![\"Colston](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/976\/cpsprodpb\/BDA5\/production\/_112794584_mediaitem112794583.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After Black Lives Matter protestors toppled slave trader Edward Colston\u2019s statue in June 2020 the government\u2019s \u201cwar on woke\u201d reached new levels of intensity. Robert Jenrick declared \u201cWe will save Britain\u2019s statues from the woke militants who want to censor our past\u201d <\/a>and Oliver Dowden instructed Britain\u2019s leading museums, galleries and heritage organisations that they \u201cmust defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down\u201d<\/a>. The right wing press followed up with hyperbolic articles about the interpretation of colonial heritage. The torrent of hysterical reaction to small things, such as the decision in May 2021 of some Oxford graduate students to take down a picture of the Queen<\/a>, became relentless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This manufactured hysteria has politicised Britain\u2019s heritage to a degree unimaginable just a few years ago. Some of the rhetoric in the Mail\u2019<\/em>s online forums reflects the belief of the trans-national extreme right in The Great Replacement<\/a>. This bizarre notion of an existential threat to White racial survival stemming from fellow citizens of colour and their \u201cwoke\u201d allies is what motivated the terrorist atrocities in Oslo in 2011 and Christchurch in 2019. Boris Johnson\u2019s advisor on race, Samuel Kasumu, quit recently, complaining that “some people in the government \u2026 feel like the right way to win is to pick a fight on the culture war and to exploit division.” These elements, Kasumu feared, were facilitating a repeat of the murder of Jo Cox\u2019<\/a>, the Labour MP killed by a right wing racist in 2016. While it might be more subtle, the Telegraph<\/em>\u2019s use of \u201cwoke\u201d is also not so far from the idea of a \u201ccollaborator\u201d with sinister forces threatening White people. It has ranted that the woke \u201cwant to make all White people feel guilty and feel ashamed of their skin colour. In a White majority country<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n All this conservative culture war activity echoes the backlash against liberal concern for colonial subjects of colour that began in the context of a reforming British Empire in the early nineteenth century. Enslaved and colonised peoples themselves played the leading roles in securing emancipation and representing their communities as best they could in Britain, but like Black Lives Matter activists, they were working in alliances<\/a>, often tense ones, with White allies. Some of the most illustrious and famous conservatives of the day led the charge against them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When sugar production plummeted in the wake of emancipation in Jamaica and the 1846 Sugar Duties Act abolished the former slave owners\u2019 preferential rates on sugar imports, one of the most famous critics of the day, Thomas Carlyle, fulminated against both the \u201cna\u00efve\u201d philanthropists and the free trade economists, who, between them, had helped free slaves into a state of wage labour while abandoning British planters. Carlyle argued that emancipation had condemned Black Jamaicans to idle pauperism, just as greater freedom had the Irish. The Irish, he argued, had been reduced to \u201chuman swinery\u201d, a \u201cblack howling Babel of superstitious savages\u201d during the Famine. In a deliberately provocative article, which he boasted \u201cyou will not, in the least like\u201d entitled \u201cOccasional Discourse on the Negro [later substituted for the N word] Question<\/a>\u201d, he described the freed slaves of Jamaica \u201cSitting yonder, with their beautiful muzzles up to the ears in pumpkins, imbibing sweet pulps and juices; the grinder and incisor teeth ready for every new work; while the sugar crops rot round them, uncut, because labour cannot be hired\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the protests of liberal friends like John Stuart Mill, Carlyle\u2019s unabashed racism sharpened and articulated the British public\u2019s sense of disappointment in Africans\u2019 ability to become \u201ccivilised\u201d. Together with the stream of racial invective pouring into British homes from colonial newspapers extracted by the British press, in the private correspondence of settlers to their contacts at home, and in publications such as the Memorials of the Settlers in the Eastern Cape, it reinforced the notion that white Britons had a particular, if not unique, claim to that mantle<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most popular author of the day, Charles Dickens soon arrayed himself alongside Carlyle as a leading mid-nineteenth century culture warrior. In October 1857, when news of the Indian Uprising massacre of 120 British women and children at Cawnpore dominated the British press, Dickens summed up the public\u2019s mood of vengeance: \u201cI wish I were the Commander in Chief in India …. I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested … proceeding, with all convenient dispatch and merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Carlyle and Dickens ridiculed people like Thomas Fowell Buxton, who had taken over from Wilberforce as the leading anti-slavery and colonial humanitarian campaigner. In the wake of the abolition of slavery, the two writers asserted that philanthropists and missionary supporters had been proved wrong. The formerly enslaved had not diligently continued to work on the plantations, as philanthropists had promised. Instead, they had sought to reunite families torn apart when parents and children were sold to different owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lesson, however, was not that family could mean as much to Black as to White British subjects. It was that Black and indigenous people had squandered the freedom, and the gift of civilisation, that the British had offered them. Dickens\u2019 Bleak House<\/em> helped to invent the stereotype of the \u201cwoke\u201d; the cause-obsessed, misguided and dangerous philanthropists who had helped them waste the opportunity. The book\u2019s character, Mrs Jellyby, summed up nineteenth century wokeness. She is so preoccupied saving the souls of heathen Africans she has never met that she neglects her own children. White British children like the road sweep Jo, die pitifully on the streets of London while the \u201chumanitarians\u201d extend their sympathies only to distant savages, who refuse to learn. Rather than continuing with their \u201ctelescopic philanthropy\u201d, Dickens moralised, Britons should focus on the needs of White kith and kin at home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n If a conservative reaction against the \u201cwoke\u201d is nothing new, neither is the leading role taken by a Prime Minister. On the day that Boris Johnson became Prime Minister I came across the following extract from Reynolds\u2019s Newspaper<\/em> on Lord Palmerston, the Liberal PM in 1857: \u201cWhat a truly melancholy exhibition! The foremost nation of all the Old World rushing, and screaming, and swearing, and shouting in mad hysterical hallelujahs, the praises of a man whose principal characteristic was an unconquerable disposition to jest at national calamities, and whose greatest recommendation was a species of boasts\u201d. When Laurence Fox <\/a>, himself a vocal right wing culture warrior, played Lord Palmerston in ITV\u2019s Victoria<\/em>, he admitted that the character \u201cmay have had a bit of the Boris about him<\/a>\u201d. Johnson and Palmerston shared undiplomatic careers as womanising, flippant Foreign Secretaries and a wit and charm that made them popular with large sections of the public, if not always with their peers in parliament. The parallels do not end there, however.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1857, Palmerston wanted war with China, which had had the temerity to prevent British ships illegally smuggling opium into Canton. Palmerston\u2019s government intended to force Chinese markets open to \u201cfree trade\u201d from British narcotics and industrial manufacturers. His problem was that many of his own liberal MPs objected to the war on moral grounds. Lord Lyndhurst asked, \u201cwas there ever conduct more abominable, more flagrant, in which \u2026 more false pretence has been put forward by a public man in the service of the British government?\u201d After it became clear that British officials had ordered the shelling of the city, Parliament passed a motion, carried by sixteen votes, that the government had failed \u201cto establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton\u201d. Anticipating Johnson’s Get Brexit Done election by one hundred and sixty-two years, the Prime Minister suspended parliament to appeal directly to the electorate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the 1857 general election, patriotic fervour was brought to bear against the Chinese rather than the EU. Palmerston declared that the problem with those who criticised the war on China was that \u201cEverything that was English was wrong, and everything that was hostile to England was right\u201d. Amid complaints of creating an \u201cartificial public opinion\u201d, the prime minister solicited the cartoonist George Cruikshank to circulate images of Chinese methods of torture and execution and fabricated a story that British heads had been displayed on the walls of Canton. It was printed in The Times<\/em> and other evening newspapers and distributed as a flyer across Britain. In the midst of what Charles Greville called the Prime Minister\u2019s \u201cenormous and shameful lying\u201d, Palmerston won a landslide victory. Many of his opponents lost their seats. All thanks, the Daily News<\/em> claimed, to \u201cthe excited ignorance of a misinformed public\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Palmerston had not opportunistically seized upon the mid-nineteenth century culture war to portray activists of colour and their white reformist allies as woke threats to the nation, perhaps China\u2019s Century of Humiliation and ensuing determination to reassert itself against global western domination might have taken a different direction. If key figures like Carlyle and Dickens had not entrenched British racism in the wake of emancipation, then perhaps we might have fewer of the structural issues that today\u2019s antiracist \u201cwoke\u201d activists are still having to combat. Who knows, given the speculative nature of counterfactual history? Perhaps the greatest irony, however, is that today\u2019s conservative culture warriors, in pressure groups like Restore Trust, now claim emancipation from slavery and humanitarian concern for the welfare of colonised people as Britain\u2019s greatest imperial achievements. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the Brexit populists\u2019 most successful political strategies, played out in the recent Tory leadership contest, has been culture war: an assault on reformist and liberal agendas including anti-racism, that are now condemned as \u201cwoke\u201d. With Suella Braverman Priti…<\/span><\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/snapshotsofempire\/files\/2022\/09\/image.jpeg\")
<\/a>![\"Occasional](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/e\/e1\/Title_Page_of_the_Negro_Question.jpg\")
![\"Bleak](\"https:\/\/images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com\/images\/S\/compressed.photo.goodreads.com\/books\/1631205863i\/31242.jpg\")