The article and some of the commentary in this thread are sophomoric. NOBODY claims that Churchill was a perfect man - far from it. He was a flawed man who accomplished great things at a time when Western Civilization itself was on the brink. One must not assess historical figures against sensitivities of the modern era, any more than one would assess a modern-day politician against the social standards of generations past. Context is everything. And to suppose that Churchill and Hitler were two side of the same coin because Churchill held some racist views? I don't recall him suggesting mass extermination of any group of inferiors, eh?
As for Churchill's "racism," the entire creation and maintenance of the British Empire was done with the fervent and seldom-challenged belief that white people were intrinsically superior to brown, yellow and Black people, a position that was supported by a mountain of universal evidence. If one were to "cancel" every historical world leader who held similar views, the history of the world could be contained in a short pamphlet.
Where does this writer think India would be on the world scene today had the British not come in and imposed a bit of order, common law, and modernity? Just another shit-hole country dominated by disease, infighting, and corruption, one might guess.
If they want to hold seminars to examine Churchill's leadership history in context, no one would have a problem with it. But to highlight only his shortcomings through the lens of 21st Century Woke attitudes? Gimme a break. Grow the **** up.