<![CDATA[This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill. The British Prime Minister was one of the most controversial figures in history, on the one hand the stubborn war time leader praised for inspiring Great Britain during the Second World War, on the other a supposed racist, relic of imperialism and early advocate of chemical weapons. It is impossible to simply label Churchill as a hero or villain, a task which in practice is more an academic exercise in historical context than a meaningful way of understanding him or any other historical figure. If anything Churchill and the things he represented provide a lesson in the value of attempting to understand the significance of a person without framing them within a system of good or evil, hero or villain. The General Election of 1904 saw Churchill elected as the Conservative MP for Oldham, a post which quickly exposed his inclination towards controversy. Within four years he had 'crossed the chamber', switching his allegiance from the Conservative party to the Liberal. Churchill's decision was based on his frustration at the Tory party's lack of progress in implementing social reform, an issue which had been becoming increasingly integral to British politics. Churchill's time in the Liberal Party saw him campaign strongly on the side of issues such as a government mandated minimum wage and a system of public health insurance - progressive, reformist issues. Indeed, in Boris Johnson's biography of Churchill, he compares his contribution to the creation of the Welfare State with that of David Lloyd George. Churchill rejoined the Conservatives in 1924 - but his work for social reform in his twenties and thirties seems to bring into question the image of him as a kind of arch-conservative, hinting towards the complexities of his history and his political views. As if to prove these contradictions, in 1910, while still a Liberal campaigning for Welfare reform, Churchill established his long held reputation as an enemy of trade unions and a brutal strike breaker with his treatment of the Tonypandy miners. The South Wales town was consumed by a dispute between miners and mine owners in November 1910, which quickly escalated into a miners strike. When strikers clashed with police, Churchill ordered soldiers into the town to stop the strike. In 1919, when Churchill was Secretary of State and War, he ordered 10,000 troops to Glasgow to suppress strikes and unrest he feared could be a precursor to a Bolshevik uprising in the city. Accusations of racism have been thrown at Churchill, based on both his quotes and actions. Last September, Labour candidate for the Wyre and Preston North parliamentary seat Benjamin Whittingham declared on Twitter that Churchill was a "white supremacist and racist", a comment which inspired outrage from Churchill's grandson Sir Nicholas Soames and the Daily Mail. Whittingham deleted his post, but he is not the first to make such an accusation. In 1937 Churchill told the Palestinian Commission, in relation to Native American Indians and Aboriginals in Australia "I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." Such views were of course not uncommon in Churchill's time, but neither were they universal. Defenders of Churchill argue that it would be wrong to judge him by modern standards - that his ideas would not have seemed so abhorrent to his contemporaries - but equally, surely, if we condemn an idea from the past, we must judge its believers by the same standard? This dilemma presents a microcosm of the futility of trying to apply any kind of moral judgment to Churchill. Essentially both arguments are true, but debating them provides very little insight into Churchill, or the world he lived in. His response to a famine in India is another area of significant controversy. In 1943, as Britain was embroiled in the Second World War, Churchill seemed to fail to appreciate the severity of the Bengal famine and use wheat reserves from elsewhere in the Empire to meet India's need. Churchill's lack of response is often cited as a contributor to the famine's tragic death toll. Churchill in fact even seemed to imply that the famine was the Indian's own fault, claiming "they breed like rabbits". Defenders argue that it would have been impossible for Churchill to respond to the famine, because of the war. Nevertheless, this defense can not excuse the role Churchill played in the event. The image of Churchill as a British national hero comes from his leadership in the Second World War - his "Bulldog spirit". One could argue that the increasing cynicism and questioning of him is a sign of a new generation that questions 'war' like never before. As war is met with increasing cynicism (evidenced by the widespread criticism of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the campaign to prevent intervention in the Syrian Civil War a few years ago), an individual's role as a 'war hero' carry's less currency when their reputation is assessed. It is also a sign of a generation that is increasingly detached from the 'Churchill' era and the triumphalism he embodied. This means that although assessments of him may not be blinded by notions of patriotism and a 'war spirit', there is a danger they can go too far the other way, overlooking the importance he had to the Second World War generation. There are countless other controversies and triumphs, atrocities and victories that could be discussed in relation to Churchill, which can be useful signifiers for the impact Churchill had, and the ever changing, often tragic world he lived in. Churchill was a contradictory figure; a supposed racist and white supremacist who also supported the creation of a mosque in London, a social reformer who campaigned against Communism. Trying to understand the causes of these contradictions has the potential to be hugely informative. On the anniversary of his death, the media will be full of assessments trying to either celebrate or condemn Churchill, an ultimately obscene and futile task. Churchill's life is a prime example of one which should purely be assessed on its historical importance, a man who was both a creator and a product of his context. The question of hero or villain is an irrelevant and impossible one. Understanding the role Churchill played in forming the world we now live in, and the world he represented, is vital, however. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons User: Library of Congress]]>
Churchill
