A source of pride or shame? The fight for recognition, a war of attrition, and the Black Poppy Rose

 

[image error]British Caribbean soldiers posing for picture

There has been a recent move by certain people to bring to light the role played by the black subjects of Imperial England in making the country what it is today. This black contribution can extend from anything to credit from helping to build Britain’s infrastructure to recognition as the forefather its cultural diversity. The indignant cries of ‘Black people have had a presence in our history for centuries. Get over it!’[1] grow louder by the day. After the uproar from the historical community at the attempts to portray the black man as a British inhabitant since the days of Roman conquest, the African historian David Olusoga wrote ‘What we’re seeing is a backlash against any attempt, whether from the world of scholarship or popular culture, to paint non-white people back into the British past’. Clearly there is a war of attrition underway and those on the side of ‘black Britain’ have grown emboldened of late.

Which brings us to the attempts to ‘paint non-white people back into the British past’ and specifically to the ‘Black Poppy Rose’. The founders of this ‘project’ state, ‘there is a severe lack of representation displaying the full picture of history, including all of its contributors’. They seek to address this issue as, ‘The BlackPoppyRose is a symbol for us to remember not only the soldiers, but also the people’s, of Africans/Black/West Indian/Pacific Island communities who contributed in any way for the War effort’. It is clear then that the BlackPoppyRose is a symbol of the emboldened black left and the cultural war underway.

[image error]German propaganda poster

Let us be honest about the ‘African/Black/West Indian’ contribution to the ‘war effort’ and give the ‘full picture of history’ as BlackPoppyRose requests. Those who fought for Britain were fighting for an empire steeped in the racist doctrine of Social Darwinism, with racial discrimination and segregation central components of its rule. These issues did not disappear during the war. The ‘child races’, as those from the ‘African/Black/West Indian/Pacific Island communities’ were known, were initially considered to primitive to fight in a ‘white man’s war’. It was only after much time, and white death, that the ‘savages’ were thrown into the trenches. Tens of thousands of Africans were unwilling to leave the tranquillity of their homes to fight in a war they knew nothing of for a master who oppressed him. Local chiefs, under increasing pressure from the colonial government, were forced to become ‘recruiting agents’ for the British army. Once more villagers were torn from their homes by pressured chiefs, and handed over to colonial agents, men who would travel to distant lands and never return home.

 

Africans received a melange of ill-fitting uniform. They received no footwear from the authorities, making boots a ‘highly prized’ commodity. Even those that did find soldiers boots were forced to wear shoe which did not fit and they could not tie as they had no laces. Most used as labourers, those who were forced into battle were ill-equipped and often completely unarmed. The colour bar remained in full effect and those who fought and died did so for half the pay of their white brothers in arms. Black soldiers slept, ate, and washed in segregated and inferior living quarters in all British colonial armies. Soldiers of colour complained of the standard of the ‘native chop’ they were fed, in comparison to the ‘white man’s food’. They were often led by young aristocratic generals, who enforced a rigid prefectural structure on their units.

[image error]German propaganda poster

One can almost see the black soldiers, bootless, scantily-clad, ambling across the boundless plain barely able to stand through exhaustion and lack of food. On his waist an old musket, in his pouch an insufficient amount of bullets to save his life, beside a rusting old sword which will be the difference between life and death. Calls of ‘move it you filthy nigger!’ come unceasingly from the mouth of their white commander, his aristocratic rearing rendering each member of his black regiment a savage. Those who cannot keep pace are introduced to the whip which his ancestors knew so well. All that is needed is some amusing music and this scene could quite easily be mistaken for a perverse Carry On movie.

 

 

This is a source of pride? The foundation of our right to claim we fought for the freedoms which now exist in the contemporary western world?

Involvement in European wars, and its subsequent glory or shame, must be placed in a global context. It was not for Britain alone that black men fought for. The imperial armies of both sides were furnished by black soldiers who fought whether willing or not in World War Two.

[image error]

The African-American GI’s, despite protestations from the British government, had a more impactful stay in England than any British colonial regiment. The appearance of black British subjects in the war was no singular achievement; Africans were forced to fight by many an imperial nation. This, however, occurred after a sustained period of racial aloofness towards the animalistic black. Those who eventually broke the rules of military civility were merciless criticised for stooping so low as to place savages on the field. And those who were criticised, as well as those who did the criticising, were both guilty of treating black soldiers as inhuman. If the BlackPoppyRose celebrates the contribution of black soldiers does it also condemn the circumstances under which they made these contributions? If not, the black poppy represents nothing but a shameless fallacy, and desperate attempt to gain recognition.

 

One cannot say ‘I celebrate the involvement of black soldiers in the British Army’ and simply ignore the race-based selection, machine-gun conscription, apartheid camps, barefooted Africans, and slaughtered soldiers. Neither can one be proud of the involvement of men from the Caribbean colonies and say nothing of the self-loathing which would lead men to beg to fight for a master who refuses to allow it because he deems you unworthy racially, culturally and scientifically. Nor can one claim to adorn the pin because ‘they’ don’t wish to celebrate black involvement; for neither do ‘they’ wish to highlight the suffering involved and none has asked for that to be brought to light. BlackPoppyRose states that they ‘do not wish to focus on negative aspects of history’. Well, they should leave ‘black history’ well alone then! For there has been barely a positive moment to speak of, let alone write of or celebrate, during its ‘interactions’ with the British Empire. While ‘BlackPoppyRose fully supports the legacy of the red poppy’, they state, ‘we feel that it is important that our ancestors are recognised for their dues’.

[image error]Fully supports the legacy of the red poppy? (alias the British army?) It has just been laid out, how the army treated its black soldiers. How can a ‘project’ which was established to remember proffer support to such a legacy? Perhaps when they find the answer they can also inform the public what ‘dues’ they believe their ancestors deserve other than a paper flower? For surely the first thing due is an honest legacy. History can be distorted to suit the needs of a particular group, but if those lies are themselves unknowingly detrimental to that group then the entire exercise is foolhardy. Furthermore, their knowing silence dishonours the dead; buried half-clothed, shoeless and unarmed.

Those who speak only of black attendance, interracial affairs, and their outrage over the ensuing silence should be careful not to distort history for their advantage. Many rhapsodise about the Caribbean contribution to the war effort, the RAF fighters receiving particular acclaim. However, I’ve yet to hear that praise balanced with the cold truth that after a disappointing performance in World War One the Caribbean regiment was disbanded in 1927. It may seem so to some, but nothing more is to be gained socially or politically from acknowledgement that black troops fought in the world wars. Neither it, nor BlackPoppyRose, can win the national acclaim, annual thousand-gun salute, and the subsequent respect which seem to be sought. What is owed to the dead is an impartial remembrance of innocent men who were forced to fight, treated nefariously during the war, and sent to their deaths with little chance of defending themselves.

[image error]The befuddled black left, and their liberal partners in crime, may tell you so but it is not enough to say, simply, the motherland called and we fought; woe to the dead, and to the living goes their glory. Those who lead the way in attempting to establish ‘black Britain’ as a respectable and acceptable entity have a vested interest in romanticising its history. They lead the charge in the cultural war and hope that a respectable past will gain they them a respected future. The problem is no matter how many black Romans, interracial love affairs in the midst of racism, ground-breaking sports stars, and brave black colonial soldiers they bring to life, the past cannot be altered; there is nothing glorious about ‘black British’ history.

 

(Olusoga, 2017)

Ibid

(BlackPoppyRose, 2018)

ibid

(Killingray, 2010) pp75

Ibid pp93

Ibid pp127

(BlackPoppyRose, 2018)

(BlackPoppyRose, 2018)

(Healy, 2000) pp72

 

Advertisements