Research has been done to further identify and understand whether Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Whintson Churchill was a hero or a colonist. Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College and History/Politics Professor begins a conversation by asking himself the question: “To what extent can one be a hero and colonist as well?”. Dr. Arnn expresses that Winston Churchill was unusual, important for only 60 years, 45 books, and 8,000 pages of speeches. Based on his research he argues that Winston Churchill “placed the empire in context of his own personal understanding of politics (7:11:00)”. Adding onto the notion of asking the question whether or not Churchill was a colonist or a hero. He then further analyzes the position of such an argument by stating “freedom is too hard to get and maintain as it requires devotion from people, and a form of government that will sustain them as they deliberate law for the government”. From this statement we can already see the direct political stance of Dr. Arnn. Such ideas, in most contexts, symbolize the unwillingness to accept that Churchill was a colonist, not a hero. However, we are not here to argue whether or not he was or was not. But rather why he was or was not. Similarly to the arguments of Professor McKeekin, who approached this conversation from an outside perspective as he is not a scholarly Winston Churchill researcher, both argue that Churchill could be a hero and did many great things. Although McKeekin does not seem to take a clear solid stand point.
Dr. Mukerjee, author of Churchill’s Secret War and Senior Editor at Scientific American, on the other hand explored the question why is it impossible for imperialist subjects to see Imperialism. Munkerjee explains that in 1885, Lord Randolph Churchill had urged British Parliamentarians to take good care of India ” (1:03:32). Described as “the most truly bright and precious gem in the crown of the Queen” (1:03:32). From here we can see the position in which Mukerjee is coming from on identifying Churchill as a Hero or Colonist. However, both Mukerjee and Arnn are slightly divided between different viewpoints.
Mukerjee and Arnn disagree with one another when it comes to the cabinet’s position in helping India with the relief and assisting with help during the war. What I am struggling with, is knowing how credible these sources are. During the conversation Arnn asserts that the documents are from cabinet meetings and not open to the public, then he mentioned “anyone can view these documents, they are public”. So who should we believe? It seems as though he is contradicting himself and doesn’t even know where these sources come from. Not only that but Dr. Arnn is a conservative scholar who appears to be closed-minded when it comes to hearing other sources from views opposed to his own. The question whether or not Winston Churchill was a hero or colonist should not be at question here. To what extent are these sources reliable? And Why should we believe them? Are they a full direct representation of what Churchill’s values were? Or are they simply documents that individuals use to retell a false story of someone who is not around to tell their own story? So I’ll leave it up to you. Winston Churchill: Hero or Colonist?