Britain’s History: Why Churchill is accused of being a racist? …. Here is the answer.

Racial views of Winston Churchill   (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Sir Winston Churchill

Throughout his life, Winston Churchill made numerous explicit(statements on race and his views on race contributed to his decisions and actions in British politics. From the late 20th century onwards, these attitudes resulted in a reappraisal of his life achievements and work by both British historians and the public in the context of his being Britain’s nationally celebrated wartime leader.

Churchill, author of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, was of the view that British domination, in particular through the British Empire, was a result of social Darwinism. He had a hierarchical perspective of race, believing white people were most superior and black people the least. Churchill advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Americas and the Caribbean.   

He held mixed views of West Asian Muslims, calling Afghans and Iraqis “un-civilised tribes”, but was highly supportive of Ibn Saud. Churchill saw East Asians as a civilised threat to Aryans.

Though wary of communist Jews, Churchill strongly supported Zionism and described Jews as “the most formidable and the most remarkable race”, whose “first loyalty will always be towards [Jews]”.

Churchill held views on the British populace that were eugenic in perspective, and was a proponent of forced sterilisation to preserve “energetic and superior stocks”.

Historian John Charmley has argued that Churchill’s racialised denigration of Mahatma Gandhi in the early 1930s contributed to fellow British Conservatives’ dismissal of his early warnings about the rise of Adolf Hitler. Churchill’s comments on Indians in particular were judged by his contemporaries within the Conservative Party to be extreme.

During the George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom in June 2020, a statue of Churchill in Parliament Square was spray-painted with the words “was a racist”, raising further public discussion of his views.

Judaism

Churchill had some sympathy for the “Jewish Bolshevism” conspiracy theory, and stated in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism” that communism, which he considered a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality”, had been established in Russia by Jews:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews; it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.

However, according to one of his biographers Andrew Roberts, Churchill rejected anti-Semitism for virtually all his life. Roberts also describes Churchill as an “active Zionist” and philosemitic at a time when “club-land anti-Semitism… was a social glue for much of the Respectable Tendency”. In the same article, Churchill wrote; “Some people like the Jews and some do not, but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race that has ever appeared in the world.” He further pointed out that the Bolsheviks were “repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race”, and concluded: “We owe to the Jews a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all wisdom and learning put together.”

In the lead-up to the Second World War, Churchill expressed disgust at Nazi anti-SemitismClement Attlee recalled that Churchill openly wept when recounting to him the humiliations inflicted upon Jews by the SA during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933. In August 1932 while in Munich, Churchill was snubbed for a meeting by Adolf Hitler when the two happened to be sharing the same hotel. Churchill expressed to Hitler’s confidante Ernst Hanfstaengl, “Why is your chief so violent about the Jews?… what is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?”

Palestine

In 1937, Mandatory Palestine was in the midst of an Arab nationalist uprising. During Parliamentary debates on the proper British policy Churchill spoke at length. He insisted that British government not renege on its promise, via the 1917 Balfour Declaration, to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. Because granting Palestine self-rule at this time would have meant rule by the Arab majority, he opposed such measures. Churchill believed that an eventual Jewish state in Palestine would advance the prosperity of the country for all. He asked rhetorically before the Peel Commission “Why is there injustice done if people come in and make a livelihood for more and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves?” His firsthand experience with Arab culture both as a soldier and MP “had not impressed him” in the words of historian Martin Gilbert. An Arab majority would result in cultural and material stagnation, Churchill maintained.

Alluding to pseudo-Aesop, Churchill rejected the Arab wish to stop Jewish migration to Palestine: “I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, though he may have lain there for a very long time I do not admit that right. 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 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. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, ‘American continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here’. They had not the right, nor had they the power.”

At the same time he believed that British policy should not result in what he called “harsh injustice” to the Arab majority and that the Arabs would not be displaced by the Jewish influx. He further emphasized the British responsibility to ensure that Palestine’s Jews would not discriminate economically against their Arab neighbours. He said that such discrimination would be a reason for restricting future Jewish immigration to Palestine. Churchill summarised his views before the Peel Commission bluntly: “It is a question of which civilization you prefer.”

India

Churchill often made disparaging comments about Indians, particularly in private conversation. At one point he explicitly told his Secretary of State for IndiaLeo Amery that he “hated Indians” and considered them “a beastly people with a beastly religion”. Churchill was inspired by the remembrance of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to take steps that disregarded the value of civilian lives in India. Churchill was also an avid admirer and follower of physicist Fredrick Lindemann, who regarded colonial subjects as “helots“, or slaves, whose only reason for existence was the service of racial superiors. Lindemann also supported scientific racism and mass lobotomies of Indians so that they would have “no thought of rebellion or votes, so that one would end up with a perfectly peaceable and permanent society, led by supermen and served by helots”.

During the Bengal famine of 1943, Churchill said that because Indians bred “like rabbits”, relief efforts would accomplish nothing. His War Cabinet rejected Canadian proposals to send food aid to India, but did ask the USA and Australia to send such aid instead. According to historian Arthur Herman, Churchill’s overarching concern was the ongoing Second World War, and he was thus willing to divert food supplies from India to Allied military campaigns. However, this assertion is belied by Churchill’s own words and actions, when he persisted in exporting grain to Europe, not to feed actual ‘Sturdy Tommies‘ (common soldiers), but to add to the buffer stocks that were being piled up in the event of a future second front invasions of Greece and YugoslaviaLeo Amery, Secretary of State for India and Burma and a contemporary of Churchill, likened his understanding of India’s problems to King George III‘s apathy for the Americas. In his private diaries, Amery wrote “on the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane” and that he did not “see much difference between [Churchill’s] outlook and Hitler‘s”. However, Amery did state that without Churchill’s assistance, the end result of the famine would have been worse, however little that assistance may have realistically been.

According to other defenders of Churchill, he was a “liberal imperialist”. He saw his country’s role as an imperial power as spreading liberal principles to “backward-looking societies” like India.

China

Churchill called China a “barbaric nation” and advocated for the “partition of China”. He wrote: “I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China – I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Chemical weapons in Iraq

After 1920 Iraqi revolt against the British, Churchill advocated the use of gas against “un-civilised tribes” (Note #1) as a means of dispersing rebels without excessive loss of life or resort to lethal force: “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 un-civilised 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: gases 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”.

He also described the Arabs as a “lower manifestation of humanity” than the Jews who he treated a “higher grade race” compared to the “great hordes of Islam”.

Notes

  1. “Un-civilised tribe” was the then-accepted official term for a stateless opponent: the British Manual of Military Law stated that the law of war applied only to conflict “between civilized nations.” Already in the Manual of 1914, it was clearly stated that “they do not apply in wars with uncivilised States and tribes”; instead the British commander should observe “the rules of justice and humanity” according to his own individual discretion.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Kman  On June 16, 2020 at 10:33 am

    Wow, and the British honours this dog. Racism is alive and well folks and it was invented by the British.
    Tha queen and other royals, elite, etc. in Britain should speak up and condemn this fat pig. But no, they will keep their pie holes shut and fuel racism.

    Imagine this dirty rat having the word church in his name!

    • Bernard  On June 17, 2020 at 12:51 am

      All monuments and statues commemorating this racist swine should be taken down, just like the racist pig Robert E. Lee. Trump calls it “out heritage “. Both Churchill and Lee saw people of colour as inferior, and whites as superior. The times are changing and it’s only a matter of time before these monuments are removed once and for all from public squares to the dump yard.

  • Veda Nath Mohabir  On June 16, 2020 at 4:18 pm

    So what caused these famines in India?

    The British, starting with what is deemed ‘the largest corporation in the world’, the British East India Co. (BEICo,) which entered India in 1610 and the ostentatious invader Muslim Mughal emperor Jahangir giving them carte blanche freedom to do what they pleased, with the only quid pro quo, was to take back “rarities” from England and abroad for his palace and personal decoration, gradually took over India from these effete oppressors.

    The BEICo then, whose sole motive was profit, changed the land use in India from food to industrial crops such as hemp, indigo, cotton (for English mills), tea and Opium (for export to China). Whereas, India would have saved grain for climate and weather changes, there was nothing to fall back on during the British BEICo and British Raj (crown) rule as the latter (esp under Churchill) shipped out even the reduced grain to fight wars and British bellies. Hence the devastating famines killing tens of millions Indians going back to at least the 1800s.

    VNM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s