openly admitted he had flaws!!! anybody who has churchill on a pedestal needs to get their heads out of their backsides!!! btw, i say this as someone who appreciates churchill and the part he played in 20th century!!! the man is an icon, but remember just that: that he was just a man, a man that we all know and love for having an iron will and steely determination!!!

....saying that, he must also be one of the only politicians ever to change political parties as much as he did!!! perhaps that was also something that happened 'years' ago......

alex

[Big_T_UK]

I want to chip in on this thread but I will get my arse banned so quick you would not believe....LOL

[senor_robusto]

hey big T, i think most on here could read between the lines on that

alex

[captain duff]

Churchill will always be a controversial figure, but he is one that has always interested me largely because of the contradictions (I used to cover him in A Level history when I still teaching, so I guess my interest is professional too).

On the one hand we have the leader who with great drive and determination led the country in the darkest days against the Nazis when other Tories like Halifax were ready to cut a deal and surrender. And we have the 'one nation' Tory who supported social reform to help the poor after being moved by the reports of Rowntree early in his political career.

This is the Churchill everyone knows of course. But is is correct to see the other less attractive Churchill. The one who in 1920 said of Iraqi tribesmen who were fighting against their land being colonised suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment" and that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq.

And of course it is an irony that a man who was so convinced of the racial inferiority of non-whites (hence his bitter fight to the end against Indian self-determination, along with all the other colonies), ended up on the right side against an even more brutal form of racism in the shape of nazi fascism.

So we need to go beyond either blind hero worship or blanket criticism to see the real Churchill. But at the same time, and for all his many faults, my own view is that it is undeniable that he was a intellectual giant of a politician (and a very good writer) and when placed against our current politicians of all parties makes them look like the ignorant short-sighted idiots most of them are...

[El Catador]

This is the Churchill everyone knows of course. But is is correct to see the other less attractive Churchill. The one who in 1920 said of Iraqi tribesmen who were fighting against their land being colonised suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment" and that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq.

Without wishing to nit-pick, this is the kind of 'Revisionism' of history and poor journalism I'm talking about.

The full quotation is/was:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. 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. 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 gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised 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."

When seen in context, and more importantly, in full, it casts a wholly different light on his views on the subject.

No saint, but not the ruthless, homicidal mad-man the (conveniently) 'truncated' quote makes him out to be.

Again, it's interesting to note that the FULL quotation is rarely used by this sort of historian.
After all, why let the facts get in the way of a politically motivated 'smear and spin' campaign.

My name's El Catador and I speak up for the dead (especially when they're being unfairly maligned).

[captain duff]

Well with defenders like you El Catador the dead need no enemies. The full quote could actually just as easily been said by Saddam in relation to his poison gas atrocities with the kurds don't you think? But actually, the biggest issue here in terms of this particular aspect is the contempt shown for those that were fighting and dying in large numbers (with no heavy artillery, airforce, navy, machine guns or, for that matter, poison gas) against being colonised by a bunch of racists (who were, incidentally, using the RAF under the command of Arthur 'Bomber' Harris to bomb civilian targets at that time). The full quote is actually no different to the shortened one in casting some light on Churchill's racist imperialist views. And of course the reason racist colonialists like Churchill were so interested in Iraq was that oil had been discovered there at the end of the 19th century and Britain along with other western powers wished to control it at the expense of the 'natives' - although I guess on that score some things clearly don't change very much at all...

[El Catador]

As stated earlier, I've no wish to get drawn into a debate about the right or wrongs of the politics of the time.

Though I strongly suspect that equally misguided (and erroneous), conclusions will be drawn about my own views on the politics in question.
C' est l vie.

My issue however, (as already stated) is with the author, and his highly selective, and deliberately misleading use of Churchill's statements in order to support his own particular interpretation and agenda.

Couple this with the pejorative language being banded about ('Bragging, Boasting, Shameful, Thug, etc) and it can leave no doubt as to the authors underlying intentions and motivations.

Irrespective of the historical accuracy (Including the right or wrongs of Churchill's actions), it is difficult to have much (if any) faith in the conclusions the author draws. Particularly when he is so clearly prepared to compromise his credibility and integrity by employing such tactics.

I'm sorry to say, but it comes across as nothing more than it is: A thinly veiled, highly selective and ideologically driven, hatchet job.

If you'll forgive me, I think it's unfortunate that you too have chosen to use language like: "bunch of racists", "Churchill's racist imperialist views", "racist colonialists" etc, in your own rebuttal.
With respect, I think it has the opposite effect of what you intend, and isn't helpful to the debate (As above).

We live in a democracy which allows us certain freedoms of speech, and therefore it is without doubt your prerogative to liken Churchill to Saddam Hussein if you wish (Though again, I suspect it's unhelpful).

I can't help but feel though that there is an inescapable irony to the whole debate, in as much as it could be argued that it's thanks to people like him that we're fortunate enough to enjoy these freedoms in the first place.

It's a great pity though that the rights and wrongs of this period of our nations history are seemingly impossible to debate rationally without being hi-jacked (and distorted) by one or other politically motivated ideology.

Perhaps ultimately, that is Churchill's legacy - 'Democracy and all its flaws'.
Love it or loathe it.

[Stevieboy]

Cat - I'm impressed! A whole thread with no smilies!

I take your point about the "yellow" journalism though...very provocative and obviously biased against the subject...

[celsis]

I reckon he was a product of his age where empirical rule was the norm and all foreigners were regarded with disdain. He was a warlord who stepped up to the plate when needed, but after the war was over, the people recognised that there was no longer any need for a warlord.

He was also an opportunist like every politician and would sell his mother to gain power viz. his changing of parties. Nowadays he would be a pariah.

Having said all that, he was at least honest. He DID see other races as being inferior and he DID look to genocide to solve problems, unlike folk like Bliar and his cohorts who had exactly the same views but would lie about it. One more thing, Churchill was NOBODY'S poodle!!!!

I didn't like the man or his views, but when he was needed, he stepped up to the plate.