As we saw in recent weeks, and as I wrote in my previous post, many great individuals of our past are now under scrutiny — in part because of their policies and more so because they committed the ‘wrong’ of holding the opinions and attitudes common to their generation.
That is what is under discussion in this article from the Iconclast.
Winston Churchill, being one of the dominant personalities of the 1940s and 1950s in particular, has been heavily criticized and condemned. I notice that many of Gen X-ers and many Millennials have a special animus toward Churchill because of his ‘warmongering’ attitudes toward the Germans. The younger generations are decidedly pro-German where both World Wars are concerned.
But since the post-WWII era, the main obsession of the West, of former Christendom, is race and everything to do with racial matters. Those educated since the middle of last century have been imbued with a mindset and morality that puts race and ‘diversity’ above all. Viewed through the “anti-racist”, pro-diversity lens, most people of past generations are judged very stringently, and Winston Churchill was not exempted from such criticism.
In our time, this aspect of life, and the crucial nature of what opinions we hold on the matter, has been the focus of much of the school and university curricula, as well as the media. Since there is only one viewpoint allowed, this is more or less a matter of social conditioning, of assuring that people adopt the ‘correct’ view, or they have to accept unpleasant consequences.
This is probably the number one reason why Churchill’s statue was targeted by the vandals. Churchill was a ‘racist’, you see. Obviously he was much more than that; he was a complex figure. But he does not deserve to be reduced to ‘racist’.
Of late I’ve been thinking a lot about how and why we arrived at this point. It appears that individuals (and countries, and peoples) are judged almost 100 percent through the racial lens, specifically as seen by black people. Why, I’ve wondered, are we focused on judging someone’s worth as a human being strictly on their degree of commitment to ‘diversity’, (which we are daily assured is our ”strength” though why or how is not clear). If someone utters a taboo word, even innocently, that in itself is enough for someone to be banished to the outer darkness, to lose their position or their livelihood and their good name.
I believe the unspoken consensus is that having what are deemed ‘wrong’ attitudes on racial or HBD matters is considered the most heinous and unforgivable sin.
How does Christianity reconcile with this? And why is ‘racism’ not included in our age-old list of sins? Do we now in fact have a new religion, a humanistic one?
Meanwhile our statues of heroes are being toppled, and we are told that our heroes did not merely have feet of clay, but that they were in fact bad people, haters, bigots, and that they deserve either to be erased from history or to be disgraced and cursed.
What does this do psychologically to a people, to be told that the men we admired, men (and yes, women; we can’t be sexist) we looked up to, are worthless?
Certainly there are still some honest people defending Churchill, as the linked Iconoclast article shows, but the question still needs asking: why should we assess people based on their attitudes on race or Human Biodiversity? James Watson was fired from his own institution, despite his genius and his scientific accomplishments, because he said something impolitic regarding human differences. Notice that the link refers to him as a ‘racist.’
How many careers and human lives have been left in shambles because of one word?
None of our former exemplars will survive the scrutiny that everyone must undergo now. Statues of our greats will continue to be pulled down and defaced, and worse, their reputations dragged through the mud.
Should we not return to viewing people as complex, and as being in part a product of a particular culture, a people, a time, a place? Can we all accept that human differences exist? Or is even that small concession to reality a ”thought crime”?