We need to bin the ‘Churchill Test’. Because one-word answers simply don’t cut it.

Winston Churchill in 1945
John Ranson

Many people feel that politics has become simplistic. It’s too black and white; too polarised. And they could well be right. After all, we seem to have somehow arrived at the point where everything boils down to the ‘Churchill Test’. Was Churchill the greatest ever Briton or was he worse than Hitler? You decide.

Test or trap?

Or to put it another way, was Churchill a hero or a villain? One word answers only, please. Such was the trap laid for shadow chancellor John McDonnell recently. The consummate politician, he answered with two words: “Tonypandy – villain”. Of course, qualifying his answer – even making it specific to an incident in which Churchill set the army on striking Welsh miners – wasn’t enough to get McDonnell off the hook. In the eyes of some, he failed the ‘Churchill Test’.

Labour’s very own Lord Haw-Haw tribute act, Ian Austin, piped up to indicate that he for one thinks Churchill is the bee’s knees. The “greatest ever Briton”, no less. And the man who “motivated Britain to defeat the Nazis”. Yes, in Austin’s world it was Britain wot won it. Not ‘the Allies’, not the Soviet Union, not a whole combination of factors including Hitler’s own self-destructive obsessions. Because if Austin understands anything, it’s that in order to pass the ‘Churchill Test’, you have to go for broke. No half measures. Churchill did it; he saved the world; he’s the best person ever in the whole of history.

Start your day with The Canary News Digest

Fresh and fearless; get excellent independent journalism from The Canary, delivered straight to your inbox every morning.

Piers Morgan knows this, as does his sometime sparring partner, sometime sidekick, Susanna Reid. That’s why they treated the comments of Green Party MSP Ross Greer with such disdain. In the eyes of the GMB hosts, Greer failed the ‘Churchill Test’.

Hero?

The problem with all this is it rather obscures the fact that Churchill was extraordinary. Many people still alive today recall gathering round the family wireless to listen as ‘Mr Churchill addresses the nation’. His words, and the unusual yet iconic way in which he delivered them, had enormous power. There’s no doubt that these broadcasts played a crucial role in keeping the national chin up as the war entered its darkest depths. Those who heard them, and those who’ve grown up on the stories of them, are always going to have at least some admiration for Churchill’s abilities.

Continue reading below...

Villain?

As Greer said in the brief windows when Morgan wasn’t petulantly shouting over him, there are many other people for whom the mention of Churchill conjures very different memories. Because Churchill’s career reads like a microcosm of Britain’s horrific colonial history. Alongside the belligerent bulldog of folklore, there was a disgustingly bigoted individual, with scant regard for human life. Whether his values reflected or exceeded the prejudices of his time is a matter for debate. But it’s clear that they stink now. And recognising the genocidal harm these values did when Churchill put them into practice really shouldn’t be controversial.

Legacy

The world moves on. Hopefully it learns from its past in order to be better in the future. But memories are long. Edward Colston died in 1721, having grown rich on the miserable human trafficking of slavery. Only now is his legacy being unravelled as his home city of Bristol begins to disassociate itself from the Colston name.

The time will come for a wholesale re-evaluation of Churchill. In all probability, he’ll be filed alongside Colston and many other famous figures we gradually learned were awful. There’ll be a footnote to say that, without him, this country might have had a more battered history but a cleaner conscience. But it won’t happen yet. Not while the memories are still alive.

That means we’re left with a figure who occupies a huge space in the national psyche. We know enough to understand that this space is full of conflicting opinions and complex nuance. And that’s why we should have absolutely no hesitation in binning the ‘Churchill Test’.

What we think of this historical figure should have no more bearing on the present day than whether or not we think the right team won the Wars of the Roses. Anyone who invokes the ‘Churchill Test’ now only makes our public discussion more fractious and laughable. We can do better.

Featured image via Wikimedia

Since you're here ...

We know you don't need a lecture. You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.
Now, more than ever, we need your help to challenge the rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and thrive.

The Canary Support
  • Show Comments
    1. All a good discussion about its either black or white or none at all by John Ranson. Why it sounds like the discusion surrounding racism! Any discussion about the cultural identity of a people is ignored
      Churrhill did show an amazing talent in speaking to the public in WW11 , but also made some serious military blunders as in the Crimean War where so many Australians, and New zealanders lost their lives. Now imprinted upon their pysche forever as a horrible disregard for the life of young people sacrificed for the “State”.
      The “Will of the Colonial” State was beyond reproach, and need not be discussed.
      I think Eunice the black woman who appeared on Motherwell spoke so well on how these issues ought to be discussed so our social pysche can learn from these historical episodes.
      I see the “Churchhill Test” will be always with us as these people who conduct it have no interest in learning anything from an engagement with reality. Choosing to reflect instead their eternity for ever more.
      Life be damned is their attitude.
      Why they have no need to learn socially is a question to be discussed sooner than anyone will like.
      Broadmindedness anyone? Bring back the beauty of the enlightment from the 18th,19th centuries?

    2. Complicated character? He was a murderer, he ramped up the issue with Hitler (who could have been negotiated with) and we also know during the Crimean War he encouraged cannibalism.

    3. I hate to break it to people but Winston Churchill wasn’t this infallible war hero as he’s often made out to be. People should read Peter Hitchens’s superb myth busting book “The Phony Victory: The World War II Illusion” and everything Grace said about Churchill was spot on and if people can’t have mature discussions about his legacy then I’m sorry but history and politics isn’t the subject for you have fun in PR and propaganda making or better yet just stick to real estate and finance. and Jacob Rees Mogg revisionist history of Churchill’s war crimes in the Boer Wars and gassing of anti-colonial fighters in the Middle East is disgusting and THAT should cause a bigger controversy then John McDonnell’s comments, Churchill enabled fascism in Spain and Portugal, liked Hitler and Mussolini because of their rabid anti-communist, anti-worker’s views, and supported fascist and Nazi collaborators to take back Greece after WWII and supported the concentration camps way before and after WII when anti-colonialists made trouble for the empire so people can fuck off with his “he defeated Hitler so give him a pass”. Grace Blakely did good at presenting the case against Churchill. But we clearly don’t live in a world where proper history is taught in schools, just Ancient Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages and skip to World War II because its ‘the good war’.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.