Tag: 1926 General Strike

Churchill 101: Three Reasons to Learn about Sir Winston

Churchill 101: Three Reasons to Learn about Sir Winston

Orig­i­nal­ly writ­ten for and pub­lished by the Hills­dale Col­lege Churchill Project. This is one of sev­er­al forth­com­ing arti­cles intend­ed to encour­age younger read­ers to learn about Churchill. Read­er com­ment, sug­ges­tions of fur­ther points to make, and oth­er arti­cles on the same theme, would be appre­ci­at­ed.

_________

Learn …

Who was Win­ston Churchill? Why, half a cen­tu­ry since his death, is he the most quot­ed his­tor­i­cal fig­ure? Schol­ars know the answers. Do you? Why does it mat­ter?

It mat­ters because Churchill con­tin­ues to offer guid­ance and exam­ple today. His indomitable courage, his abil­i­ty to com­mu­ni­cate, his knowl­edge of his­to­ry, his polit­i­cal pre­cepts, are as valu­able now as they were in his time.…

Read More Read More

Churchill’s “Infallibility”: Myth on Myth

Churchill’s “Infallibility”: Myth on Myth

“Wood­carv­ings: A Streuth­say­er or Prophet of Doom,” Punch, 12Sep34.

Mr. Daniel Knowles (“Time to scotch the myth of Win­ston Churchill’s infal­li­bil­i­ty,” (orig­i­nal­ly blogged on the Dai­ly Tele­graph but since pulled from all the web­sites where it appeared), wrote that the “nation­al myth” of World War II and Churchill “is being used in an argu­ment about the future of the House of Lords.”

Mr. Knowles quot­ed Lib­er­al Par­ty leader Nick Clegg, who cit­ed Churchill’s 1910 hope that the Lords “would be fair to all par­ties.” Sir Winston’s grand­son, Sir Nicholas Soames MP, replied that Churchill “dropped those views and had great rev­er­ence and respect for the insti­tu­tion of the House of Lords.” Soames con­clud­ed: “But it doesn’t mat­ter.…

Read More Read More

Churchill and the “Feeble-Minded,” Part 2

Churchill and the “Feeble-Minded,” Part 2

Churchill in 1896.

con­tin­ued from part 1

Churchill’s ear­ly atti­tudes toward British “moral supe­ri­or­i­ty” were unfounded—but he was born into a world in which vir­tu­al­ly all his coun­try­men believed the same thing, from the Sov­er­eign to a Covent Gar­den gro­cer.

And yet it was Churchill, the aris­to­crat­ic Vic­to­ri­an, who argued that Sudanese had a “claim beyond the grave…no less good than that which any of our coun­try­men could make”; that in South Africa, Boer racism was intol­er­a­ble and the Indi­an minor­i­ty deserved the same rights as all British cit­i­zens. (This was some­thing Gand­hi nev­er for­got, though Churchill did,  and some­thing which Gand­hi praised years lat­er, when they were oppo­nents over the India Bill.)

It was this same Churchill who urged that shiploads of food be sent to a starv­ing Ger­many after the Great War end­ed the wartime block­ade; that the 1920 Arm­rit­sar mas­sacre in India must be con­demned and its per­pe­tra­tors pun­ished (“Fright­ful­ness is not a rem­e­dy known to the British phar­ma­copoeia”); that the coal min­ers should be com­pen­sat­ed after the 1926 Gen­er­al Strike; that car­pet bomb­ing Ger­man cities in World War II was moral­ly rep­re­hen­si­ble.…

Read More Read More