recceguy said:
... it's near impossible to discuss immigration, race or another culture ...
And I thought that I was discussing an article attributed to Winston Churchill. Plus, I haven't labelled anyone on this thread (with the exception of Sir Winston and his article). If my assumption that you were referring to me is incorrect, my apologies.
IN HOC SIGNO said:
I'd love to know what you base this on other than a gross generalization of the British Upper Class. My experience of the English Upper Classes is that they are extremely gracious, tolerant and accepting of everyone.
My own personal experience of upper class English (or any class) has also been generally positive. Yes, they have been gracious, usually tolerant and accepting, much like many people of many different nationalities that I have met. However, on occassion I definitely did have the sense that they were patronizing and considered themselves better than me. Of course, they could have been right. But then, I don't recall meeting many (or any) who, like Churchill, were born in 1874.
A few words about Victorian England
http://www.english.uwosh.edu/roth/VictorianEngland.htm
….More than anything else what makes Victorians Victorian is their sense of social responsibility. ….
…… In 1876 Victoria was declared Empress of India and the English Empire was constantly being expanded. The prevailing attitude in Britain was that expansion of British control around the globe was good for everyone.
One, England had an obligation to enlighten and civilize the 'less fortunate savages' of the world (often referred to as the "White Man's Burden").
Second, they (as a chosen people) had a destiny to fulfill -- they were 'destined' to rule the world. ....
A few lines from William Manchester's THE LAST LION, WILLIAM SPENCER CHURCHILL, VISIONS OF GLORY, 1874-1932
.... Some of the most moving passages in his historical accounts pay tribute to England's common man, but he never really understood his constituents’ minds, and in fact he didn’t much care. …. Churchill, as Attlee once observed, would have been content in a feudal society.
In his personal life he was a complete patrician. F.E. Smith said: "Winston is a man of simple tastes. He is always prepared to put up with the very best." Churchill's wife, Clementine, told Lord Moran that at home "Winston is a pasha".
Reminiscing, he once said: "I was not twenty at the time of the Cuban War, and was only a Second Lieutenant, but I was taken to an inspection at West Point and treated as if I had been a General. I was brought up in that state of civilization when it was everywhere accepted that men are born unequal."
The article quoted in the opening post has inflamed the sensibilities of many and not just on this forum. The headline is certainly meant to sensationalize the subject matter and bring readers in. I looked for additional sources and two that I found did provide a few more details. I've included a few quotes from them that may add some information. There is more at the links. I found interesting some of the comments from readers of the Scotsman piece.
This one from Reuters had a less inflammatory headline.
Long lost Churchill paper on Jews uncovered
http://www.asia.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1061822320070311
Cambridge University lecturer Richard Toye, reflecting on his find, said: "While most people would accept that Churchill was no anti-Semite, this sheds fascinating new light on his views about Jews which were very inconsistent."
........
"How The Jews Can Combat Persecution," originally written in 1937 when it failed to find a publisher, was finally picked up in 1940 for publication by Britain's Sunday Dispatch newspaper.
But when the paper's editor formally asked for permission to use the piece, Churchill's office wrote back and refused, saying publication was "inadvisable."
......
Within weeks, Churchill became Prime Minister, leading the fight against the Nazi regime which murdered six million Jews in the Holocaust.
........
"He may well have had second thoughts. When he looked at it again, he may well have thought it wasn't the most intelligent thing to say," Toye told Reuters in an interview.
.......
He called Jews sober, industrious and law-abiding and praised their readiness to fight and die for the country they lived in.
......
Echoing modern-day debates about multi-culturalism in Britain, Churchill criticized what he called the "aloofness" of Jewish people from wider society and urged them to make the effort to integrate.
.......
He criticized Jewish employers in Britain's clothing trade for exploiting the readiness of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to work for lower wages. He also criticized the refugees themselves for their readiness to accept rock-bottom salaries.
.....
Toye said "I do find it perverse to blame persecuted people for their own persecution. There is a lot of contorted logic there."
Speculating on why the article never saw the light of day, he concluded: "In terms of its potential impact on public opinion, it was one thing to say these things in 1937 but quite different to say them in 1940 when Britain was at war."
From The Scotsman
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=385482007
Churchill held Jews to blame for persecution
.... until historian Dr Richard Toye unearthed it while researching a new biography of the wartime leader. There is a suggestion the article was ghostwritten for Churchill.
But Toye said: "If it was ghostwritten, Churchill was apparently happy to put his name to this article in 1937. Like many of today's politicians, he was happy to endorse the sentiments contained in articles that were written for him."
Those sentiments include a complaint that cheap Jewish labour was "taking employment from English people" - a foreshadowing of today's arguments about the influx of immigrants to Britain.
.......
Elsewhere, the article is sympathetic towards Jewish people and it is clear Churchill disapproves of their persecution.
......
And Churchill ends by urging the British people to stand up for the Jews.
"The Jews are suffering from persecutions as cruel, as relentless and as vindictive as any in their long history," he writes.
"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man. And when the victim of oppression is a brother in blood and faith, to attempt his succour becomes a sacred duty."
The document was originally offered to the US publication Liberty in 1937 but was withdrawn when another magazine for which Churchill wrote objected to him supplying a rival. .....
Churchill nevertheless tried to have it published in the Strand Magazine, but it declined the offer because it had already taken a similar article from former prime minister Lloyd George, according to Toye. ....
While a search for the actual article will eventually lead to a catalogue listing in Churchill's papers, it seems that one cannot view it on-line.
