"I never once in this article, or anywhere else, ever said or thought that it was wrong to criticize Churchill or anyone else. What I said was that we MUST criticize our heroes, but that does not mean we should cancel or banish them because they deserve to be criticized."

In my article, all I did was criticize Churchill, I didn't at any point demand that we "cancel" or "banish" him. Just because I don't think he deserves to be commended as a hero, doesn't mean I'm equating him with Hitler. It's inaccurate when people so heavily credit Churchill for defeating the Nazis. How about all the soldiers who sacrificed their lives fighting Nazis in World War II?? To me, they're much more "heroic" than Churchill. But I never said Churchill doesn't deserve ANY credit, I said he was "instrumental," a pretty strong word.

Here's what I said at the end of the article:

"We can still discuss their role in history and acknowledge, for instance, that Churchill was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. And we can still enjoy watching Disney movies with our children. But we don’t have to teach our children to look up to these figures as “great.”"

How is that so controversial to you?

"Not great" doesn't equal 100% horrific piece of shit.