Unsubstantiated attacks on historical figures

No one has ever suggested that Churchill is a saint. In fact his dslike of Indians ahs been long know.

It is a fact of life that most great leaders were very flawed individuals, that is what made them so great.

^ however I did emphasise with those in Bristol overturning the statue of Edward Colston, however, imo, it should have been removed and put into a museum with both sides^

That's just what happened to it, isn't it?

From AI

After a public consultation in which a large majority of Bristol respondents favoured a museum display, the statue was first exhibited temporarily at Bristol's M Shed museum in 2021. In 2024 it became part of a permanent exhibition about protest, racism, and Bristol's history. The statue is displayed lying on its side, as it was after being recovered from the harbour, while the original plinth remains in the city centre.

I don't think there is another 'side' to slavery. It was wrong and utterly inhumane. No upside...

I can’t help wondering whether the ‘beastly religion’ comment was at least partly down to the Hindu custom of widows condemned to be burned alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres, along (IIRC) with any concubines.

The Victorians were appalled at this custom, and AFAIK did their best to stamp it out. And Churchill was born a Victorian.

NotSpaghetti

I am not in favour of destroying any art piece

I think these sculptures should have been put in context - maybe all in galleries.

👍👍👏👏👏👏

BoggledMind

The debate around Winston Churchill and India will continue for a long time, and people will continue to air their views on the subject. However, this 'work of art' raises a big problem.

According to the NPG it was presented as an artistic piece, not a documentary. On that basis, what's to stop someone making a short documentary about a living person, spouting all sorts of derogatory, harmful nonsense about them, and justifying it by saying it's just art? Imagine it going to court. Verdict: Not guilty, it's just a work of art.

People's reputations could end up being destroyed in the name of art.

I do agree.

We cannot change history, only learn from it.

We inhabit a very different world now and would hope most of us hold fairer views towards others than we might have done decades ago.

I think it’s OK to express both praise and criticism on historic public figures, in any form, so long as it’s factual and provable.

I don’t agree with vandalising statues, arts etc, it does nothing other than reflect a certain mentality, however I did emphasise with those in Bristol overturning the statue of Edward Colston, however, imo, it should have been removed and put into a museum with both sides of his story told. He was of his era and brought great wealth to Bristol.

The debate around Winston Churchill and India will continue for a long time, and people will continue to air their views on the subject. However, this 'work of art' raises a big problem.

According to the NPG it was presented as an artistic piece, not a documentary. On that basis, what's to stop someone making a short documentary about a living person, spouting all sorts of derogatory, harmful nonsense about them, and justifying it by saying it's just art? Imagine it going to court. Verdict: Not guilty, it's just a work of art.

People's reputations could end up being destroyed in the name of art.

I agree with you, Oreo. I am no fan of Mr Churchill for a number of reasons, but he was a man of his time, and showed leadership and was an inspiring figure to many in 1940.
Locally, a man noted for his oft - expressed views (controversial? contrary? attention - seeking? all of the above?) did paint his views on Mr Dickens racism on a local small museum about him.
He almost certainly was, and I could make a case for Mr Dickens being a misogynist, both in his novels, and in his personal life.
However, the past is a different country...

Oreo

I never consider a video display as a work of art anyway.

Me neither but horses for courses I suppose 😕

I never consider a video display as a work of art anyway.

I have never seen adulation of Churchill but great admiration for his role in the Second World War.
He didn’t do well in lots of other situations but was a product of his time and class.

We should be grown up about this and realise that our heroes have clay feet.
And Churchill was of a generation of privileged white men in power all of whom probably had very questionable opinions and were responsible for acts of inhumanity against the natives of various parts of the Empire.
I do know that Churchill when younger ordered early versions of war planes to drop bombs on Kurdish villages in Iraq in order to test out the accuracy etc., of said planes.
I know is hard to see such a giant in our history as unworthy of the adulation many have for him, but in my opinion no human being deserves to be worshipped. I admire certain historical figures but I do see them as human beings who are fallible.

Sarnia

NotSpaghetti

As far as i have read about this Churchill did not deliberately engineer the famine to kill Indians but he knew all about it, was begged for help from Avery and Wavell, operated a scorched earth policy, and blamed the famine on the people "breeding".

He and his cabinet possessed full knowledge of the human cost, possessed the resources to alleviate it significantly, and chose to push those people aside.

On a much smaller scale, Churchill refused to help the Channel Islands nearing the end of WW2. With the Germany army being pushed back through France after the D-Day landings, all supply ships to the Channel Islands were stopped due to cut off of supply lines. Food, fuel and medication was seriously short for Islanders and Germans alike. The Germans asked Churchill to arrange evacuation of women, children and the elderly to help alleviate the crisis. He refused and wrote the comment. 'Let 'em starve. No fighting. They can rot at their leisure'. Very divided opinion on what he meant but Islanders saw it as a refusal to help British citizens in time of dire need.

'...“…and our dear Channel Islands are also to be freed today' (Churchill 8th May 1945).

'Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.'

'Twas ever thus'.

NotSpaghetti

As far as i have read about this Churchill did not deliberately engineer the famine to kill Indians but he knew all about it, was begged for help from Avery and Wavell, operated a scorched earth policy, and blamed the famine on the people "breeding".

He and his cabinet possessed full knowledge of the human cost, possessed the resources to alleviate it significantly, and chose to push those people aside.

On a much smaller scale, Churchill refused to help the Channel Islands nearing the end of WW2. With the Germany army being pushed back through France after the D-Day landings, all supply ships to the Channel Islands were stopped due to cut off of supply lines. Food, fuel and medication was seriously short for Islanders and Germans alike. The Germans asked Churchill to arrange evacuation of women, children and the elderly to help alleviate the crisis. He refused and wrote the comment. 'Let 'em starve. No fighting. They can rot at their leisure'. Very divided opinion on what he meant but Islanders saw it as a refusal to help British citizens in time of dire need.

It seems you’re talking to yourself now as far as the original topic is concerned NotSpaghetti…

I suspect the peers who objected were tory…

Interesting that a few peers can get an art work removed quite speedily when Bristol inhabitants begged for the removal of slaver Colston’s statue for year to no avail…

Art is interpretation not historical record.
Obviously it becomes a part of our historical record

I am not in favour of destroying any art piece

I think these sculptures should have been put in context - maybe all in galleries.

Just read this which explains what was in the piece that 50 peers objected to.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2026/jun/23/artwork-removed-national-portrait-gallery-helen-cammock-churchill-bengal-famine

In the work, Cammock, who narrates the 40-minute piece, discusses Oliver Cromwell’s campaigns in Ireland, saying “he starved people, en masse, a little like the wilful starvation of the Indian population by Winston Churchill”.

If that us the nub of it I don't think it's SO far from the mark!

I haven't seen the piece but it's obviously not all about Churchill. He may have only been mentioned in this one phrase - almost an aside!

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who saw it.
Maybe you saw it MawsRosie?

NotSpaghetti

It is an art piece, not a historical record.

Interesting. So toppling sculptures of historical figures is just destroying an art piece, not our history?

Not that I objected in the slightest to such ‘toppling’, I just think your argument is a novel one.

NotSpaghetti

As far as i have read about this Churchill did not deliberately engineer the famine to kill Indians but he knew all about it, was begged for help from Avery and Wavell, operated a scorched earth policy, and blamed the famine on the people "breeding".

He and his cabinet possessed full knowledge of the human cost, possessed the resources to alleviate it significantly, and chose to push those people aside.

That sounds like wilful infliction to me. He knew about it and did nothing to stop it.

It is an art piece, not a historical record.

Amery's own diary
Naturally I lost patience and couldn't help telling him that I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's, which annoyed him no little.

Churchill told him;
I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion

The historical consensus is clear that he and the War Cabinet in London were repeatedly, explicitly warned about the scale of the catastrophe by British officials on the ground in India. They continued to export Indian grain to fuel the war effort elsewhere and built up massive grain stockpiles in Europe.

I think this is bad enough.

In his defence he did eventually write to America and asked them to help India!

(Just noticed Amery was corrected to Avery earlier. Sorry)

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

As far as i have read about this Churchill did not deliberately engineer the famine to kill Indians but he knew all about it, was begged for help from Avery and Wavell, operated a scorched earth policy, and blamed the famine on the people "breeding".

He and his cabinet possessed full knowledge of the human cost, possessed the resources to alleviate it significantly, and chose to push those people aside.