As we know- and made more clear in part due to various recent events- there are many, many significant historical figures with important decisions or achievements, but are also known to have made rather objectionable or completely morally incorrect decisions elsewhere. Consider the case of Churchill, who is viewed by many as a capable and inspiring politician, but was also directly responsible for the famine of the Indian subcontinent and held racist views. Or perhaps Washington, who although portrayed relatively positively in history for his role in the rebellion of the United States, owned slaves and was noted proponent of slavery among other issues. There is no doubt that these men performed tasks of a large scale, which changed the world. However, these men are associated with behaviors that are repulsive and disgusting, such as slavery, racism, sexism, and so on. The question then becomes: how should we portray them, and view them in the lens of history?
My opinion: a balanced portrayal must be made. The morally abject things they did must be taught alongside their good deeds, and we should not let those good deeds cloud our judgement of them. Churchill had many terrible views, but he was also responsible for some effective leadership. Both the terrible actions he made leading to the Indian famine and his role in defending the UK against the Nazis must be discussed.
