MovieChat Forums > Darkest Hour (2017) Discussion > The man voted ‘greatest ever Briton’ was...

The man voted ‘greatest ever Briton’ was a vile racist, imperialist and eugenics enthusiast


https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/what-darkest-hour-doesnt-tell-you-about-winston-churchill

TODAY the latest Winston Churchill film, Darkest Hour, opens in British cinemas. It is already being tipped for the Oscars, with Gary Oldman’s portrayal of Churchill at the helm of speculation.

I can attest, having already seen the film, that Oldman’s performance is indeed brilliant, but let us be clear. While it is a great piece of cinema that, artistically speaking, deserves, and will almost certainly receive, numerous awards, it is also a film that glorifies a certifiably vile man.

When watching we should bear in mind that Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, the man voted “greatest Briton” by the British public in 2002, was not just a “terribly inconsiderate man,” as one of his secretaries once described him. In fact, she said she’d “never known anyone who was so inconsiderate.” He was also a staunch imperialist, a racist supremacist and a eugenicist who advocated the forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, prevention of their marriage and their internment in compulsory labour camps.

In December 1910, aged 36, Churchill wrote to prime minister Herbert Asquith warning of the “unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes” (general terms then used to describe the mentally ill and impaired).

Their rapid growth, he argued, coupled with the “steady restriction [of the] thrifty, energetic and superior stocks” (folks like himself, of course), constituted “a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.”

He argued that they should be “sterilised” or “segregated under proper conditions so that their curse died with them and was not transmitted to future generations.”

He told Parliament of the need for compulsory labour camps for “mental defectives” and that for “tramps and wastrels […] there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realise their duty to the state.”

As he put it, “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.”

Only a decade earlier, at the age of 26, Churchill had declared his life’s commitment to the “improvement of the British breed.”

As historian John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory: A Political Biography (1993), wrote, “Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy.”

Indeed, the reality omitted from most depictions of our “greatest Briton,” including from Darkest Hour, is that he was both a right-wing nationalist and a white supremacist. It should be no surprise that the far right has always idolised him, from the BNP, EDL and Britain First to neoconservatives in the US).

When speaking in 1902 of the “great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilised nations,” he asserted that the “Aryan stock is bound to triumph.”

In 1937, aged 62, he justified mass genocide of indigenous peoples on the grounds of white supremacy, announcing to the Palestinian Royal Commission: “I do not admit [...] 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 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.”

Of Palestinians themselves he said that they are just “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.”

But what of the argument that he was a product of his time — didn’t everyone think like that back then?

As historian Richard Toye has shown in his book, Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made (2010), they didn’t.

Many of Churchill’s colleagues saw him at the more extreme end of racist and imperialist ideology, referring to him as a “Victorian” because of his outdated views.

Prime minister Stanley Baldwin was warned by Cabinet colleagues not to appoint him and his doctor Lord Moran said of his approach to Chinese and Indians: “Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin.”

It should be no surprise then that he was vehemently opposed to Indian independence, declaring that Gandhi “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back. Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be [...] crushed.”

He would later remark: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

It also warrants noting here his advocacy for the use of chemical weapons to repress other peoples under Britain’s imperial rule.

....

reply

Yawn. The man single-handedly saved western civilization. End of story.

reply

That's nonsense. You should look up the Why We Fight series of movies from WWII, and specifically the Battle Of Russia. Most Americans should do this especially as regards todays crisis with Russian and Ukraine to understand why Russians think the way they do.

The Battle of Russia ( 1943 )
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B01613KDVK/ref=atv_hm_hom_1_c_lZOsi7_2_1

reply

I agree with you. The lionization of heroes to bolster a fairy tale narrative is so common in human societies, and it is no doubt where the idea of leaders declaring themselves gods came from and goes thousands maybe tens of thousands of years back.

I would like to think humans are ready to give up that crap, but it is so a part of our nature I think it will take a long time ... time that we may not have.

reply

Long article: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/eugenics-origins-0016858

Thus, the idea of modern eugenics, first attributed to Galton in his seminal work Inquiries into Human Fertility and Its Development , which disseminated the idea that intelligence was hereditarily acquired and that the ‘higher races’ of humanity were destined to rule, shared very little continuity with the doctrines of the ancient Greeks.

After Galton’s landmark publication, interest around eugenics exploded around the turn of the century, and in 1904 the first eugenics journal, the Archive for Racial and Social Biology would be founded by German biologist Alfred Ploetz, focusing prominently on the superiority of the Nordic and Aryan races and the notion of ‘racial hygiene’. With the establishment of the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany, the Eugenics Education Society in Britain, and the American Breeders Association, eugenics was becoming a truly global phenomenon in the first decade of the 20th century.

Eugenics was most enthusiastically received in the United States, and in 1910 the Eugenics Record Office was founded by Charles Davenport with funding from noted businessmen John Harvey Kellogg. The institution trained survey workers to collect information on US families, who were judged on such attributes such as ‘feeblemindedness’, ‘criminality’, and ‘alcoholism’. The latest developments in eugenics were compiled in a journal called Eugenical News which was nationally distributed.

reply