I really enjoyed The Last Lion a biography of Churchill by William Manchester. I look forward to comparing that book with this.
A New Biography of Churchill
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> His biography demonstrates its subject’s greatness but manages to make him lovable, too So, nothing about the racist, imperialist side? Yet another hagiography?
Literally the paragraph below your quote: > Yet Mr Roberts does not gloss over the many examples of terrible judgment that littered Churchill’s career before (and even after) becoming prime minister, errors which created a widespread perception that, while brilliant, energetic and matchlessly eloquent, he was also unreliable, excessively passionate, even dangerous. The charge sheet is long: his opposition to votes fo…
Given Churchill's racism, for instance, the quote ("His biography demonstrates its subject’s greatness but manages to make him lovable, too") seems a bit off, no? A biography that presents Churchill as "lovable" clearly does not give these things the weight they deserve.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#13I really enjoyed The Last Lion a biography of Churchill by William Manchester. I look forward to comparing that book with this.
Seconded, the three volume set is a very worthwhile read.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#14While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted as saying "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…
A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened.
In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#15While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted as saying "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…
The difference is that the things that we praise Churchill for, e.g. leading the unpopular fight against the Nazis, were almost unique to him. Yet the charge that 'he favored eugenics and was deeply racist' could be levelled at many or most of his peers.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally the paragraph below your quote: > Yet Mr Roberts does not gloss over the many examples of terrible judgment that littered Churchill’s career before (and even after) becoming prime minister, errors which created a widespread perception that, while brilliant, energetic and matchlessly eloquent, he was also unreliable, excessively passionate, even dangerous. The charge sheet is long: his opposition to votes fo…
Given Churchill's racism, for instance, the quote ("His biography demonstrates its subject’s greatness but manages to make him lovable, too") seems a bit off, no? A biography that presents Churchill as "lovable" clearly does not give these things the weight they deserve.
I don't think racists are fundamentally unlovable. Perhaps we just disagree.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#17While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted as saying "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…
A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened. In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.
Yes. I recommend "Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era". An eye opening view about the "Progressives" who are so loved and idolized by the modern left or modern progressives.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#18While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted as saying "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…
A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened. In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.
I'm not sure I'd describe the Carnegie Institution, or Rockefeller Foundation, who funded a lot of the eugenics research with the end in mind as notably liberal progressive. Nor could the Republicans Coolidge ("Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races") and Hoover, who were both heavily in favour, be described as progressive liberals. Roosevelt was in favour too, of course.
It was a movement independent of politics, and especially popular in pre-war USA on both sides of the political divide.
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#19He probably killed more people then hitler
Re: A New Biography of Churchill
#20While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted as saying "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…
A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened. In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.
Eugenics was a strongly held belief of Margaret Sanger, founder of today's Planned Parenthood.
Sanger had other strong negatives in her past, including speaking before KKK affiliated groups.
Real history is sometimes inconvenient, depending on your political point of view.