March 22, 2015

Finest Hour 127, Summer 2005

Page 05

DAY IN, DAY OUT, WE HEAR IT ALL: The best and most revealing evidence of our increased viability is the growth of critical reactions by members and non-members alike.

The Churchill Centre is coming of age. Growing membership, more website hits, expanded press recognition, a sharp increase in local chapters, and more generous financial contributions all support this conclusion. But the best and most revealing evidence of our increased viability (for me at least) is the growth of critical reactions by members and non-members alike to the Centre’s programs, the prominent individuals who support its efforts, and even to Churchill himself. They reach our officers and staff from across a broad spectrum: Democrat and Labour, Republican and Tory, Liberal and Conservative, east and west, old and young, New World and Old, dispassionate and angry, informed and uninformed. They all have something to say and many say it well. Truly constructive criticism is as common as high dudgeon. As my good friend Col. Nigel Knocker likes to say, it is “blindingly obvious” that if Churchill and the Centre were not important to them, none of these critics would have given one hoot what we did or how we did it, and most certainly they would not have taken the time to express their views. (See opposite, and page 6. —Ed.)

Within the past year, members have either threatened to resign or have resigned because they disagreed with the personalities or public postures of those involved in Centre events. General Tommy Franks, who spoke at our highly successful Chicago benefit dinner, was accused of being a warmonger. Illinois Senator and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin was too liberal. Texas Congressman and Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay was too conservative. Lord Heseltine was too critical of America’s and Britain’s thrust into Iraq. Chris Matthews was too provocative. Harsh reactions by some to a few ill-considered but widely publicized comments directed at President Bush abruptly halted (to the dismay of several trustees) efforts to obtain Nelson Mandela as a Churchill conference speaker. Shock was expressed over statements critical of Churchill by panelists at Centre symposia. The Centre is little more than a fan club. The Centre is little more than an old-boy’s club devoted to minutia. The Centre should move its offices out of Washington. Day in and day out, we hear it all. And, we want to.

This heightened concern over what the Centre does and how it does it constantly challenges its leadership to stay the course on one of its prime objectives: to keep the Churchill record accurate without deliberately tainting it with pro-Churchill bias. While the Centre has historically accepted this responsibility, more and more opportunities to dispel Churchill myths and deal with shallow, uninformed observations keep presenting themselves.

2025 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 42nd International Churchill Conference. Washington, DC | October 9-11, 2025

2025 International Churchill Conference

Recently, one of our symposiasts repeated the shop-worn canard that as Colonial Secretary Churchill was strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. While dismay was immediately registered, that statement remains on the record. Over the years, the Centre has vigorously objected to this particular misrepresentation because it ignores the context in which it was made. (FH 123:47.) In context it is clear that Churchill was referring primarily to tear gas, not the more lethal gases used during World War I. Churchill was a humanitarian. Had his precepts been followed in the 1898 Sudan campaign, for example, thousands of dervishes who were slaughtered as they sought to overrun the British zariba near Omdurman would have survived.

The Centre is willing to be fully engaged in confronting contemporary issues with an open mind and unfettered voice. Those whom it sponsors, and those who represent it, must be free to espouse their own views in whatever manner they choose to express them. And Churchill explicitly agrees: “Free speech carries with it the evil of foolish, unpleasant and venomous things that are said; but on the whole we would rather lump them than do away with it.” (House of Commons, 7 July 1952.)

Nevertheless our critics all appear to have at least one thing in common. They care about Churchill and about The Centre’s image and programs. To them as to the rest of us, Churchill and the Centre are relevant—today and tomorrow. If it were otherwise, we would hear only silence. Unfair or not, unreasonable or not, The Centre endeavors responsibly to deal with each criticism on its own merits. And we welcome this exercise of free speech and the passionate exchange of views that Churchill found so stimulating and necessary to successfully functioning democratic systems.

The Centre has never tried to be all things to all people; nor should it. From its inception, it has tried to avoid a narrow ideological or political path. We strive to bring together a broad spectrum of viewpoints from a variety of people on what Winston Churchill and his life and accomplishments have meant to civilized humanity. To the best of our ability, we will continue to do so.