The British Army’s Struggle with Systemic Racism and Integration

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

James Baldwin

Introduction

Army Leadership doctrine places culture at the heart of the organisation. To understand how the prevailing culture of the British Army, defined as “collective beliefs, attitudes and values, which in turn manifest themselves in accepted behaviours” impacts the integration of black soldiers, this essay will use a chronological framework to explore how the Army’s culture has evolved and affected integration differently over time. First, the pre-21^st century culture will be explored, followed by an analysis of the Army’s culture before and after the murder of George Floyd, which represents a seminal moment in the debate surrounding race relations. Culture during these periods will be evaluated to draw conclusions on how the Army’s culture may have impacted upon integration in the past, to identify elements of culture that have endured, and to determine whether the prevailing culture today continues to affect integration. In recognition of the influence of national culture within society, from which the Army recruits, the broader culture of the UK will also be examined for these periods.

Pre-21^st century culture (before 2000)

A nation’s culture is formed from its collective history, experience, and the idea of itself in the minds of its people. This shapes the behaviours, customs, beliefs and attitudes its people share. Nunn explains that the role of history in shaping culture can be vital¹ as it is drawn upon to define ideas of national heritage and tradition. From the 16^th to 19^th century, amongst the many roles it performed, the British military, including its Army, was a tool of the British Empire used to operate and enable the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Based upon a white-supremacist ideology that saw black Africans as inferior to white Europeans, black Africans were removed and forced to work as slave labour in Britain’s Caribbean colonies. The trans-Atlantic slave trade operated as a British institution for 245 years between 1562 – 1807, meaning it has been abolished for less time than it operated.² Its legacy has cast a long shadow, and its effects are still evident today. British society and its institutions evolved and prospered under a structural system of exploitation of black Africans for the benefit of white British citizens. British citizens have been able to benefit from the work of enslaved people without having to bear witness to the abhorrent practice. As Eddo-Lodge explains, an immediate societal change in attitudes towards black colonial subjects did not follow the freeing of enslaved people in 1838. Black colonial subjects were still viewed as ‘less-than’ by much of the predominantly white British public and experienced their freedom in an openly racist culture.

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 saw industrial-scale warfare across multiple continents. This created a requirement for the mass mobilisation of the British Empire’s subjects to take up Arms and enter military service, including raising regiments from British colonies in the Caribbean.³ Seventy-six years on from ending the practice of slavery, this arguably presented the British Army its first opportunity to integrate black soldiers into its ranks meaningfully. However, the experience of black soldiers was not equal to that of their white counterparts. Black units were barred from fighting alongside and against white Europeans on the Western front; black soldiers who joined as infantrymen found themselves employed in labour battalions when deployed in Europe. The British Government feared that if they were to allow black soldiers to “fight alongside whites and against whites, then this undermines the whole colonial hierarchy, the whole colonial system which is based on white supremacy”.⁴

The experience of Walter Tull, widely credited as the first black British Army officer, is sometimes presented as an exception to the racial discrimination black soldiers experienced. However, the 1914 Manual of military law specifically excluded ‘Negros’ from command as officers; Walter Tull initially served as a soldier before being commissioned in 1917. Furthermore, after his death, his chain of command wrote to his family, informing them he had been written up for a Military Cross, which had been refused without explanation, implying it was due to his race. Vasili explains that Tull “made a mockery of the firmly held view of the Army Council that white rank-and-file soldiers would not take orders from a black man”.⁵ The experience of black soldiers in the First World War shows that an overtly racist culture existed within the British Army at the time. Furthermore, regulations and rules existed with the explicit aim of maintaining segregation and preventing integration.

IWM records show that less than a year after the cessation of the First World War, no black units were invited to attend the 1919 victory parade at the cenotaph in London.⁶ This was part of a deliberate attempt by the British Government to downplay the contributions of black soldiers and has contributed to the white European-centric view of the First World War held by the majority of the British public, which continues today. King explains how the failure to recognise the contribution of black soldiers has perpetuated the professional ideal of the British Army being Anglo-Saxon-centric.⁷ Little evidence exists to suggest a cultural change in the inter-war period between world wars; in 1938, integration of black soldiers into the British Army was still prevented by policy; Army Order 89 restricted entry into the British Army to men of ‘pure European descent’⁸ showing that a culture of racism and discrimination prevailed in the British Army.

Until as recently as the late 1990s, the culture of the British Army was characterised as racially discriminatory and, at times, outright racist; before the 1968 Race Relations Act prohibited racial discrimination in employment, the British Army operated a ‘colour bar’. This prevented black soldiers from serving in some regiments, including the Household Cavalry and Foot Guards, whilst placing a maximum percentage of 2-4% on soldiers from ethnic minorities in other regiments.⁹Quoted by the BBC, a 1961 Army Council document explained this practice as guarding British Units against the ‘unknown reliability’ of ‘coloured’ soldiers.¹⁰ What can be deduced is that the culture of the Army at this time was one of white dominance and open discrimination.

Evaluation of the historical narrative has unveiled a culture within the British Army rife with systemic racism and discriminatory practices that profoundly affected the integration of black soldiers. From the era of trans-Atlantic slavery to the World Wars, the Army’s culture before the turn of the century echoed the deep-seated biases in British society. This was evident in the Army’s policies and wildly held attitudes towards black soldiers, despite opportunities for integration during wartime mobilisation, pervasive discrimination and overt racism endured. The deliberate exclusion of black units from post-war commemorations and policies barring their integration into the Army reveals a consistent pattern of exclusion. This legacy of racial discrimination lingered well into the late 20^th century, negatively impacting the integration and equitable treatment of black soldiers. The culture of the British Army did evolve over this period; it transformed from being ‘white-supremacist’ and overtly racist to being ‘white-centred’. Black soldiers continued to experience racial discrimination due to a prevailing culture of ‘white-centring’, where the actions and behaviours of white people are prioritised and amplified above those of other cultures.¹¹

Early 21st-century culture

Following persistent incidents of racism and discrimination, including the investigation of the Household Cavalry by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE),¹² the British Army formally committed itself to cultural reform in the 1998 strategic defence review.¹³ Accepting the application of equality legislation and combating racism was seen as a watershed moment. ¹⁴ The British Army also set recruitment targets for increasing representation from ethnic minority groups, which it successfully achieved. Furthermore, adopting the ‘Values and Standards’¹⁵ in 2008 clarified that discrimination in any form was unacceptable and would not be tolerated. Since then, the Army has regularly disciplined and prosecuted its soldiers when acts of overt racism have been reported. This shows that the organisational culture of the British Army rejects racism. Through action, it demonstrably indicates a willingness to reject racism and remove barriers dissuading the black British population from joining the Army. In this way, it can be seen as a first step before integration can happen.

However, instances of racial discrimination in the Army continued frequently. This was portrayed in the 2020 BBC documentary ‘Racism in the Ranks’.¹⁶ In addition to overt racism, this highlighted how insensitivities and cultural misunderstandings exacerbate biases and derogatory stereotypes, leading to a culture of systematic discrimination. Moreover, some of the perpetrators did not recognise their actions as racist or discriminatory.  In 2019, then Armed Forces Service Complaints ombudsman Nicola Williams stated that “[she] would absolutely say the army and the armed forces have issues with racism which need to be tackled”.¹⁷ Now publicly available, an internally conducted 2019 review of the Army Service Complaints process shows that soldiers from ethnic minorities were (and still are) over-represented in the number of complaints submitted. The report states that an initial assumption would be that the Army has a “problem with racism” but then concludes the problem may be “integration issues”. The report notes consultation with a ‘BAME focus group’ who comment that “non-white, British born males are likely to have a higher threshold and tolerance levels to racial abuse or discrimination than Black African or Black Caribbean soldiers who will not have been exposed to potential racial issues until joining the UK Armed Forces”. The implication here is that soldiers belonging to the non-white, British-born group are not reporting racial abuse and discrimination, suggesting that the issue may be worse than the statistics suggest. The report’s author does not highlight or comment on this in the summary or conclusion. Further analysis of the breakdown of service complaint submissions by ethnicity shows that soldiers from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly black soldiers, overwhelmingly report higher levels of complaints about career management, bullying, discrimination and harassment.¹⁸

Also conducted in 2019 was an external report into the lived experience of females and BAME personnel in the MOD to identify barriers to recruitment and retention amongst these groups. Conducted by the Defence Human Capability Science and Technology group (a BAE subsidiary), its conclusions compare starkly to the internally conducted 2019 review of service complaints. Amongst the findings of the summary report are that a white male prototype prevails, discrimination is persistent, structural discrimination exists and negatively affects personnel from ethnic minorities and that white males were often “‘blind’ to the issues faced by minority groups”.¹⁹ These would all act as barriers to recruitment, retention and integration. It must, however, be noted that the report examined the defence wide experience and not specifically the Army. Published in the same year, the ‘Wigston report’ on inappropriate behaviours²⁰ again notes the overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in service complaints. However, of the 36 recommendations made, none focus on addressing racism or racial discrimination beyond prioritising diversity and inclusion training (recommendation 1.11). There is no mention of racism or racial discrimination in the document, further suggesting the organisation was blind to the issue at this time.

For the internal report’s author, a serving Brigadier, to conclude that integration and not racism is the problem in the light of the evidence available and public comments by the service complaints systems ombudsman is misguided. Furthermore, labelling integration as the issue is a misunderstanding of why integration is not achieved. It suggests the problem may be black service personnel and allows the institution to suggest the issue isn’t race but foreign cultures. Black British people simply are not joining the Army, a fact obscured by published diversity statistics that do not differentiate between British ethnic minority service personnel and those of foreign nationalities. ²¹ This is possibly because the Army chooses to ignore these issues. Integration is the symptom, not the root cause or issue. Integration issues undoubtedly exist due to racism, unconscious bias and prejudice manifesting in the organisation as systematic racism. The findings of the external report identify these as the issues. The failure to recognise or even consider the existence of systematic racism speaks to a culture of denial existing in the Army when it comes to structural racism and echoes the external reports’ findings of ‘blindness’.

This is an issue for the Army and a wider society. Eddo-Lodge argues that the reluctance to recognise how the UK benefited from slavery has led to structural racism continuing to manifest within UK culture through its institutions and attitudes.²² The predominantly white British population do not acknowledge the power imbalance black people experience; they are unaware of it. Slavery was abolished less than two hundred years ago and existed as a British Institution for far longer than it has been abolished. As previously explained attitudes towards black people did not change overnight, evidently, they remained un-addressed in the early 21^st century. This, it is suggested is because the educational system has done little to break ingrained bias and prejudice. Generally, a person’s understanding of a subject, ability to form ideas and opinions is governed by the education and experience they have had of a subject matter. The UK national curriculum has done little to teach black British history in primary schools in the early 21^st century therefore perpetuating existing bias. For example, the civil rights movement within the UK or the 1963 Bristol Bus boycott is not included, yet a study of Rosa Park’s 1956 Montgomery bus boycott is.²³ These glaring omissions have been debated in Parliament with little to no change enacted.²⁴ Writing in the British Army Review (BAR) Harris explains through a series of case studies how an understanding of shared British Imperial Heritage, negative and positive, can be harnessed to create a sense of belonging and bring groups together.²⁵ In this regard education is key to integration.

Furthermore, black men and boys are disproportionately portrayed as violent and associated with crime in the UK mainstream media,²⁶ and black people are almost entirely omitted from period dramas. All white casting is noted as misleading and historically inaccurate by director Josie Rourke as it does not depict the historical discrimination faced by the black population.²⁷ This all reinforces a false narrative by underplaying the effects of slavery and misrepresenting black history, racial discrimination, and oppression of civil rights as something that did not happen in the UK at the same time as reinforcing negative basis towards black Britons. It also masks the historical contributions of black people to British society allowing narratives of black brits being guests who reap the benefits of the success of a society built solely by the labour of white people.

Analysis of the culture of the British Army in the early 21st century shows that the organisation undertook significant initiatives to address racial discrimination, embracing equality legislation and setting recruitment targets to increase ethnic minority representation. While proactive in disciplining racist behaviour, the Army continued to grapple with pervasive instances of discrimination, highlighted in the documentary ‘Racism in the Ranks’ and acknowledged by the Armed Forces Service Complaints ombudsman. Discrepancies emerged between internal and external reports, the latter pointing to systemic discrimination hindering recruitment and retention, from which it can be concluded that it also hindered integration. Despite evidence suggesting systematic racism, the Army’s reluctance to acknowledge this mirrored societal denial seen in inadequate education on black British history, biased media portrayals, and a failure to confront the legacy of slavery. This cultural blindness perpetuated structural racism, posing barriers to integration in both the Army and wider society. Despite its efforts to reform and progress being made, the Army’s culture for this period remained ‘white-centred’; structural racism was able to endure amidst a culture of denial, ultimately preventing integration.

Post-murder of George Floyd (2020 – today)

The murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police in 2020 led to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement gaining global traction. In the UK, race relations, structural racism and re-examination of Britain’s colonial past were elevated to the top of public debate. Mass protests took place in major cities, and statues of historic figures linked to slavery were toppled or removed, resulting in the parliamentary discussion and recognition of a need for action. Abrams explains that despite a prohibitive structure in the UK in 2020, a ‘strong upsurge’ in mobilisation for the BLM movement occurred.²⁸ This shows that whilst the British public was not universally supportive of the BLM movement, there was an evidential shift in culture, race relations were no longer a taboo subject, and Britain’s link to the trans-Atlantic slave trade could no longer be ignored.

In interactions with the police, black people are nine times more likely to be subject to ‘stop-and-search’ than white people and 5.7 times more likely to be subjected to force than white people.²⁹ Indeed, in reviewing the conduct of the Met Police in 2023, Baroness Casey found them to be “institutionally racist”. ³⁰ This is a view shared by UN Human Rights Council experts who, following a review of the UK judicial system also in 2023, stated more widely that “Racism in the United Kingdom is structural, institutional and systemic”. ³¹ Amongst the UK’s black population, there is a perception that systematic racial discrimination is ongoing. In the 2023 black British Voices survey, 88% of respondents reported racial discrimination at work, and 87% of respondents expected to receive sub-standard medical care.³² What can be concluded is that today, it is not credible to say that the UK does not have a problem with structural racism and racial discrimination.

2020 marks a turning point where sections of British society began to evaluate and acknowledge how their attitudes and organisations may contribute to systemic racism and explore how they can address this. However, the actions of the Army suggest a reluctance to address issues. For example, there has been little evidence of any significant drive to end the prevailing Anglo-Saxon ideal of soldering through evaluation of its history. Where the Welsh National Gallery has chosen to re-hang its portrait of Lt-Gen. Sir Thomas Picton with a history of his appalling actions as governor of Trinidad alongside that of his heroics at the Battle of Waterloo,³³ the British Army has opted not to alter its celebration of Lt-Gen. Picton after which the home of 3(UK) Division Picton Barracks is named. In this regard, the British Army is not only behind society but also its US allies, who have opted to re-name barracks honouring Confederate Generals who fought to uphold slavery, in recognition of the cultural insensitivity they represent.³⁴

In 2021, King stated that the Army was pursuing “an explicitly anti-racist agenda”; however, the Army’s 2023 Race Action plan³⁵ appears to fall short of being specifically anti-racist. Instead, it approaches racial issues within its ranks through a lens primarily focused on recruitment, retention, and broader workforce management rather than directly addressing racial discrimination. It highlights concerns such as perceptions of injustice, overrepresentation in complaints, and slower promotion rates among ethnic minority soldiers. However, the plan does not explicitly mention racial discrimination. It only offers optional anti-racism initiatives like ‘Elephant in the Room’ training and efforts to enhance cross-cultural understanding during Initial Training. The emphasis seems to be on managing symptoms like high outflow rather than tackling root causes which indicates a hesitance to directly confront issues of racism. Moreover, the absence of specific strategies aimed at combating racial discrimination, signals a reluctance to take proactive measures to address racial biases or structural inequalities. This suggests discomfort or reluctance within the Army’s leadership to confront these sensitive issues head-on.

In stark contrast, the 2022 Police race action plan³⁶candidly confronts the history of complex relationships between policing and Black communities, acknowledging the existence of systemic racism within the institution. The Police is no historical exemplar of racial discrimination within its organisation and interaction with the public, but importantly, it recognises and acknowledges this fact. As such, the Police plan explicitly aims to become actively anti-racist rather than merely “not racist,” emphasising the need for a fundamental shift in mindset and approach to address systemic issues. Comparatively, the Police Race Action Plan actively pursues an anti-racist approach. The contrast between the two approaches highlights reluctance within the Army to address and tackle racism openly. The Police identify the challenge faced “is to create a police service that is anti-racist. Only being ‘not racist’ is not enough. It requires a much more active approach and mindset”.

Grant explains that not being racist is not enough; pro-active anti-racism is required. Just as sexism is not a woman’s issue and requires pan-gender action to address; racism is not only a ‘black issue’.³⁷ The Army knows this; it is evident in its approaches to dealing with sexism, highlighted in the aforementioned Wigston report. To remove barriers to integration for its black soldiers, the Army must first overcome the organisational discomfort and prevailing cultural reluctance to acknowledge systemic racism and implement anti-racist policies; in the years after George Floyd’s murder, structural racism remains unaddressed in the Army.

Conclusion

Through an evaluation of history, this essay has shown that systemic racism in British society exists and that since the death of George Floyd igniting debate on race relations, there is a broad awareness of racial inequality in the UK. This marks a cultural awakening for British society to the lasting impact of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. As a result, organisations and institutions are re-examining themselves, not to apologise for the past but to acknowledge how it impacts the present and begin to take action to redress. Some organisations are now implementing policies to hold themselves accountable to becoming specifically anti-racist to remove barriers and accelerate racial equity and integration.

The British Army has undergone a significant cultural evolution and does demonstrate a genuine desire to combat racism. However, its cultural evolution has not progressed beyond an awareness of racism in the organisation (which it does address). The Army has not yet acknowledged the existence and lasting effect of systematic racism in the organisation despite the clear evidence of it; It is reluctant to do so. The Army is not racist; it must, however, come to understand that structural racism can exist in the organisation through bias and prejudice as it does in wider UK society. Until it holds itself accountable to becoming specifically anti-racist through its policies and practices, as opposed to being accountable to recruiting numbers and percentages, and whilst the prevailing culture of reluctance to address root cause issues remains, the impact upon the integration of black soldiers will be significant. Failure to address this is unethical, and as such undermines the moral component of fighting power.³⁸ It is impossible to say if the Army is capable of the cultural change required. Still, it can be said with certainty that if the Army’s cultural reluctance to address systemic racism does not change, neither will the significant impact on the integration of black soldiers.

1. Nathan Nunn, “Culture and the Historical Process,” Economic History of Developing Regions 27, no. sup1 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1080/20780389.2012.664864.
2. Reni Eddo-Lodge, Why Im No Longer Talking to White People about Race, 2017.
3. National Army Museum, “British West Indies Regiment,” Regiments and Corps, 2023, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/british-west-indies-regiment.
4. Imperial War Museum, “The Black British Soldiers Who Were Deliberately Forgotten,” 2023, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-black-british-soldiers-who-were-deliberately-forgotten.
5. Ed Aarons, “Walter Tull: Why the Black Footballing Pioneer Was Denied a Military Cross,” The Guardian, February 3, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/03/walter-tull-black-football-pioneer-military-cross-tottenham.
6. Imperial War Museum, “The Black British Soldiers Who Were Deliberately Forgotten.”
7. Anthony King, “Decolonizing the British Army: A Preliminary Response,” International Affairs 97, no. 2 (March 1, 2021): 443–61, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab001.
8. History Extra, “Why WW2 Commemorations Need To Recognise The Black Contribution,” BBC History Magazine, 2023, https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/opinion-why-ww2-commemorations-need-recognise-black-contribution/.
9. Diane Abbot, “Black Soldiers,” in House of Commons Debate 14 March 1991 Vol 187 Cc1260-74, 1991.
10. Mark Smalley, “Colour Barred,” BBC News, September 11, 2006,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5333874.stm.
11. Janice Gassam Asare, Decentering Whiteness in the Workplace: A Guide for Equality and Inclusion (Oakland: Berrett-Koehler, 2023).
12. CRE, “Formal Investigation of the Household Cavalry” (London, October 2, 2000), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/689/0102506.htm.
13. MOD, “Strategic Defence Review,” July 1998.
14. King, “Decolonizing the British Army: A Preliminary Response.”
15. British Army, “Values & Standards,” 2008.
16. BBC, “Racism in the Ranks,” BBC Three investigative documentary, 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p085s6kz.
17. Emma Bowden, “Racist Incidents Increasing in British Army, Warns Ombudsman,” The Independent, December 19, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/army-racism-discrimination-hostile-environment-a9252946.html.
18. BMA Wrench, “Review of the Army Service Complaints Process,” June 28, 2019.
19. Defence Human Capability Science & Technology Centre, “The Lived Experience Final Summary Report,” April 8, 2019.
20. Michael Wigston, “Report on Inappropriate Behaviours,” July 15, 2019.
21. MOD, “UK Armed Forces Biannual Diversity Statistics,” National Statistics, January 12, 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-october-2022/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-1-october-2022#key-points-and-trends.
22. Eddo-Lodge, Why Im No Longer Talking to White People about Race.
23. Dept for Education, “Black History Month: How Black History Is Taught in Our Schools,” October 3, 2022, https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/10/03/black-history-month-how-black-history-is-taught-in-our-schools-2/.
24. Chris Evans, “Black History and Cultural Diversity in the Curriculum,” in House of Commons Debate Vol 698: Debated on Monday 28 June 2021 (London, 2021).
25. Karl Harris, “Identities and Myths; Exploring the UKs Heritage to See Beyond Racial Boundaries,” British Army Review, no. 181 (2021): 4–11.
26. Cushion Stephen et al., “Media Representations of Black Young Men and Boys” (London, 2011).
27. Hannah Flint, “Is It Time the All-White Period Drama Was Made Extinct,” BBC Culture, January 2020, https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200116-is-it-time-the-all-white-period-drama-was-made-extinct#:~:text=Film%20and%20theatre%20director%20Josie,historically%20inaccurate%2C%E2%80%9D%20Rourke%20says.
28. Benjamin Abrams, “Mobilisation without Opportunity: The UK’s 2020 Black Lives Matter Protests,” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2023.2239328.
29. HMICFRS, “Disproportionate Use of Police Powers” (London, February 26, 2021).
30. Casey, “Baroness Casey Review: An Independent Review into the standards of Behaviour and Internal Culture of the Metropolitan Police Service.”
31. UN, “Systemic Racism within UK Justice System,” United Nations News, January 2023, https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/01/1132912.
32. BBVP, “Black British Voices,” September 28, 2023.
33. National Museum Cardiff, “Reframing Picton,” 2022, https://museum.wales/about-us/Black-lives-matter/reframing-picton/.
34. Tom Vanden Brook, “Erasing the Confederacy: Army Changes Names of Iconic Fort and Fort Benning Bases,” USA Today, May 15, 2023, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/15/us-army-changes-base-names-fort-cavazos-fort-moore/70205085007/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Two%20iconic%20military%20posts,Moore%20and%20his%20wife%2C%20Julia.
35. British Army, “British Army’s Race Action Plan: Enabling Equality of Opportunity for All,” 2023.
36. Adam Grant, “Why White People Stay Silent on Racism, and What to Read First,” 2020, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-white-people-stay-silent-racism-adam-grant/.
37. Adam Grant, “Why White People Stay Silent on Racism, and What to Read First,” 2020, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-white-people-stay-silent-racism-adam-grant/.
38. British Army, “ADP Land Operations,” n.d.