Janus waits in the wings.
As with previous dead years
He will bring
Laughter and tears.
Doors open and close.
The futurologist thinks he knows
What the future holds.
But Janus thumbs his nose,
And history goes
On as before,
And where it goes
Heaven only knows.
On Monday 21 November, BBC Radio 4 broadcast the first of a 2 part series entitled “Bad Blood, the Story of Eugenics”.
The first episode traces the idea of Eugenics from it’s founding father, Francis Galton in the 19th century, into the early 20th century, which saw the founding of the Eugenics Education Society and the embrace of eugenic ideas by people across society, including politicians.
Eugenics has a bad name due to the horrors of Nazi Germany, including the forced sterilisation of disabled people (which ended in the murder of many of them under the Action T-4 Programme), and culminated in the horrors of the gas chambers.
Eugenics has been embraced by people on the left and right of the political spectrum (and by some liberals).
The programme is worth a listen and can be accessed on the BBC iPlayer here, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fd39.
The iPlayer does, I understand only work within the United Kingdom.
A small island in a great sea.
Once, half the world was painted red
And we engaged in slavery.
It is so often said
That the British Empire did no good.
Yet, (having abolished slavery), we patrolled seas
Stopping those who still engaged
In the cruel slave trade.
As I stood
In this remnant
Of the Great
North Wood
I thought on those who hate
This country.
Now our former colonies are free
To have their own mess
(Or progress.
And we
Have the cold sea
And what we
Call progress.
There have recently been a number of attempts to smear the reputation of Winston Churchill. These have ranged from daubing his statue with graffiti accusing Churchill of being a “racist”, to a recent conference at Churchill College. During the latter event Churchill was, again maligned and the British empire was said to have been worse than that of the Nazis.
For a more balanced perspective on Churchill I would recommend a publication by Policy Exchange which points out the many inaccuracies in the view of Churchill promulgated by the conference at the college which bares his name.
This link deals with the decision of Churchill College to end the one-sided discussions during which Churchill’s reputation was maligned, https://policyexchange.org.uk/churchill-college-has-made-a-wise-decision-in-closing-down-the-working-group-on-churchill-race-and-empire/, whilst the second contains a link to a more balanced assessment of his reputation https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-racial-consequences-of-mr-churchill-a-review/.
Listening to Mosley speak
I hear an apologist
For the Third Reich
“I was never an anti-Semite”
He said.
I shake my head.
“Sir, you lie
And those who glorify
You defame
Patriotisms name.
For they would like
To create a new Reich”.
(An interview with the late Sir Oswald Mosley on Thames Television, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhF28fzN9I).
Perhaps one ought
Not to look back.
Yet I walk
That old, familiar track.
I pass the flats,
(Once a bustling, hustling pub).
And remember idle talk
Over Sunday grub.
Having passed the flats
I retrace my tracks.
For one can not go back,
To what is long since gone.
They found, in old Pompeii
The ruins of brothels.
What will they say
When they find the remains
Of our passing day?
The past
Is a sleeping dog.
As, when it wakes
It barks
And frequently bites.
The wind is getting up.
Should I put
Kipling aside
For his pride
In empire?
Should I apologise
And lower my eyes
For seeing empire
In all it’s complexity?
The Romans to Britain came.
Should Italians apologise
And lower their eyes
With shame?
You may say
“The Roman Empire
Was not all bad”.
But you would be mad
To put your head above the parapit
And admit
The same
Of Britain’s imperial past.
A certain class
Would look aghast
And cry “shame”
And label you
With a name
Untrue.
Mud sticks
And many men
Seal their lips.
Whilst a brave few
Say what they
Believe to be true.
It appears to be the latest fashion to attack those who can no longer defend themselves, including the great Winston Churchill. I was recently involved in an event during which one of the participants labelled Churchill as a “war criminal”.
Whilst Churchill did, as with all of us possess faults, he was no “war criminal”, nor can one equate him with Hitler as some remarkably stupid people have done.
Below are a couple of interesting article which counteract some of the accusations leveled against Churchill:
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/white-supremacy/. (An article about Churchill’s alleged white supremacist views).
https://openthemagazine.com/essay/churchill-a-war-criminal-get-your-history-right/. (An article by an Indian historian in which he argues that Churchill was no “war criminal”).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left. (An interesting article which mentions Churchill’s support for eugenics. However the main point of the article is to highlight the left’s (including the Fabian Society’s) support for eugenic measures. I find it interesting that those who criticise Churchill are (for the most part) silent on the advocacy by many Socialists of eugenics policies in the early part of the 20th century. Double standards?).
K Morris - Poet 