Churchill's Secret Apartheid

Foyles War - remember it? had several episodes covering exactly these issues.

I didn’t watch the programme but I’m aware to a limited extent of the history.

I didn't know about Churchill's apartheid .
I think that it reflects
on the biased and zenophobic attitudes at the time .
Yesterday , I met up with several foreign born friends and we talked about racism .
They were all shocked that I've encountered racism against me - a Caucasian .
But now , I know how they have felt and still feel and it's horrendous .

Talking of US army racism, a year or so ago I took young Gdcs at their request, to see the new Railway Children film, with Jenny Agutter playing a granny during WW2.
Big mistake!
Not long before it started there was a scene with white US troops viciously beating up a black soldier. There were other scenes that made it totally unsuitable - I had to take Gdcs out before it was half over - they were finding it very upsetting, and I wouldn’t say they’re particularly sensitive at all.

I can’t see “Churchill’s Apartheid’ as a correct description of what happened in WW2. It seems like another attack on the man who faults and all, led our country during a very dark time. In saying this, im in no way supporting racism and I’m aware of Churchill’s chequered history in that regard.

In the mid-late 1950’s We lived near a US airbase in a small Lancashire village. I had never seen a black person until I saw the black GI’s walking around. They were always in pairs and never with white GI’s.

The legacy of slavery is still prevalent in America. I’m not surprised Churchill didn’t see challenging the racism as his main priority in WW2. I don’t mean to offend and of course, I don’t support the American approach

I agree with your comments Iam64 that’s exactly what I thought too.

I think it's sad, pointless and horrible, but not surprising, given that the US has a terrible record on racism, and in the 30s had a colour bar, Jim Crow laws and regular lynchings in some states. That was hardly going to evaporate when the army was based overseas, as it was woven into the fabric of society.

Also, the role of women in the UK was based on their relationships with men. They were (to generalise) seen in terms of the men in their lives, so someone's daughter, wife, mother, rather than as someone in their own right. Many married young, rape in marriage was legal, and the police rarely got involved in domestic violence. There would be lots of women who were unhappy, as well as those who did love their husbands/boyfriends but missed them - many had been away for years. Add in an influx of 'oversexed, overpaid and over here' GIs, and it's not hard to imagine that it would be a heady mix, particularly as the fact that life is short was so obvious, and people would be tempted to live for the day.

As contraception was unreliable there was always a chance of pregnancy, and a black baby would be incontrovertible evidence of an affair - a white one could be passed off as the husband's or boyfriend's. When women were judged by their sexual behaviour the risks would be huge.

The role of the government would be to keep the troops happy, which wouldn't happen if they were worrying about 'their women' going off with other men. Obviously that would apply regardless of colour, but inherent UK racism and the visibility of black babies would add to their fears.

None of that is to excuse racism, of course, but as ever, the context is important.

Churchill said white people were " a stronger race, a higher grade race". Sounds pretty racist to me.

In WW2 when countless thousands were dying, being PC and interfering with allies was not on the priority list, there is plenty of discrimination today reviving what happened 80 yrs ago is pointless.

It was the norm in the 40’s 50’s 60’s,

Clawdy

Churchill said white people were " a stronger race, a higher grade race". Sounds pretty racist to me.

He was racist. And sexist, classist and more.

Whether that was normal for the day doesn't change that, although it probably explains it.

I saw the Raiway Children and agree some of the scenes relating to the treatment of the black soldiers was horrible. I'd read about that prejudice before, I think some of those men felt that they got better treatment from the locals where they were stationed in England than their own compatriots. Churchill, like many world leaders had his flaws, find me one that hasn't. Some decisions taken during wartime in retrospect would have been the wrong ones, that would be inevitable there was so much to balance. He nevertheless was the man who got this country through an incredibly difficult time. My mother spent those years working in London when incendiary bombs were dropping all over the place, never knowing whether there would be a home, or family to come back to. I remember her telling me "the war destroyed relationships and people and there was absolutely no certainty or ability to project forward just to get through the day and hopefully the next one" My father was in North Africa most of the time. They were both teens at the outset in 1939. I think they felt that he was the right leader for the time, even if they later thought there was a need for change post war. Later generations can give their opinions, but none of us were there on the ground living through it and what was needed a then was strong leadership.

The past is another country, as they say. Why stir this up now? Just to provoke us, or what ?

nanna8

The past is another country, as they say. Why stir this up now? Just to provoke us, or what ?

I don't expect people will be provoked. Churchill has been dead for more than 60 years.

As has been said, this has been covered in TV drama for decades - it's not news. And you could say the same about all history. Bad things happened along with the good, and many people have an interest in events from the past.

Because we can only fully understand the present if we understand the past and how matters unfolded.

Wyllow3

Because we can only fully understand the present if we understand the past and how matters unfolded.

Yes. I find history fascinating for that very reason.

Doodledog

Clawdy

Churchill said white people were " a stronger race, a higher grade race". Sounds pretty racist to me.

He was racist. And sexist, classist and more.

Whether that was normal for the day doesn't change that, although it probably explains it.

We were of course better than the Nazis, if Churchill had not been strong we would have consorted with Hitler, many, maybe the majority of the elite in the UK were quite prepared to join the Nazis.

Before you criticize Churchill imperfect though he was, just think what would have happened if he had not stood for freedom.

What makes you think I don't realise that? I'd be interested to know.

Nobody is perfect, and (to use a cliche) good people do bad things, and bad people do good ones.

I can't see the point of sanctifying people because of the good things they did. History is about getting the whole picture.

I remember seeing an American archive film from WWII aimed at GIs who were going to be stationed in UK.
The film was narrated by actor Burgess Meredith. Among other advice, was that soldiers should not be surprised that British black soldiers served in the same regiments as the white soldiers and mixed freely. They were warned that might find themselves standing next to a black soldier in a pub or at a dance.

Without Britain as a platform to liberate Europe, the Nazis could still be in power today, it was our tenacity after Dunkirk that enabled WW2 to be won.

It was also their total defeat on the Russian front, but that's another part of the story.

nanna8

The past is another country, as they say. Why stir this up now? Just to provoke us, or what ?

The woke agenda?

If Churchill and the top brass had been as racist as some claim, Btpritidh Forces would have been segregated as the Americans were.

In order to overcome the evil of Hitler and his Nazis, presumably some pragmatism had to be applied - no good arguing with your ally when you had a common enemy to defeat.

Btpritidh British

Iam64

I can’t see “Churchill’s Apartheid’ as a correct description of what happened in WW2. It seems like another attack on the man who faults and all, led our country during a very dark time. In saying this, im in no way supporting racism and I’m aware of Churchill’s chequered history in that regard.

In the mid-late 1950’s We lived near a US airbase in a small Lancashire village. I had never seen a black person until I saw the black GI’s walking around. They were always in pairs and never with white GI’s.

The legacy of slavery is still prevalent in America. I’m not surprised Churchill didn’t see challenging the racism as his main priority in WW2. I don’t mean to offend and of course, I don’t support the American approach

I don't agree with this.. if black people were prepared to give up their lives to fight with Britain, I think they should have been a priority.. to ensure equal and fair treatment with their and our soldiers..