My disappointment with the Observer`s inclusion of a grossly distorted and heavily biased article on "the great man", Churchill (If only we had a leader to match him, 07.01,18), was compounded by the paper`s failure to include any readers` letters of protest (Opinion, 14/01/18). With the Guardian and Observer having campaigned for many years against the manipulation of history (Foreign Office hoarding 1m historic files, 18.10.18, Uncovering the brutal truth about the British Empire, 18.08.16), it seemed ludicrous to see its protraction, and indeed, its extension.
Having marked A-level history essays for over 40 years, I was surprised by the lack of balanced argument and completeness in Rawnsley`s piece, despite his Cambridge history degree. Then there was the exaggeration, even using the words "genius" and "superman" to describe Churchill, with conclusions based on unsubstantiated opinion, and above all, a refusal to analyse all of the available evidence. Rawnsley claimed the country needs leadership which combines Churchill`s "principle, vision and humanity", but there was no mention of his crossing the floor twice, or India, or chemical weapons, or even his opposition to the welfare state!
If the country continues to believe in our mythical "glorious past", "exceptionalism" and great leaders, and that World War II was won by us "alone", is it any wonder that there exists a deluded view of our role in Europe? Trouble is, I never expected the Observer to contribute towards it.
No comments:
Post a Comment