In an interview with BBC Radio, Churchill's granddaughter, Emma Soames, said that her grandfather had often held views which "particularly now are regarded as unacceptable but weren't necessarily then." This is the current trend, to view history and historical figures through the prism of the present, which means judging them by the standards of the present. Vandalising or removing statues of historical figures is a manifestation of this.
Soames also said that Sir Winston was a "powerful, complex man, with infinitely more good than bad in the ledger of his life."
She said if people were "so infuriated" by seeing the statue it may be "safer" in a museum. Have we now reached the stage where noisy activist groups have to be placated by removing anything from the public arena that might offend them, such as statues, street names, literature, films and television, and so on? Where do we draw the line? What criteria do they use to make these decisions?
To be consistent, have they canvassed the opinions of the millions of victims of communism if they feel upset by the elaborate tomb of Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto. Marx was buried in a London cemetery. Speaking of Marx, the Marx Grave Trust, which maintains this monument, claims that he was "an opponent of slavery and racism." This is not true. Marx had an anti-Semitic streak, as his writings clearly attest.
His writings contain derogatory statements about Jews, Black people, Mexicans, and Slavs. It must have taken real skill to write racist statements, yet have other people laud you as an opponent of racism.
If Churchill's racism matters, then surely Marx's should also matter.
