 |
| 19th century Novelist Charles Dickens en.wikepedia.org |
Dickens was deeply sympathetic to the poor and marginalised within Britain, but his liberalism often stopped at national borders. In his journalism, letters, and some fictional works, he expressed views that modern readers recognise as racist, xenophobic, or culturally chauvinistic. The Oxford Dictionary of English Literature describes him as a nationalist who frequently stigmatised non-European cultures, portraying them as inferior or “primitive.” His responses to colonial uprisings, especially the Indian Rebellion of 1857, reveal particularly extreme language, including calls for the “extermination” of Indians involved in the revolt—statements that have shocked later commentators.
Scholars differ sharply in their interpretations of Dickens’s racial views. Peter Ackroyd argued that, in modern terms, Dickens was “a racist of the most egregious kind,” despite his opposition to slavery and capital punishment. Patrick Brantlinger and William Oddie have suggested that Dickens’s racism intensified later in life, shaped by imperial anxieties and global unrest. Grace Moore, however, contends that Dickens’s views were more complex: while he remained hostile to non-European cultures, he also became increasingly aware of the brutalities of colonial rule and never abandoned his commitment to abolitionism.
One of the most debated issues is Dickens’s portrayal of Jewish characters, especially Fagin in Oliver Twist. Fagin has long been criticised as an antisemitic caricature, reinforced by the novel’s repeated reference to him simply as “the Jew.” After protests from Jewish readers, Dickens acknowledged the harm caused and later attempted partial redress through the creation of the benevolent Jewish character Riah in Our Mutual Friend. This episode highlights both Dickens’s prejudices and his capacity for moral self-correction.
Dickens’s depictions of other racial groups also reveal contradictions. In American Notes, he fiercely condemned slavery, yet described African Americans in ways that relied on grotesque stereotypes and questioned their fitness for political participation. His essay The Noble Savage ridiculed romantic views of Native Americans and advocated their “civilisation,” reflecting a belief in Western cultural superiority. Similarly, his hostility toward the Inuit in writings connected to the Franklin expedition shows how imperial loyalty and racial prejudice could override empirical evidence and empathy.
Modern critics such as Priti Joshi argue that Dickens was not a biological racist in the scientific sense; he believed that cultures could be reshaped through “civilisation.” Nevertheless, he remained a cultural chauvinist who used racial “others” as foils for defining British identity. In this sense, Dickens embodies the paradox of Victorian liberalism: a passionate champion of social justice at home, yet deeply compromised by the racial hierarchies and imperial assumptions of his age.
Dickens comment on Indians during 1857 sepoy mutiny
During the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (often called the Sepoy Mutiny), Charles Dickens made some of his most extreme and controversial comments about Indians, mainly in private letters, which later became central to debates about his racism.
 |
| 1857 rebellion shutterstock.com |
The most frequently cited statement comes from a letter Dickens wrote on 4 October 1857 to Emily de la Rue. Referring to the rebels, he wrote:
“I wish I were Commander-in-Chief in India. I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth.”
In the same letter, Dickens used highly dehumanising language to describe Indians, portraying them as violent and treacherous. He also approved of brutal British reprisals, including the punishment of rebels being “blown from the guns”, a method used by the British army to execute those accused of mutiny. Dickens referred approvingly to such acts as justified responses to what he perceived as barbaric cruelty.
 |
| Santhal rebellion, India amazon.in |
With respect to the mass killings of Santhals by the British army during the Santhal Rebellion of 1855 prior to 1857 rebellion, Charles Dickens wrote in "Household Words": ..
“There seems also to be a sentiment of honour among them (Santals); for it is said that they use poisoned arrows in hunting, but never against their foes. If this be the case- and we hear nothing of the poisoned arrows in the recent conflicts,-they are infinitely more respectable than our civilised enemy the Russians, who would most likely consider such forbearance as foolish, and declare that is not war.”
These remarks reveal a sharp contrast between Dickens’s humanitarian concern for the poor in Britain and his imperial nationalism abroad. While he opposed slavery and often condemned injustice in England, his response to the 1857 uprising showed little sympathy for colonised peoples. Many scholars argue that the rebellion triggered a hardening of his racial attitudes, moving them toward genocidal rhetoric grounded in imperial fear and outrage.
Importantly, Dickens did not express these views in his novels but mainly in private correspondence and journalism, which complicates his legacy. Historians such as Peter Ackroyd and Patrick Brantlinger see these comments as evidence that Dickens’s racism intensified after 1857, while others note that they reflect a broader Victorian imperial mindset rather than an isolated lapse.
Today, Dickens’s comments on the Indian Rebellion are widely regarded as among the darkest aspects of his moral and political outlook, challenging the image of him as a universally compassionate reformer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santhal_rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_work_of_Charles_Dickens
