Comments on: Revealed Wisdom on the Campus: Churchill was a White Supremacist

By: Monsieur Bouvard

Monsieur Bouvard — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:30:42 +0000

In my reading experience of Churchill (which I admit is limited) I find that when he speaks of "race" he almost always means a "people" or a "nation" with a long political history, customs, beliefs, ideas, mores, peculiar cultivations of the arts sciences, and other conditions. His way of thinking has nothing in common with simplistic ideas of "racial supremacy", to say nothing of base and simple-minded materialistic notions. Churchill often acknowledges the existence of one "human race" with peaks of "civilizations" and depths of "barbarism."

By: Richard Munro

Richard Munro — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 21:58:11 +0000

One could easily denounce George Washington for 'retrograde' White Supremacist views. Similarly, Lincoln lived in a world in which "universal suffrage" meant white male universal suffrage. Like Washington, Lincoln's views evolved yet were always based on the natural rights doctrine of equality found in the Declaration. In 1859 Lincoln wrote, "the principles of Jefferson are the definitions of a free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded with no small show of success." Lincoln rejected White Supremacy and said, "those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God can not long retain it." Robert Sherwood's drama "Abe Lincoln in Illinois" (1938) had Lincoln say should we read the Declaration as "all men are created equal, except negroes, foreigners, Catholics and Jews." I have studied Churchill's life and writings for over fifty years. Never did Churchill express admiration for dictatorship, arbitrary government, or extreme authoritarianism. Washington and Lincoln lived in slave-owning societies, yet progressed beyond the prejudices of their time. Churchill was an aristocrat by birth and education, yet the reason he is socompelling is that he progressed beyond the Social Darwinism and Laissez Faire of his time to embrace a more liberal, pragmatic social policy, including female suffrage. We should make a grave error if we slip into presentism and obsession with political correctness. Churchill must be judged by the entirety of his life and thought, not by quibbles over his use of what seem to us old-fashioned terms like "Christian Civilization." Churchill was, as Andrew Roberts has demonstrated, the greatest defender of liberty, natural rights, rule of law and due process in modern times. It is not too much to say Churchill was the savior not only of his nation but of liberty itself. He put fascism, anti-Semitism and racial supremacy to the sword. All honor to him for that.

By: Richard M. Langworth

Richard M. Langworth — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:42:13 +0000

In reply to RaymondGW. Well taken. But Churchill didn't indulge with what we now call "verbal dog whistles," and wouldn't have understood the term. He said what he thought, and what he felt the people should hear. Balanced historians have valid criticisms of what he said on certain occasions. True, he was more judicious on race than Lincoln. Of course he was born sixty-five years later—and forty years after Britain had abolished slavery. The U.S. had abolished slavery in two-thirds of the Union by the time Lincoln was born. It fell to him to confront the remnant. I was going to refer you to a scholar's juxtaposition of Lincoln and Churchill, "Churchill and Racisim: Think a Little Deeper." But I see I have quoted that scholar above.

By: RaymondGW

RaymondGW — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:00:54 +0000

I enjoy this reading, and believe that many historical figures enjoy scrutiny that fails to place questions in the proper context before coming up with an answer. However, it seems a little small-minded to talk about excommunication from the Church of the Politically Correct, when it seems obvious that Churchill how language can be co-opted with verbal dog whistles sending coded messages to ‘like-minded folk.’ I also wonder about the comparison to Lincoln, who in his own private letters laid his racial arguments bare. Lincoln realized that the racial question had to be answered, that either blacks could have no rights anywhere in America or they had to have all rights everywhere in America, and he went with the option that he thought had the greatest ability to preserve the Union in the long run. It was as much of a political decision as it was a moral one, Probably more so. It seems to me that Churchill might have been a little more judicious than Lincoln in his thoughts on race.