On February 3, 2022 at Bucknell University there was a panel on if Winston Churchill – a anti-facist British leader. It was to discuss the issues of heroism, and race through the reflection of Churchill’s history.
The first 5 minutes the panel starts off with an introduction of the three panelist. With a great introduction to the who these people are, as a audience member, it was reliving to here each and one of the panelists having a knowledgeable background. It reassures the audience, through ethos, that they have studied the topics of Churchill and gives credibility to what they are going to say.
Dr. Larry P. Arrn, President of Hillsdale College and an editor of the official Churchill biography, starts off simple by laying out who is Winston Churchill to him. He was someone who was rich in politics, a liberal, and someone who thought people should be free. Dr. Arrn added that he wrote 45 books and 8,000 pages in total in speeches, so Churchill, so this constituted for his rich understanding of politics. Dr. Arrn further explains that even though Churchill believed that people should be free, he thought that freedom was also hard to get and maintain.
Professor Sean McMeekin stayed neutral in the conversation about if Churchill was a hero or a colonist. He tried to only discuss the facts throughout his 30-minute conversation about the topic. He discusses how the ways he sees Churchill actions as good, or bad. And since not having a scholar background on Churchill he has not concluded a solid view point on if Churchill is either a hero, or a colonist, however, is a benefit to the conversation for his open-minded perspective on Churchill.
Dr. Madhusree Mukerjee, of Scientific American, author of Churchill’s Secret War who main study was not of Churchill, but the ended up discovering him when diving deeper into India’s freedom struggle.
After the panelist gave their discussions the conversation became open-ended where the panelist can discuss amongst themselves on the topic, and try to dispute any arguments the other person had against Churchill. The room became tense and Dr. Arrn and Dr. Mukerjee were going add it. Dr. Arrn defends Churchill by continuing to push that Churchill believed in “devotion among the people toward freedom and forms of governments to sustain this notion of freedom”. However, Dr. Madhusree argued that Churchill was a colonist for his contribution to the suffering of India. Where Churchill caused Indian civilians to starve and divert the food instead to storage depots. The conversation continues to contrast the greatness and evilness that Churchill contributed to both to the war and to colonizing India.