History and identity: handle with care

History is central to identity. Not being taught your own history is a form of disenfranchisement and this is what Black History Month seeks to address. But it shouldn’t have to: we should be taught this stuff at school; we should know about the contributions different groups have made to European and British society, because they are remarkable, and because they are as much a part of British history as a part of ‘black’ (or ‘Jewish’, ‘Arab’, ‘Indian’ etc) history. Otherwise we may be in the thrall of such ignorance as was exhibited by John Cleese in his complaint that London is ‘no longer an English city’. Actually, it kinda never was. London has been a centre of trade for centuries, meaning that it has long been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural ‘melting-pot’. Cockney incorporates words from Yiddish and Romany. So get your facts straight. Especially when you are a British ‘institution’ yourself.

However there is a danger that our sense of history will define and constrain rather than liberate us. For this reason we have to be careful what popular history we are creating. It is worrying that the two most prominent historians in the public eye are both well to the right of centre. Eight years ago Niall Ferguson got to explain in a six part television series why the British Empire was so great – not a conclusion that many historians are comfortable with. Do people now believe that Britain was superior, that it brought massive benefits to backward peoples? Not a healthy view. This summer David Starkey was given a platform to express his views on the riots: they happened because ‘whites have become black’, as though ‘black culture’ is inherently violent and driven by opportunistic theft. It chimed with the Conservative representation of feral youths, and then he made this a ‘black’ thing. These men are in an undoubted position of influence over public opinion, respected academics. What they say matters, and may be taken as fact, even when it is on a subject of intense debate; or, in the case of Starkey’s comments this summer, just plain bigoted.

So history should be treated with caution. It can be as important to appreciate historical ‘myth’ (not dragons and heroes, but certain historical interpretations that may come to form part of a ‘national’ psyche), as the history of ‘proper’ historians, because this is what really forms identity. How can we hope to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict without being aware that the idea of Israel defending itself heroically (ok, so some heroes) against surrounding enemy states that sought its total destruction is central to its foundation myth? And of course there is some truth in this – although to see Israel as solely defensive is misguided, as Israeli historians are beginning to admit. History, therefore, must also challenge these popular notions so that we can move past them.

Studying the past is hazardous: we must be careful that the creation of identity does not mean the closing of ranks; history should broaden our understanding, not lead us to develop a blinkered view of our ‘own community’. Specific history months risk creating an inward-looking communalism, and compartmentalising histories that really form part of the fabric of history of a whole. But at least these campaigns go some way to correcting the bias in research and teaching. Histories should be integrated with the overarching ‘white’ narrative that dominates history in this country, because each is linked – the white narrative is both false, and boring. If this aim is pursued, we won’t need Black History Month, or Women’s History Month, or any other special focus on groups that have been under-represented in our education, because their part will be addressed and taught in schools. But in the meantime, happy October.

Childish politics - Dave vs Boris

The fact that Boris Johnson is the Tory party favourite, above the PM, is disheartening for David Cameron. It is also concerning for UK politics; whilst Cameron is slippery, promoting a new face of Toryism yet standing at the helm of brutal cuts that the head of the IMF cautions are likely to cause the British economy even more difficulty in the long-run, Boris is a buffoon (yes, I like the alliteration of this cliché, and what?). The one-upmanship in which he engages with Cameron only serves to prove this point: it is childish, and attention seeking – the curse of the over-privileged, arrogant posh boy. And Johnson knows how to get attention: he knew that he could make a song and dance about protecting Crossrail from cuts, despite having been assured it was safe. And Cameron and Osborne went along with it. What a waste of time and energy that could have been directed elsewhere. ‘In the current economic climate’ this makes me feel so very confident.

The BJ-DC tussle is worrying because it is a diversion from the real issues. Personality is of course crucial in politics; and no matter how much we dislike this, it has been the case for over a century (take the Gladstone-Disraeli competition in the late 19^th century), perhaps longer. But Dave and Boris need to grow up: their competition only highlights the unsavoury lad-ishness of the Tory Party, which Cameron has unfortunately (for his and his party’s sake) exposed to the public through such gaffes as the Calm Down Dear, and the Lady Is Frustrated incidents. Oops. I’m not suggesting a no-jokes policy (after all, I am from Catholic not Puritan stock!), they just need to ask themselves, in the favourite phrase of my year 6 primary school teacher, “is that appropriate?” Because this is not school, this is not even university, it is ‘the real world’; and more than this, these are men whose actions impinge on the school, university, and real worlds of everyone in Britain.

See Sonia Purnell’s article in The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-camerons-bte-blond-2364610.html