In June of 2020, while protests erupted across the United States following the murder of George Floyd by Mineanapolis police office Derek Chauvin, a statue of Winston Churchil erected in Parliament Square, London was defaced. This was part of a “Black Lives Matter” protest that was taking place in London at that time. The movement and it’s protests came to a head that summer, with protests raging both within and outside of the United States. On the front of the Churchill statue, black spray paint was used to write “CHURCHILL was a racist” underneath the name of the Prime Minister, with his engraved name being crossed out with spray paint. The first question may be: what does police brutality in the United States have to do with Great Britain? Why is Churchill a target of these protests, alongside figures like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson?
With the aim of resolving some of these questions, The Open-Discourse Coalition organized a panel discussion on Churchill as a figure to be analyzed through the lens of racism and anti-racism, posing the question: “Is Churchill a Hero or a Colonialist?” Ultimately, it all boiled down to issues of racism regarding Churchill’s legacy, tied up with anti-fascism and imperialism. The participants of the panel discussion were from different fields and backgrounds; Larry P. Arnn, an American law professor who has devoted years to painstaking research into Churchill’s papers; Madhusree Mukerjee, an Indian-American journalist whose exploration of the origins of poverty in India led her to write a full-length book on Churchill’s policies towards India during the Second World War; and Sean McMeekin, an American historian whose writings on the Second World War provide a glimpse into Churchill’s brokering of peace during the last days of that war. The three were brought together, although not all of them in person, to provide their take on Churchill to see what the answer to the above question is, if there is such a concrete answer.
By the end of the panel discussion, the sharing of the three perspectives quickly devolved into a debate over and criticism of Mukerjee’s claim that Churchill was carrying out nothing short of genocide in his starvation policies towards India, resulting in the Great Famine of 1943. Arnn’s most central criticism was that he could nowhere find the quotes that Mukerjee was presenting. Arnn would be the first person to make that criticism, considering that, of all of the panelists, he is the one who has spent the most time going over Churchill’s papers. Already, credibility here lies with Arnn. The moment would be ripe for Mukerjee to counter with a direct quotation, citation, or some other such rebuttal to his point. However, repeatedly during this follow-up debate, Mukerjee responds with a simple “I suggest you read my book.” Arnn has admitted to having read some of it. However, it is a weak parry from Mukerjee. If she is really an expert on this topic, like Arnn claims to be on the life and legacy of Churchill, she should be able to respond in an appropriate argumentative manner. Yet, she holds her book up as a shield while never emerging from behind it to defend the claims she so brazenly makes. McMeekin stayed neutral during this debate; he is, after all, not an expert on Churchill.
Among the other claims about Churchill made by Mukerjee is the one that Churchill was irrational during the last days of the war, making rushed and frantic decisions. In essence, that he was not in his right mind for the kind leadership that was called for at that time. When approached after the panel discussion, Professor McMeeking responded to this claim. He believes that to say that Churchill was “irrational” during those last days of the war is an inaccurate way of presenting the facts. He believes that Churchill was frustrated and anxious, but was in no way irrational in his decision making at that time.