Losing Nelson?

According to rumours published today, the National Maritime Museum is to review the legacy of Admiral Nelson, and try to place it into context. In the eyes of the press, he may find himself toppled from a pedestal for holding views that are not in line with the social values of the 21^st century.

To some this will be seen as a bad thing, the classic ‘PC gone mad’ headlines write themselves, as many outraged people seek to be angry at the idea that Nelson could be anything other than a bloody good bloke. But what if the museum actually has a point, and what if this is actually a rather good idea?

The Royal Navy has long placed Nelson on a pedestal above almost all others, to the extent that it can feel at times as if he has been deified. Cited at every opportunity in studies, and the subject of an annual dinner in memory of his victory at Trafalgar, he is central to the core identity and ethos of the Royal Navy – or is he?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with asking whether the historical personalities we so admire were as beyond reproach as we like to think. Humans are complicated complex beings and we all hold different views and attitudes, many of which evolve over time.

While to the Royal Navy Nelson remains a hero, it is clear that he held views that were not necessarily in line with the values of the time. Letters indicate that he opposed the moves by William Wilberforce towards the emancipation of slaves, and that he was an ardent supporter of the colonial system.

That a Royal Navy office supported the system of empire at a time when it was a common practise is perhaps not surprising. It would be difficult to find many naval officers, or others of the time, who did not share those views.

But it is important to recognise that some of the most important figures in the history of the Service held views that today would seem deeply incompatible with the values and standards of Service life.

This then places us in the heart of a dilemma – do we condemn those who seek to contextualise the commemoration of Nelson by placing panels showing that he held views that could be seen to condone the practise of slavery? Or do we instead accept that the social values of the period were very different to now, and that in expressing his views, Nelson was not saying anything that many others approved of?

The reason this matters to the modern Royal Navy is that it cuts to the heart of its commitment to diversity and equality of opportunity for all in the workforce. The Royal Navy is rightly proud of the way that it has changed over the years, for example the way that it has successfully integrated women at sea (which occurred 30 years ago this week).

It recruits from a talent pool, not only in the UK, but more widely –for example there is a community of proud West Indians who serve in the Royal Navy and have done so for many years, hailing from many of the nations in that region. Additionally, the Royal Navy is keen to increase its wider representation of the UK BAME population in its workforce, helping diversify its people and tap into a rich seam of talent and skills.

What message does it send though if the perception is that the Royal Navy, and the wider nation, uncritically accepts Admiral Nelson as someone who is beyond reproach or criticism? Should we accept that some historical figures are beyond reproach, regardless of their views, or should we seek to understand and reflect this appropriately?

If you are trying to recruit from the BAME workforce, is idolising an individual who, judging by some letters, seems to have been a keen opponent of those who would abolish slavery a sensible thing to do? What wider message does it say about the values and standards of the organisation?

This may sound a bit like ‘PC gone mad’ to some, but frankly it’s a conversation that needs to be had. If you are a young BAME potential recruit, then it is entirely possible that some of your ancestors in the not so distant past may have been slaves – possibly enslaved by British merchants. How would you feel about joining an organisation that idolises an individual who seemed to have actively opposed measures intended to free your ancestors from their bondage?

The Royal Navy is not the only organisation that finds itself in this position – as the cultural debate about our historical legacy as a nation grows, we need to come to terms with the fact that a lot of the basis of our current society is built upon the actions and activities of organisations, companies and people who did things that we today find morally reprehensible.

This is not to say that we as a society should airbrush this out of existence, and similarly we must be careful to not pretend it didn’t happen. We may not like it, but it was the values of the time. What matters is how we learn from it and reflect on it to understand that the picture of our national story is more complex and morally ambiguous than we perhaps want to realise or accept.

In the case of Nelson we find ourselves in an interesting place. He was not a slave owner, he did not have any plantations and in many ways his activity and victory over France helped set the conditions for the Royal Navy to take the lead in clamping down on slavery and liberating slaves. This is a story of which we should rightly be proud of, and is a story that deserves to be told more widely.

But at the same time, we also need to accept that Nelson was not a saint, that his behaviour and values were, even by the standards of the time, at odds with the direction society was moving in, and it is right to consider this. We also need to acknowledge that the Royal Navy did play a part in protecting slavers forts in Africa – for example the National Museum of the Royal Navy has early surveys by what is now the hydrographic squadron showing a chart of a slavers fort off the coast of what is now Ghana.

This is a challenging legacy and one that needs to be properly thought about and considered. While it may relate to events of nearly 250yrs ago, it still matters today because we as a nation to this day continue to idolise and revere individuals like Nelson. If we are prepared to sing his praises, surely we must be prepared to question his faults in equal measure?

The National Museum for the Royal Navy has an excellent read at this link about the challenges of trying to interpret the legacy of slavery on the Royal Navy – it is worth reading to understand the challenges of curating history and striking a balance

It is absolutely right then that a balance is struck. Nelson was without doubt a gifted naval officer whose actions and interventions played a critical role in helping safeguard the nation and changing our historical story forever. But we must not shy away from examining this undoubted good with the more complex side of his behaviour.

Perhaps though the time has come, spurred on by the demands for change and a willingness by society to move away from using Nelson as the figure of inspiration he has become? Arguably any naval officer who tries to emulate him in this day and age would be fired – for his behaviour at home was certainly questionable, whilst his at times disregard for orders and the established chain of command is not something that would be encouraged – even now in an era of Navy Command Transformation and empowerment…

The Royal Navy has a rich seam of history to tap into when it comes to inspiring officers, incredible acts of courage and leadership and delivering victory at sea. Nelson inspires because he is that most British of success stories, a winner who was also affected by tragedy too. Somehow his loss at Trafalgar magnified his story and made him immortal in a way that had he survived the battle, may not have happened.

Maybe it is time for the RN to instead look more widely for other Admirals or officers to venerate?  Why not bring the Trafalgar day dinner to a close, and instead use it as an opportunity to celebrate other naval heroes too?

To be honest Trafalgar night diners seem a bit awkward – we listen with professed rapt attention to a speech which will usually contain a fairly bland set of lines drawn from a central script around whatever current set of exciting developments are occurring at the time (e.g. ‘Nelson & Trafalgar – why the lessons from it means the current latest innovative and stupidly expensive consultant led NCHQ Transformation project is bound to succeed unlike the last few goes’). Listening to whichever idea we can shoehorn a long dead Admiral from the 19^th Century into is not really selling the message of forward leaning modern navy. It sounds like one that has yet to accept that he is dead.

Is the message of being a diverse workforce best delivered through the medium of Nelson? Is it better to look at other Admirals or individuals who could tell a different and equally compelling story? Are there battles of more strategic relevance to our current operational concept and plans?

Given that the UK has accepted it is likely to operate in future as a joint force in multiple domains as part of a multi-national operation, is Trafalgar, a battle involving unilateral operations with only one service in one domain really the right battle to focus on? This is not to say we should forget it, but perhaps we should ask whether its importance and relevance to the modern Royal Navy is as great as is sometimes made out to be?

For an organisation that professes itself to be a modern diverse 21^st Century force, the Royal Navy does seem remarkably obsessed with the actions of a white egotistical male adulterer who disliked the idea of freeing slaves from some 220 years ago. Given all that has happened since then, its perhaps reasonable to ask if it is time that the Royal Navy moved on from Nelson and found a better role model to venerate?