A critical reflection on Boris Johnson’s defence of Boris Johnson and the legacy of Winston Churchill
“Historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon… it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead.” — Noam Chomsky
This article critically examines how political rhetoric can reshape historical narratives—particularly in relation to race, empire, and national identity. It focuses on the defence of Winston Churchill by Boris Johnson and explores how historical revisionism, cognitive dissonance, and selective memory influence public understanding of racism in Britain.
Historical amnesia refers to the selective forgetting or erasure of uncomfortable truths from the past. Cognitive dissonance, on the other hand, occurs when individuals reject or rationalise evidence that challenges deeply held beliefs.
As Frantz Fanon explains, when confronted with conflicting evidence, people may deny or distort reality to protect their worldview.
Together, these concepts help explain why difficult conversations about racism—especially those tied to national pride—are often resisted or reframed.
In Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, Black identity is portrayed as being rendered “invisible” by societal perceptions.
This idea remains relevant today:
This duality reinforces systemic inequality and shapes lived experiences in profound ways.
In a 2021 speech, Boris Johnson strongly defended Winston Churchill, warning against attempts to “rewrite history” or engage in what he described as “cancel culture.”
Johnson portrayed Churchill as:
While these achievements are widely acknowledged, critics argue that this narrative often downplays or ignores Churchill’s documented racist views and imperial policies.
Historians and commentators have increasingly called for a more balanced view of Churchill’s legacy.
Critiques highlight that Churchill:
For example, his role during the Bengal famine of 1943, which resulted in millions of deaths, remains a point of significant debate.
The issue is not about erasing history—but about acknowledging its full complexity.
Some analysts suggest that invoking Churchill serves as a political strategy:
This aligns with classical ideas of rhetoric, dating back to Gorgias, who described speech as a powerful force capable of shaping perception and emotion.
A central theme in this discussion is the denial of racism, particularly at institutional levels.
This denial can take many forms:
Such narratives were reinforced in debates surrounding the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, led by Tony Sewell, which controversially concluded that institutional racism was not a defining feature of British society.
The way history is remembered—or forgotten—has real consequences:
Failing to confront historical realities risks perpetuating the very inequalities that persist today.
The goal is not to “cancel” historical figures, but to:
The defence of Churchill by Boris Johnson reflects a broader tension between national identity and historical truth.
As long as historical amnesia and cognitive dissonance persist, meaningful progress on racial justice will remain limited.
As Maya Angelou powerfully reminds us:
“Equality, and I will be free.”
