Weathering the Storm

Robert Baden-Powell, BLM and the battle for British heritage

The summer of 2020 saw a mania sweep the Western world when the African-American criminal, George Floyd, was unlawfully killed by a white police officer during an arrest. There was no racist motivation proven in the eventual murder trial, but the perception that black people are routinely killed and abused by white cops – not just in America, but in the Anglosphere and Europe as well - was enough to send the West into hysteria. Social media spread it, and experienced racial-political activists from ‘Black Lives Matter’ and other groups took the opportunity to fire up masses of young people. Young people were already frustrated by the Covid lockdowns, which were starving them of social outlets, so were easy prey. There was mass virtue signalling and there were protests – which broke the lockdown rules, but of course were allowed anyway. Most notably though, there was violence, rioting and vandalism.

Statues took the greatest flak. This started in America with statues of Confederate figures from the Civil War, because of the slavery associations. Then it came to Britain, where the statue of slave-trader and (conversely) philanthropist Edward Colston was torn down by a mob and thrown into Bristol harbour. The principal people filmed doing it were found not guilty of criminal damage in the eventual trial, because their ‘feelings’ were so strong about slavery. Winston Churchill’s statue in Westminster was boarded up when the area experienced protests (then riots) and the monument was daubed with graffiti. Even the Cenotaph was temporarily boxed up after graffiti and attempts to set its Union flags on fire.

An infamous website went online called ‘Topple the Racists’, pinpointing targets on a map of the UK. These were statues and other objects earmarked for ‘direct action’, inspired by the antics in Bristol. Still active today, officially the website’s purpose is to ‘promote debate’; and most magnanimously the organisers propose offending streets and buildings simply be rebranded rather than ‘toppled’. However, if someone was a budding political vandal, it would certainly make a handy guide for them.

If you zoom in on South West England and the town of Poole near Bournemouth, up comes the name of Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouts movement. The Scouts, hugely successful to this day, need no introduction. However, in appraising the merits of Baden-Powell, it is important to stress what the movement is. The Scouts is a global organisation aiming to instil discipline and civic spirit in young people, by means of community service, challenges, awards and outdoor pursuits.

Baden-Powell – or RBP as we shall call him for brevity - started this in 1907, as a competitor to the similar yet more limited Boys Brigade, which he had tried to develop to no avail. The inspiration came from military scouts – irregular troops that move ahead of an army exploring the terrain and watching for enemy movements. These were often used in the colonial arenas Powell served in, utilising native scouting techniques learned from Africans, Indians and Native Americans. Sometimes even local boys were employed as scouts to be more inconspicuous. Child messengers were used by the Army, as well as cadets to support the infrastructure of besieged towns. In 1899 and 1900, during the Boer War, RBP was charged with defending the surrounded town of Mafeking until it could be relieved. This earned him much recognition and a hero status, and also showed him how trained, motivated boys could be useful in such situations.

RBP’s military career had begun in 1876 in India. He had come to prominence by thoroughly investigating the disastrous 1880 retreat from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where 969 British and Indian soldiers were massacred. RBP was also a spy of sorts for Army intelligence in Malta and the Mediterranean, often (as his rather flowery memoirs have it) adopting the guise of a butterfly collector. He first saw conflict in 1888 when he took part in actions against rebelling Zulu tribes. He later fought in the Second Matabele War against rebellious tribes in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He also helped secure a bloodless surrender by the Ashantis on the Gold Coast in 1896. His military career after Mafeking was not so successful, as he was involved in the defeat at Elands River in 1900. He was given an Army training command for the remainder of his service, although there is some suggestion he was still dabbling in espionage during the First World War.

The Scouts in the early days had more of a patriotic and disciplinarian focus, with the future military needs of the British Empire in mind. Indeed, during the First World War, Scouts mobilised to observe and ‘guard’ strategically important sites. Outdoor activities, as well as practical skills such as fire-making and wood carving, were also thought to be wholesome and healthy, at a time when living standards were low in British cities. Indeed the military notions quickly gave way to more of a lifestyle, fraternity and community focus.

After RBP saw the game-changing nightmare of The First World War, international understanding, peace and togetherness became the stated goal of the then-global movement. It is fair to say RBP’s outlook, along with the outlooks of many, changed significantly as a result. The former colonial guerrilla fighter became a peace envoy, not ashamed of his warlike past but realising the limits of that mentality. Indeed, even before this transformation, the Scouts was trying to be universal, to be a positive and healthy influence for boys of all classes, all mixed together. Later when petitioned by some wannabe girl scouts, RBP started the Girl Guides as well. The first Scout camp was held on Brownsea Island, just off the coast of Poole, hence the 2008 commemoration of Baden-Powell on the town quayside, depicting him sitting on a log and looking out towards the island.

So it sounds like RBP was a brave, benevolent and upstanding citizen, and highly interesting. He was a man of his time, certainly, but nevertheless a role model with firm moral fibre. Surely he is worthy of immortalisation in bronze. What could the objection be from ‘Topple the Racists’?

Their blunt charge is he ‘committed atrocities against the Zulus in his military career and was a Nazi/fascist sympathiser’. The ‘atrocities’, on examination, boil down to three incidents. One was the execution of Chief Uwini in The Second Matabele War in 1896. To be more exact, the Matabele people were not technically Zulus, as they had split from the Zulu nation in 1823 – although they did retain many Zulu traditions. Another faction in the conflict was the Makalaka, of whom Uwini was chief. The Matabele and Makalaka had been murdering white settlers during their rebellion campaigns. In his book on the conflict, RBP recalls 150 settlers were killed in one week, and describes whole families including children being beaten and mutilated to death, and a newlywed bride being stoned. Uwini surrendered while injured, and despite alleged assurances he would not be killed he was tried in a court martial. When found guilty, the court sentenced the chief to be executed and RBP signed the death warrant.

RBP’s reasoning was that the nearby civil courts were out of action and, as a military prisoner linked to a murderous rebellion, Uwini could be court martialled. This ran counter to his orders from the High Commissioner of Natal, which stipulated civil trials for the captured – but ever the maverick, RBP chose to ignore this. He considered it would be impractical to transport the badly injured chief to headquarters at Bulawayo 100 miles away for court martial. This would require a large escort, as there was a risk of Makalaka rescue attempts. That said there was the option of taking him to Gwelo, which was nearer, and then moving him to Bulawayo, but RBP did not go for this.

Once guilt was decided, RBP believed a swift execution would help quell the rebellion, whereas stringing the process out would only prolong the conflict. Supporting this theory was the fact that the Makalaka and Matabele believed the chief was imbued by an immortal god, and when they saw this debunked, they would lose the will to fight. RBP was proven correct in this. It sounds brutal today, out of the context of a fearsome guerrilla war – but for the time and place you could argue the process was logical.

On the other hand, it was not then legal to kill prisoners of war unless they had resisted or committed a war crime. RBP claimed Uwini had resisted, and also that he had ordered murders of white settlers. These were not proven. There were conflicting accounts of the chief’s resistance. Uwini definitely fired on them once. RBP claimed he fired twice and later altered his diary to emphasise Uwini put up a struggle. Settlers were indeed murdered by the rebels all over the region, but a direct order has not been linked to Uwini. If he had ordered the murders, a court-martial would have been justified. As it stands, we can say it was not justified, despite the extenuating logistical and political circumstances. We can also contend the trial was not necessarily fair. However, it was still a legal process of sorts, not a summary execution. The action was met with a court of inquiry when RBP returned to headquarters, and he was exonerated – political though that finding may have been.

Again, in such murky wartime situations, with standards and attitudes much different than those today, where records were scant and easily doctored, of course dubious things happened. But should they damn a man’s reputation forever, outweighing any of the good he achieved? Of course not. In his account RBP expresses no joy at signing the death warrant, simply sees it as a necessity.

The second ‘atrocity’ concerns Zulu civilians being killed and huts being burned when a force RBP was part of marched to relieve the town of Umsinduzu in 1888. This was a response to a rebellion of Zulus led by the chief Dinuzulu, which included the murders of 200 European civilians. As well as British troops, the force comprised thousands of Zulu and Basuto warriors then allied to the Empire. The British apparently found it difficult to control these native troops, whose own local feuds manifested in frenzied violence. On July 11, four male Zulu civilians were killed and a young girl was shot. Despite his own medical efforts, RBP could not save the girl. The third incident was similar. RPB led an Anglo-native force towards Ceza on August 11. This time three civilians were killed as the African allies raced ahead of the British. Sir Arthur Havelock, the High Commissioner of Natal, insisted that these killings had taken place just across the border in Boer territory, and therefore against what were deemed ‘friendly’ civilians. RBP claimed they didn’t realise they had done so and that the maps were faulty – which they were proven to be. In a much later account however, he openly said he pursued the rebels across the border.

Again, these dreadful things happen in the chaos of a war. The word ‘atrocity’ conjures the idea of vast massacres and ethnic cleansing. What we are talking with RBP is seven civilian deaths (that we know about), not caused deliberately. ‘Topple the Racists’ do not mention this and nor do they make any effort to analyse the nuances - it is simply anger fodder to them, fuel to the ‘critical race theory’ fire.

The ‘Nazi/fascist sympathiser’ claim of theirs is similarly unfair. RBP did have brief dealings with Hitler and Mussolini’s regimes, and did say some positive – as well as negative - things about them. However these can partly be explained by the nature of his job, and partly by naiveté – a naiveté that many in the country had before the true horrors of fascism were revealed.

As the Scouting movement was an international model, with chapters or similar groups starting up all over the Western world (and indeed their global humanitarian goals) RBP met with national leaders to discuss these ventures. This of course included Germany and Italy in the 1930s. He did not personally meet with Hitler, although he was invited to. In 1936 he did meet with Ambassador Von Ribbentrop and the leader of the ‘Hitler Youth’, Hartmann Lauterbacher. The Nazis had banned the Scouts movement in Germany in 1933 so it would not compete with the Hitler Youth. Rather naively, RBP wanted to address this situation, and if not get the ban lifted, at least try to encourage links between both movements. Indeed he wanted links between both countries, peaceful relations in the face of a potential war. A common view at the time was that Germany and Britain need not fight each other again, especially before increased German aggression. The First World War had made conflict a horrendous prospect. For some while Churchill was in the minority in his forthright insistence that peace was not an option (incidentally RBP was linked to the Churchill family through his wife Olave).

From the Nazi perspective, protestations of a desire for friendship, and cooperation of youth movements might also have been genuine. There was indeed a school of thought that the British were not their natural enemies, and they admired the British public school system, the Empire, and the discipline and propagandistic possibilities of the Scouts. In many ways they wanted to emulate Britain. However, more cynically they would have been keen to publicly have the ear of a highly influential British figure, either to sow division or to get such men on board with their agenda. It also could allow them to appear friendly while plotting against us, and even allow (as was alleged) pretexts for spying on Britain. It is for this reason that RBP was probably wrong to agree to these meetings. Hindsight is a marvellous thing, though.

Ultimately the discussions didn’t achieve much. The three men just resolved to continue the talks in the future, and RBP lifted a ban on British Scouts wearing their uniforms while visiting Germany. A year later, after the outrage of Kristallnacht, in which the Hitler Youth took part, any talks between the movements were discontinued.

At the meeting RBP described Ribbentrop as a ‘charming man to talk to’ who ‘seemed very much in earnest’. This was a private opinion expressed in a letter, and even if you find someone charming, it doesn’t mean you agree with them on politics. Neither does it mean you trust them. It just means you find them charming - which diplomats are supposed to be. A similar report was made when RBP met Benito Mussolini – which, it should be pointed out, was merely a stop-off during a trip to meet the Pope. In his diary RBP reported the encounter by saying Mussolini was ‘small, short, but human and genial’ – again, just a description of a leader well versed in disarming and flattering others. No admiration is implied, nor any allegiance. He went on to say about Il Duce: “Told me about Balilla, and workmen’s outdoor recreations, which he imposed through ‘moral force’”. Balilla was an Italian fascist youth organisation named after a historical Genoese boy who rebelled against Austrian rule. Note the quote marks RBP uses for ‘moral force’. This does not imply he agrees with the sentiment. It might even imply he sees through the euphemistic language and knows it means coercion. Being told about something does not mean agreement with it. Meeting someone does not mean you like someone.

The most challenging episode to defend is what RBP wrote in his diary on 17th October 1939: ‘Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organisation, etc. – and ideals which Hitler does not follow himself”. Seeing as the war started a month and a half before this, it was quite late to be writing such a thing. On the surface, it seems terrible.

However, note the last part of the entry: ‘ideals which Hitler does not follow himself’. This is not complimentary of the Nazi leader – perhaps he is commenting on the broken promises which saw Hitler move on Czechoslovakia and Poland and thus caused the war. He may be remarking on other aspects of the Nazi regime which he has now become aware of, or may always been aware of. He might be pointing out the supposedly positive pro-Germany motives of Hitler were all a sham. Other comments he was making about Hitler at the time suggest he believed this.

Also note what RBP actually says is ‘good’ about the book – ideas of education, health, propaganda and organisation. It is disturbing that one could read Hitler’s thick volume of militaristic and racially charged rantings and come away with anything positive, let alone call it ‘wonderful’. Even from a literary point of view, its prose is often seen as poorly written. This does beg the question whether RBP read the whole book, or just skimmed the parts that interested him, but who knows? Regardless, he does only mention those specific aspects, which hold a particular relevance to his area of expertise.

To look at it another way, it is possible to objectively say how the Nazi state was effective, without admiring it. They were great organisers and propagandists. They were very keen on the health of their citizens - or at least the citizens they approved of. None of those things are bad in the hands of a benevolent power, though in the hands of evil of course they will be.

As with the private letters, it should be emphasised this is an entry in a personal diary. He likely knew anything vaguely positive about the Nazis could be not be said publicly. As a patriot at a time of war he would probably not have been inclined to do so. Some might say the fact we see his innermost thoughts cuts through to the real character of the man. That may be true. On the other hand it is also unfair to judge someone on something they never thought would be published – and unfair to judge a whole person’s existence on one poorly thought-out comment. We can add to this the fact he was 82 years old at the time, towards the end of his life, and may not have been as sharp as before. Also if RBP was a real Hitler fan, he would have read Mein Kampf at the height of its popularity eleven years previously. He did quote from it in earlier writings, although did not refer to the book by name - and it’s unclear if he had read the whole thing. In 1939 he might have been reading it to get the measure of Britain’s new enemy – hence the derogatory comment about Hitler. This would have put him in the company of the many British people who would tune into Lord Haw Haw’s radio broadcasts out of morbid curiosity about the other side.

Thanks to his prominence in the outlawed Scout movement, and several negative remarks about Hitler, including calling the Fuhrer a megalomaniac whose rallies were ‘huge pageants for hypnotising his people’, RBP was later put on a death list for use when the Nazis invaded the UK. RBP is also on record as describing the subjugation of Europe as ‘brute force against national freedom’. The Scouts meanwhile, were a source of armed resistance in occupied countries, involved in smuggling Jews and dissidents from the Nazis’ clutches.

Other claims of racism and incompetence have been levelled at RBP in connection with the provision of food during the siege of Mafeking. One influential historian claimed he did not allocate enough food to the black citizens of the town. However, this was based on the initial low estimates RBP had made of the stocks, which did not include everything in the town or livestock. One much cited piece of testimony describes how many black people were starving to death on the boundaries of the town. However this has been selectively quoted by the historian. The full testimony makes clear these people were refugees not from Mafeking. When he realised this was happening, RBP ordered soup kitchens to be set up using cavalry horses as ingredients. Some of the refugees continued to starve, but this is because the other natives disliked the strangers and were deliberately preventing them getting food. Whites were certainly prioritised in RBPs arrangements, but it is unfair to claim black citizens were not adequately provided for.

Other criticisms of RBP involve his alleged antipathy towards homosexuality. He would apparently make sure any scoutmasters suspected of being gay, being attracted to boys (or ‘sentimental’ about them, as he euphemised it), or physically acting on these feelings, were removed from their post. Obviously actual or suspected paedophilia, or even a scandal between staff, would be rooted out today as well as then. As for banning gay men, that was consistent with the attitudes of the time. Having such a policy – and it’s not even clear how avidly RBP encouraged such a policy – would be entirely mainstream. Some biographers maintain RBP was a repressed closet homosexual himself, which you could use to either refute or back up the claims. There are also suggestions RBP turned a blind eye to a headmaster friend who took nude photographs of boys, among more innocuous subjects. RBP requested by letter a repeat viewing of the photos – though it is not known whether he meant the nudes, or the less dubious photos. At the time, safeguarding standards, as well as notions of age of consent and distinctions between art and pornography, were not as they are now. There is not enough evidence to absolutely tarnish his reputation, even if there are question marks. Counting against these, he is on record as wishing an outed paedophile Scout master would be flogged for ‘spreading sin among the boys’.

RBP seems to have been rather obsessed with sexual chastity and abstinence for young men, as well as personal hygiene, which possibly points to projection and sublimation of his own sexual desires. A whole chapter in early editions of RBP’s magnum opus, Scouting for Boys, was dedicated to such concerns. RBP marrying late and not being noticeably keen on pursuing women, as well as spending much time with close male friends and often eulogising the male physique, appear to add weight to this theory. Maybe he was a hypocrite – and if not maybe he was simply illiberal in his outlook. The point, again, is that he was from a radically different era, and even if he was a closet gay hypocrite that should not to destroy his entire legacy. The same goes for the other rumours, such as him being overly interested in violence and sadism. Until there is any proof of serious offences found, you can’t damn the man or remove cultural references to him.

The inclusion of RBP on the ‘Topple the Racists’ hit list alarmed the council for the borough of Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch. Fearing the fate of Edward Colston might befall him, they swiftly proposed to remove the statue and store it somewhere safe. This is what some London councils had done with offending statues. There were reportedly ugly scenes on the quayside between anti-statue and pro-statue protesters, especially when the story hit the national news. Hungry for publicity, a Labour parliamentary candidate parroted the ‘problematic’ myths about RBP and supported the statue’s removal. In an atmosphere where British heritage was visibly under attack, the council’s actions caused outcry from the local public. One woman took it upon herself to stand vigil holding up a sign countering the slogan ‘Black Lives Matter’ with ‘British History Matters’. The Twitter page and website, ‘Save Our Statues’, supported this campaign, just as it did many such counter-movements around the country.

Upon finding the structure’s foundations were stronger than thought, the council instead opted to give it 24 hour security protection and box it up with wooden panels, just as Westminster did with Churchill. Some Poole citizens even put up tents and camped near the statue – quite appropriately, considering the Scout’s association with camping – to guard it against any would-be vandals. The council had made the right decision by protecting, rather than removing the statue. By not ruling out removal from the start, however, they had played the BLM game. They had admitted there was a problem, rather than defending the figure and by extension the town they are supposed to represent. Indulging the whims of these groups over the majority of the population is a dangerous game, especially if there is no consultation of the public.

The majority of the town, and the majority of the country, would see no reason to remove Baden-Powell’s statue based on the ‘crimes’ with which he is charged. As this piece has made clear, some of these incidents and attitudes should be viewed in the context of the place, situation and time. Some, like the execution of Uwini, had extenuating circumstances, even if they were dubious. Others, namely the deaths during the Zulu campaigns, were not RBP’s fault alone. Yet even if he was a villain in these respects, surely the good things he achieved outweigh those. Surely you can separate, and celebrate, the positives. The statue is not there to commemorate his entire career or worldview – although his stand in Mafeking is probably worthy of one. It is commemorating his work with the Scout movement, and by extension the great contribution Scouting has made to the world. It is one of the greatest British cultural exports, up there with several major sports, Parliamentary democracy, Shakespeare and The Beatles.

We should celebrate such successes, along with much of our nation’s history and culture. We should not apologise, certainly not for the benefit of fringe organisations like ‘Topple the Racists’, who will never be happy with our country and will always encourage division. Division is their raison d’etre – they want to dismantle our common heritage, motivated by far left accelerationism, revenge, self-loathing and, worst of all, personal gain. We are done apologising. We must step up to defend our heritage and social bonds, because nobody else will. It is up to us, the British public. And like Robert-Baden-Powell’s quayside monument, we will weather the storm and prevail.