Tag Archives: empire

FAREWELL TO WINSTON

Churchill

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill’s funeral.   It is, quite correctly, being remembered in Great Britain for without him, the British people would likely still be a distant province of the Third Reich.   Some years ago, the British people voted for him as the greatest Englishman ever.

Churchill's coffin

At his funeral, the Queen’s wreath bore the words:  “From the nation and the Commonwealth, with grateful thanks.   Elizabeth R”

Queen's wreath

At his request, he was buried in the village of Bladon, close to Blenheim Palace, where he was born.

Even now, fifty years later, there are always people there, wanting to pay homage.

The last time I visited, a few years ago, a man in front of me put flowers on the grave, knelt down and cried.  We got to talking.  English was not his native language.  He was from the Netherlands.   Without Churchill, he said, his country would not be free.

The funeral was truly memorable.  His beloved Clemmie (his wife Clementine), after dinner that evening, said to his daughter Mary, “That wasn’t a funeral — that was a triumph.”

And so it was.  110 world leaders were there, plus many old friends and colleagues, including former US President Dwight Eisenhower.

Mindful that his mother was American and that he could just as easily have been a member of Congress as a member of the Commons, Churchill had requested that the Battle Hymn of the Republic be sung at his funeral, an unusual choice for a staunch monarchist.   Churchill believed absolutely that if the English-speaking countries stayed together, the world would be safe.

While people should pause to remember such a great man, they should also stop and think about what he stood for.   For the fact is that, for all the British people’s praise of Churchill, they have rejected all that he stood for!

This was the case immediately after World War II, after the defeat of Nazi Germany but before the defeat of Imperial Japan – Churchill lost the election, rejected by the British people.   It was often said that he was a great wartime leader but not the man for peace-time.  He was certainly not the man for the radical changes that were to come in the post war years.   Yet, time has showed that he was right.  The massive expansion of state ownership and control after 1945 was not something he wanted — in recent decades most of it has been reversed. Nor would he have wanted the welfare state that has been created.

Committed to the Empire and Commonwealth, Churchill would have opposed its dismantling and Britain turning its back on its former colonies to embrace Europe.

As is clear in his book “The River War,” Churchill did not think much of Islam and would not have supported the massive influx of Muslims into the UK that has taken place since his death.   Nor would he have been cowed by political correctness.

If he were alive today, he would have a clear vision of what is needed to defeat the Islamic extremism that now threatens the world.   He fought in the Sudan against the armies of Islamic extremism in what turned out to be the last cavalry charge in British history.

Churchill’s clear vision compared to what we have today, on both sides of the Atlantic, brings to mind these words from the Book of Isaiah.

“The whole head is sick, And the whole heart faints.   From the sole of the foot even to the head, There is no soundness in it.” (Isa 1:5b-6a)

Advertisements

APOLOGY, EMPIRE AND THE QUEEN

Diamond Jubilee - Carriage Procession And Balcony Appearance

A Service of Thanksgiving was held in Britain’s Westminster Abbey on Tuesday, June 4th, in commemoration of the Queen’s coronation, held sixty years earlier on June 2nd, 1953.  That wasn’t when she became queen – she ascended to the throne on the death of her father, King George VI, sixteen months earlier, on February 6th, 1952.

Interestingly, she was in Kenya Colony at the time she received the news of her father’s death.  From that very moment she was Queen over what was still the biggest empire in the world.

Kenya played a role again during the week of the sixtieth anniversary.  The same year that Queen Elizabeth II became the British monarch, the Mau Mau uprising began in the colony.  It was largely suppressed by British and Kenyan troops by 1956 but didn’t fully end until 1960.

The Mau Mau was a Kikuyu rebellion.  In other words, one tribe rebelled.  Even then, not all Kikuyu supported the uprising, as anti-Mau Mau elements amongst the Kikuyu helped the British suppress the revolt, a revolt that failed to gain popular support.

Almost sixty years later, when few people alive remember the events of the 1950’s, the British government has decided to apologize for British actions at the time and is to give 20 million pounds compensation to former Mau Mau fighters.  It’s highly likely that most of this money will be diverted by Kenyan government officials, as is usually the case in Kenya.

So, what next?  Should the British apologize for killing members of the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War?

There’s an American connection in the apology made last week – President Obama’s father was a Kenyan and also a member of the Mau Mau.  Apparently, pressure was applied from the other side of the Atlantic.

It’s amazing how our leaders are so ignorant of history, even fairly recent history.  In case one of them may stumble across this blog, let me make it clear – this was not a popular uprising.  There was no great suppression of freedom and there have been far worse abuses of human rights since independence in 1963.  It should be noted that the new President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, has been charged with human rights abuses by the International Court at The Hague.  This is Africa we’re talking about, not the English Home Counties!

This comes down to white guilt, the never-ending left-wing apologia for empire that goes back to the sixties.  Whereas Britons from previous generations lauded the accomplishments of the British Empire, the opposite has been the case since the advent of political correctness in the 1960’s.

I was thinking about this on Thursday evening, just two days after the Thanksgiving service was held.  My wife and I were watching a British movie on television called “Zarak,” made in 1957.  It was an awful movie, badly made, with a predictable plot.  But it was interesting from an historical perspective.  The movie was about a revolt against British colonial rule in India in the late 1800’s.  The movie was made ten years after India’s independence but it was still pro-British.  The rebels were the bad guys!

So, when did perceptions of Empire change?

At the Queen’s coronation, she was crowned as Queen of each of her dominions, the independent nations within the Empire – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Ceylon and Pakistan.  She was also given the title “Head of the Commonwealth” which included all the above nations and the Republic of India (India had become a republic three years earlier).  The rest of the empire was still ruled from London.  Her title to cover all those 50+ territories was “her other realms and territories,” almost all of which are now fully independent.

It was in the 1960’s that attitudes to Empire changed, though not amongst the ordinary people.  It became fashionable amongst academics and other intellectuals to bash the Empire, to make fun of it, to equate it with the crueler empires in history, even to boldly state the Empire was a bad thing.  After the death of Sir Winston Churchill, a great Empire loyalist, in 1965, there was no restraint.  Churchill and the Empire both played major roles in winning the Second World War, without which there would be no freedom for these people to even debate these issues.

In a brief televised debate after the decision to apologize to the Mau Mau, Sir Max Hastings, a prominent British military historian, pointed out the pitfalls of trying to determine anything after sixty years.  His Empire-bashing opponent on the program (whose name was unfamiliar) kept on rudely interrupting everything he said but, when asked what other “atrocities” Britain could be charged with, found it difficult to come up with anything specific, mumbling something about Aden and Diego Garcia.

This is not to say that Britain did not make mistakes but, compared to other nations, her record was a very good one.

Remembering the Mau Mau is also a reminder that Britain was once a great military power.  In fact, at the time of the Queen’s ascension, it was more than ten times the military power it is today.  Successive British governments have chosen to cut defense expenditure while increasing spending on public health care.  The present Conservative led coalition cut military expenditure by 8% in its recent austerity plan, while leaving healthcare and foreign aid alone.  This is a continuation of a policy that emphasizes “soft power” over military power.

Apologizing to Kenya and sending 20 million pounds ($30 million) their way is an example of this.  No doubt others will now start demanding apologies for perceived mistakes of the past.

It’s difficult to see how later generations can be held responsible for the supposed mistakes of their ancestors.  Perhaps the British can demand reparations from Rome? After all, they ruled England for almost 400 years, longer than Britain ruled any of her colonies!  But you can’t expect politicians to know that!