pascal30
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 approachI 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..
American attitudes to race couldn’t possibly have been tackled by Churchill, or indeed anyone else during ww2.
The black, brown/irish/other groups who fought alongside white British armed services served in the same units as the majority (white British). That’s not to suggest racism wasn’t present.
A poster earlier refers to the battle of Bamber bridge, where locals opposed the American dictat that their black servicemen ciukdnt drink alongside whites. It’s a few miles away from me - proud Lancashire woman here
