A number of intolerant ideologies have swept through the worlds of learning, literature and the visual and performing arts over the past two decades. I am concerned with one of them. Its essential feature is the diversion of academic disciplines to a task for which they are usually ill-suited, namely the reform of modern society so as to redress perceived inequalities, notably of race. In the course of this exercise, some of these disciplines have been discredited and others distorted, generally with little or no factual basis. The study of history is particularly vulnerable. Most historical scholarship involves judicious selection from a vast and usually incomplete body of material. It is possible to create an entirely false narrative without actually lying, by exaggeration and tendentious selection. The major threat to historical integrity comes when the criteria of selection are derived from a modern ideological agenda. We have been witnessing the reshaping of the history of the past four centuries to serve as a weapon in current political disputes. Objectivity and truth have been the main casualties.
In November 2022, the Wellcome Collection, a museum dedicated to the history of medicine, announced the closure of Medicine Man, an exhibition of artefacts relating to the history of medicine collected by its founder Sir Henry Wellcome. The decision to close this exhibition was itself perfectly reasonable. As a collector, Sir Henry Wellcome was a bit of a magpie, and the exhibition, which was 15 years old, was rather fusty. However, what mainly attracted attention was the statement which the curators published on Twitter that they had closed it because it âperpetuates a version of medical history that is based on racist, sexist and ableist theories and languageâ. To understand this statement, it is necessary to go back two and a half years to an earlier announcement from the Wellcome Collection in June 2020 in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Under the heading âAnti-Blackness and Racismâ, it declared that the Collection was built on âracist and patriarchal narrativesâ and that institutional racism was enmeshed within its fabric. It went on to suggest that not only the Wellcome Collection but museums generally were âbuilt on a foundation of white supremacyâ and had replicated âracist behavioursâ for decades. The curators declared their intention of âcontinually ask[ing] questions about power, representation and the civic role of public museumsâ and focussing on the âlived experiences of those who have been silenced, erased and ignoredâ.
What does all that mean? It is palpably untrue that medical history, as presented in Medicine Man, was based on racist, sexist and ableist theories. Certainly, museums reflect the historical outlook of those who assembled their collections and their successors who curated them. In Britain, they were generally able-bodied white males. But museums do not, just by virtue of that fact, replicate racist behaviours. Nor does our culture silence or ignore non-European experience where it is relevant. I think that what the curators meant to say was that the exhibition treated medicine as a western science of which non-white groups were passive consumers with no worthwhile contribution of their own. This, they felt, implied a hierarchy of cultures in which the west was superior to the rest, a notion which was offensive to non-western racial groups.
The Wellcome Collection is not alone. The Museum Association, which represents museums generally, has called on them to âaddress colonial structures and approaches to all areas of museum workâ. At about the same time as the curators of the Wellcome Collection published their June 2020 statement, the Director of the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew, probably the worldâs leading institution dedicated to plant science, issued a similar statement on its behalf. He began with the usual cringing confession that its history âshamefully draws from a legacy that has deep roots in colonialism and racismâ. The only fact cited to support this surprising assertion is that during the nineteenth century, the Royal Botanical Garden studied the movement of plants around the British Empire as part of its world-wide botanical mission. This is said to have made the Botanical Garden at Kew a âbeacon of privilege and exploitationâ. The director went on to declare that Kew would in future decolonise its collections and âtackle structural racism in plant and fungal scienceâ, with a view to achieving âtransformative and societal changeâ in modern Britain. The inference is that merely by having existed and collected information and specimens in the great age of imperialism Kew Gardens is in some way complicit in modern inequalities in Britain. Finally this. âThere is no acceptable neutral position on this subject [racial injustice;]; to stay silent is to be complicitâ. This is a particularly odd thing to say. It seems obvious that one can be an excellent plant scientist and an outstanding plant historian without taking any view at all on racial injustice.
These statements have certain points in common.
The first is that they are proposing a political program for the modern day, supported by a highly selective approach to the past which sees everything through the prism of race. Race becomes the supremely important phenomenon, masking every other aspect of a complex culture. Racial politics provide the framework of values by which every institution concerned with the past is to be judged. There are many important factors in the way that human societies develop. Race is only one of them and not necessarily the most important. Any serious commentator on the current state of historical studies ought to welcome attempts to present aspects of history which have previously been ignored or marginalised. That includes the story of ethnic minorities and non-European societies. But it does not mean that the whole of Britainâs modern history should be viewed through their eyes. It does not mean that the role of slavery or empire in Britainâs economic, cultural and social history should be exaggerated beyond recognition. And it does not mean that current political priorities should determine how we understand the past.
The second thing these statements have in common, is that they lose sight of the broader evolution of human history. Benjamin Disraeli once observed in response to an antisemitic taunt in the House of Commons, that âwhile the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomonâ. Victorian elites undoubtedly regarded their own civilisation as superior to others. This been a universal habit of humanity ever since the Greek city-states and the ancient dynasties of China dismissed the whole of the rest of the world as barbarians. If these prejudices are ever justified, it is only for short periods of time, two or three centuries at the most. Empires and cultures are transient. They have their periods of power and creativity, before fading away. Medicine is as good an example as any. White males have not always dominated medical science. There have been periods when major contributions came from non-European cultures: Chinese, Indian and Arab in particular. Historians have not ignored this. Great books have been written about it, almost all in European languages. The 26 volumes of the History of Science and Technology in China by the Cambridge scientist and historian Joseph Needham is one of the most remarkable works ever written on the multicultural origins of modern science. But this should not blind us to the fact that the three centuries before the Second World War were the European centuries, in medicine as in other sciences.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI have things enough to be guilty about in my own life. But thankfully I have a long list of things I am not guilty of. They include the Spanish Inquisition, the Wounded Knee massacre and the sinking of the Lusitania. Not there, didn’t do it, nothing I could have done to stop it.
Admittedly, I did, aged 9, parade on Empire day carrying the flag of Canada. May the Lord forgive me.
Forgiven. Applauded, even.
How do you know you were not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Wounded Knee massacre and the sinking of the Lusitania.
Your very denial is evidence of your guilt. To this day you and those like you continue to benefit from these atrocities and your denial of involvement is a grievous insult those that suffered and to their descendants
I suppose this is sarasm???
Of course. That’s how I took it.
But you never can be too sure. maybe the number of likes on an Unheard platform are a give away.
But you never can be too sure. maybe the number of likes on an Unheard platform are a give away.
Gilmore – that you even ask that shows you are totally irredeemable. The sooner the world rids its self of you Euro-Centrist thinkers –
and so can return to ignorance and barbarism, the better.
The good news is the Race, Gender, and Education industries have that well in hand. Civilization as it is should be finished; within out lifetime. Meanwhile topple a few more statues, let more criminals go, mutilate some more children sexually – and help speed it along its way…
Statues are but a barbaric remnant of idol worship. No man, living or dead, deserves to be immortalized in bronze on a granite pedestal above the common run of humanity! Do away with all of them!
Start with Marx then.
What? Even the âElgin Marblesâ?
Yes, break them up, crush the bits and give Greece back the dust of civilisation.
Yes, break them up, crush the bits and give Greece back the dust of civilisation.
I fully agree, if you include the flickering, phantom statues of our barbaric modern media. “Do away with all of them!” None deserve their 30 second immortalization.
I suppose this too is sarcasm???
Start with Marx then.
What? Even the âElgin Marblesâ?
I fully agree, if you include the flickering, phantom statues of our barbaric modern media. “Do away with all of them!” None deserve their 30 second immortalization.
I suppose this too is sarcasm???
Well It was sarcasm coming from me but it would be a talking truth to white ignorance from a Guardian reader
Statues are but a barbaric remnant of idol worship. No man, living or dead, deserves to be immortalized in bronze on a granite pedestal above the common run of humanity! Do away with all of them!
Well It was sarcasm coming from me but it would be a talking truth to white ignorance from a Guardian reader
I fervently hope so or things are even worse than we feared,
Ya think??
It better be or its yet more of the same forced guilt trip.
One would hope so.
No, but it could be sarcasm.
Of course. That’s how I took it.
Gilmore – that you even ask that shows you are totally irredeemable. The sooner the world rids its self of you Euro-Centrist thinkers –
and so can return to ignorance and barbarism, the better.
The good news is the Race, Gender, and Education industries have that well in hand. Civilization as it is should be finished; within out lifetime. Meanwhile topple a few more statues, let more criminals go, mutilate some more children sexually – and help speed it along its way…
I fervently hope so or things are even worse than we feared,
Ya think??
It better be or its yet more of the same forced guilt trip.
One would hope so.
No, but it could be sarcasm.
Don’t forget the Black Death–and the burning of Rome!
Excellent point. Guilt is attendant upon white existence.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article slowly.
I suppose this is sarasm???
Don’t forget the Black Death–and the burning of Rome!
Excellent point. Guilt is attendant upon white existence.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article slowly.
I actually did sink the Lusitania, had a great time torturing Spanish heretics and Custer was an awful person who deserved everything he got.
Forgiven. Applauded, even.
How do you know you were not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Wounded Knee massacre and the sinking of the Lusitania.
Your very denial is evidence of your guilt. To this day you and those like you continue to benefit from these atrocities and your denial of involvement is a grievous insult those that suffered and to their descendants
I actually did sink the Lusitania, had a great time torturing Spanish heretics and Custer was an awful person who deserved everything he got.
I have things enough to be guilty about in my own life. But thankfully I have a long list of things I am not guilty of. They include the Spanish Inquisition, the Wounded Knee massacre and the sinking of the Lusitania. Not there, didn’t do it, nothing I could have done to stop it.
Admittedly, I did, aged 9, parade on Empire day carrying the flag of Canada. May the Lord forgive me.
History has always been a battleground as modern ideas clash over how our past should be interpreted. Facts are secondary to narrative in today’s teaching of history – and our broader society and culture suffer as a result.
Those that have been profiting from a hopelessly skewed version of history wish to silence those that dare speak out against it and they have been gifted an important head-start. The identitarian left has already captured most of the teaching profession and most of the cultural institutions of this country – certainly the majority of our museums. Those who might otherwise push back against this pernicious and divisive agenda often choose to stay silent, mainly down to their fear of accusations of racism. The first, and to my mind, most important way to tackle these lies is through education.
Much of the current fashion of supposedly âdecolonising the curriculumâ has in fact narrowed rather than broadened what is taught. Itâs decades since any children were told the British Empire was a force of unalloyed good for the world, but the pendulum has swung far too far the other way. The current fashion is to teach that it was simply a 300 year carnival of atrocities and depredation. What lessons can be learned from History if it is shorn of all context and nuance?
The past â as LP Hartley famously noted – is a foreign country, they do things differently there, and those who insist on judging the past by the acceptable norms of C21st activism, only make themselves look ignorant and foolish. But it plays well to those who wish (possibly âneedâ) to believe that the whole of history is rooted in racism.
Our cultural institutions, our universities, the BBC, indeed nearly all the Metropolitan Left, have associated endlessly negative baggage with British history and, indeed, ‘British-ness’. It has infected any debate involving pride in our history with a national self-loathing, the idea that patriotism is xenophobic at heart, the idea that British history is something only to apologise for.
I’m very proud to be British. As a student of history I am well aware of terrible things that happened (usually hundreds of years before I was born) but I am still unapologetically proud to be British. This country has had an enormous impact on the world – some of it very good, some very bad.
But it is our history. It for the most part happened in our ancestors’ day. Nothing I can do or say will change that history. My pride has no more bearing on it than my guilt would. Nor, for that matter, the Guardian’s disapprobation.
Look around us and we can see that the racial grievance industry is enjoying a boom time. There are careers to be had, books to be written and fortunes to be made. Who cares about speaking the truth if you can make a buck from spreading falsehoods? No sense in trying to bring communities together when your lucrative career depends on stoking resentment on one side of the racial divide and feeding a sense of guilt to the other. Activist academics like Kehinde Andrews, along with fellow race hucksters like Robin Di Angelo, Ibram X Kendi and the Guardianâs Afua Hirsch, are – as I see it – profiting as arms dealers in the culture war.
Slavery was an abomination. It is as close to a moral absolute as one can get that it is wrong for one human being to “own” another – but it is unjust, and arguably racist, to hold one race more accountable for that abomination than another. No one should ever try and excuse the slave trade, but they should, if they’re honest, set it in historical context and perspective. Why uniquely condemn the British and Americans when – as a simple matter of fact – they were involved in a hideous practice that had been going on in every part of the world for thousands of years?
The only unique position that Britain holds in the history of slavery is that in 1807, Britain was one of the first countries on earth to abolish the slave trade, not merely on her own shores, but across the Empire, and then expended treasure and blood to police the seas to end the trade worldwide.
Teach that and you might lessen the sense of grievance that has been inculcated by the partisan and partial teaching of history.
The Guardian line seems to be that anyone who has pride in being British has somehow admitted to something unhealthy and ‘problematic’. Why?
If a Frenchman is proud of being French, would they immediately mistrust his motives in the same way? I’m willing to bet they wouldn’t.
If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people I’ve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. Again – I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t.
So, what is so different about a British person expressing pride in their nationality, their national story, their history? Why does the Left automatically suspect a British patriot of some sinister subtext?
Maybe a patriot SHOULD recognise the faults in his own country, I wouldn’t disagree with that idea. Blind patriotism, alongside blind hatred (blind anything) is reflexive and unthinking.
In 2020, as the rest of the country celebrated the 75th anniversary of VE Day, the Guardian went into overdrive, producing a whole slew of articles that seemed determined to undermine the occasion. Their attitude was that anyone who showed pride in Britain’s wartime past was jingoistic and somehow laying claim to glories that belonged to another generation, yet in the light of the BLM protests, the Guardian was happy to promote the idea that we should all shoulder the guilt for anything bad done by this country in its imperial history.
Admiration for heroes in the very recent past is backwards looking, yet we’re somehow on the hook for reparations to the colonised 200 years later? It doesn’t seem a consistent position. Why should the statute of limitations for guilt should run so much longer than that of glory?
Superb.
I will, however, offer one ‘blind’ that is the opposite of reflexive and unthinking, and one of which i’m sure LJS would approve:
Blind Justice
Impossible thanks to Saville, Hoffman* and others have shown.
(* The Pinochet case.)
Impossible thanks to Saville, Hoffman* and others have shown.
(* The Pinochet case.)
Great comment. I’d take issue with one element though – the greatest objection seems to be regarding being English, with British coming second. There seems to be nowhere near the problem with the Welsh, Scots or Irish. One wonders why this is.
Aye, it’s great to be scotch when working anywhere overseas: asserting so always makes the natives more friendly. The only downside is, if you are an Engineer as I am, then you are also assumed to be super-expert and that can be stressful.
Especially when you admit that, even though a fully qualified Engineer, it isn’t always the case that I can mend your old vacuum cleaner.
Isn’t it “Scots” not “scotch”?
Modern day v. Robert Burns.
Modern day v. Robert Burns.
Especially when you admit that, even though a fully qualified Engineer, it isn’t always the case that I can mend your old vacuum cleaner.
Isn’t it “Scots” not “scotch”?
It is becoming deeply problematic indeed to show any kind of deep feeling of being Irish, of Irishness as anything more than wielding a passport. Such things can get you fired. Pretty soon the gardai will be able to arrest you and search your home for that sort of thing
Really?! I’m surprised. I know it used to be problematic but it seems to me to be quite the opposite now.
Really?! I’m surprised. I know it used to be problematic but it seems to me to be quite the opposite now.
Presumably because they are regarded as among the colonised and not the colonising. A remarkably misguided view since arguably the Empire could never have come about without the Scots.
Aye, it’s great to be scotch when working anywhere overseas: asserting so always makes the natives more friendly. The only downside is, if you are an Engineer as I am, then you are also assumed to be super-expert and that can be stressful.
It is becoming deeply problematic indeed to show any kind of deep feeling of being Irish, of Irishness as anything more than wielding a passport. Such things can get you fired. Pretty soon the gardai will be able to arrest you and search your home for that sort of thing
Presumably because they are regarded as among the colonised and not the colonising. A remarkably misguided view since arguably the Empire could never have come about without the Scots.
Truly excellent article. Have you also noticed that apart from the sinistre spectre at this left-wing feast, the main benificiaries of this are the very groups who are happy to continue their own participation in racism, slavery & supemacist behaviours.
BLM like it’s cousin, the Nation of Islam, are specifically anti white, anti-western groups who use violence to subjugate anyone weaker (for that read, more educated &/or civilised) under their thumb by any means necessary.
They have learned the profound truth that if you can make anyone feel sufficiently guilty, they will set to work and oppress themselves.
They have learned the profound truth that if you can make anyone feel sufficiently guilty, they will set to work and oppress themselves.
Re The Guradian (canât be bothered to correct my spelling mistake), they tried to do the same a year earlier on the 75th anniversary of D Day. They published an utterly tendentious and unfunny cartoon by Bell, which, in effect, said that D Day succeeded because of the sacrifices of the Soviet Army.
It is certainly true that the Soviets tied-up large numbers of German soldiers but the Allies were also fighting in Italy, the Balkans, the Far East, and by sea and air also; the balance is nowhere near as distorted as is sometimes pictured. I would happily concede that we should commemorate more fully the Soviet contribution. I would, for example, like to see VE Day moved to May 9, which is when the Russians mark the occasion.
I think what particularly riled me was the insult to the very few remaining D Day veterans; how dare some snivelling metropolitan Ă©lite traduce the sacrifice of those men and women. And, if anyone wants a sense of hard the fighting was, the casualty rates for British and Canadian soldiers from D Day to Apr 45 were equivalent to the worst days of 1914-18; it was no âwalk in the parkâ, as the Guradian suggested.
I’ve often wondered whether the Guardian would be able to bring itself to support the country in a time of genuine national crisis.
Would they be able to lay aside the partisan politics or is the default position of reflexive criticism of anything touched by a Tory so ingrained that they’d still carry on with the diatribes, the sniping and the deeply unhelpful undermining of any Govt statement, policy or action, even in the face of a national emergency that called for a bit of patriotic solidarity?
I harboured a suspicion, were we to face, say, a repeat of the Blitz, that rather than rallying the nation, the editorial choice would be daily columns castigating the Govt for the state of our air-raid shelters, the paucity of our ack-ack guns, comparing the efficiency and might of our enemy with the unpreparedness and weakness of our own forces – and probably calling for our complete surrender in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds.
Well, now, after the paper’s response to Covid, we know.
We faced a national emergency and what did the Guardian do? Continued to snipe, continued their relentless negativity, determined to cast anything the Govt did in the worst possible light, and undermine everything they tried do.
The nation doesn’t need mindless cheerleading, but equally we don’t need mindless criticism. Is it too much to ask for measured reportage and a sense of national solidarity?
Actually there was one Guardian article that managed to strike the right note in the early weeks of Lockdown – but it only served to underline their self-loathing miserablism. – It was headlined “Coronavirus has sent Europe into shock. But we have the tools to recover” by Natalie NougayrĂšde
Quelle bloody surprise.
The only way they’d allow a positive, optimistic story through was so they could trumpet the wonderful European response to the Virus, whilst undermining the UK by making unfavourable comparisons with the response on our side of the Channel.
Honest question to them – DO YOU THINK YOU’RE HELPING?
Honest reply — THAT’S NOT WHAT WE DO.
Honest reply — THAT’S NOT WHAT WE DO.
The contribution was about 50/50.
We blew up the factories that produced the weapons for the eastern front, while shipping half a million tanks, planes and trucks to Russia. The Russian counteroffensives would have been as anemic as Bakhmut without them.
One can both honour the fallen Russians and make an objective assessment of everyone’s contribution.
Again, it takes a superb historian like Sumption to do that.
The Soviets triumphed at Stalingrad well before any substantial âLend-Leaseâ was available.
The Soviets triumphed at Stalingrad well before any substantial âLend-Leaseâ was available.
Good comments here. The Soviets, of course, didn’t get involved with the war with the Nazis until June 1941 (almost two years after the war had started) as they had signed the ridiculous “non-aggression” pact with the Nazis in 1939. This didn’t stop the Soviets from invading Eastern Poland in September 1939.
What about the âD Day Dodgersâ in Italy?
Well put. Orwell was magnificently excoriating of these clowns – in the second half of âThe Road To Wigan Pierâ, especially, but elsewhere too. Such behaviour is the genuine English disease, but practiced predominantly by Sainsburyâs socialists and Waitrose warriors. Fifth columnists all.
(And if weâre talking about spelling mistakes, the Grauniad still holds the record, I believeâŠ)
If you can’t be bothered to correct spelling mistakes don’t expect to be taken seriously.
I’ve often wondered whether the Guardian would be able to bring itself to support the country in a time of genuine national crisis.
Would they be able to lay aside the partisan politics or is the default position of reflexive criticism of anything touched by a Tory so ingrained that they’d still carry on with the diatribes, the sniping and the deeply unhelpful undermining of any Govt statement, policy or action, even in the face of a national emergency that called for a bit of patriotic solidarity?
I harboured a suspicion, were we to face, say, a repeat of the Blitz, that rather than rallying the nation, the editorial choice would be daily columns castigating the Govt for the state of our air-raid shelters, the paucity of our ack-ack guns, comparing the efficiency and might of our enemy with the unpreparedness and weakness of our own forces – and probably calling for our complete surrender in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds.
Well, now, after the paper’s response to Covid, we know.
We faced a national emergency and what did the Guardian do? Continued to snipe, continued their relentless negativity, determined to cast anything the Govt did in the worst possible light, and undermine everything they tried do.
The nation doesn’t need mindless cheerleading, but equally we don’t need mindless criticism. Is it too much to ask for measured reportage and a sense of national solidarity?
Actually there was one Guardian article that managed to strike the right note in the early weeks of Lockdown – but it only served to underline their self-loathing miserablism. – It was headlined “Coronavirus has sent Europe into shock. But we have the tools to recover” by Natalie NougayrĂšde
Quelle bloody surprise.
The only way they’d allow a positive, optimistic story through was so they could trumpet the wonderful European response to the Virus, whilst undermining the UK by making unfavourable comparisons with the response on our side of the Channel.
Honest question to them – DO YOU THINK YOU’RE HELPING?
The contribution was about 50/50.
We blew up the factories that produced the weapons for the eastern front, while shipping half a million tanks, planes and trucks to Russia. The Russian counteroffensives would have been as anemic as Bakhmut without them.
One can both honour the fallen Russians and make an objective assessment of everyone’s contribution.
Again, it takes a superb historian like Sumption to do that.
Good comments here. The Soviets, of course, didn’t get involved with the war with the Nazis until June 1941 (almost two years after the war had started) as they had signed the ridiculous “non-aggression” pact with the Nazis in 1939. This didn’t stop the Soviets from invading Eastern Poland in September 1939.
What about the âD Day Dodgersâ in Italy?
Well put. Orwell was magnificently excoriating of these clowns – in the second half of âThe Road To Wigan Pierâ, especially, but elsewhere too. Such behaviour is the genuine English disease, but practiced predominantly by Sainsburyâs socialists and Waitrose warriors. Fifth columnists all.
(And if weâre talking about spelling mistakes, the Grauniad still holds the record, I believeâŠ)
If you can’t be bothered to correct spelling mistakes don’t expect to be taken seriously.
An excellent comment, thank you for articulating what others feel so strongly too. We are not uniquely angels nor devils, not should we try to divide world history up into heroes and villains.
When will we start discussing the ultimate goal of this ideology that seems to be trying to destroy the West from within? This piece does well in displaying the impacts that this ideology has had but I’ve hardly seen any discussion of what is driving it. I don’t buy that something this self-destructive just organically came to be. The only explanation I’ve seen is that it’s communists finally starting to have their way, and although this new race/oppression-obsessed ideology definitely shares some key tenets with communism, most of the largest private corporations in the world also openly embrace this ideology so I’m still left confused.
(sorry that this isn’t very related to your comment, I’m not a paid subscriber so I can’t make my own comment)
“If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people Iâve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. Again â Iâm fairly sure they wouldnât.”
It is well known that Tongans once took part in the practice of cannibalism (perhaps even more reprehensible than slavery). Must Tongans forever be apologising for their cannibal forebears?
That’s awfully long.
Excellent comment
Superb.
I will, however, offer one ‘blind’ that is the opposite of reflexive and unthinking, and one of which i’m sure LJS would approve:
Blind Justice
Great comment. I’d take issue with one element though – the greatest objection seems to be regarding being English, with British coming second. There seems to be nowhere near the problem with the Welsh, Scots or Irish. One wonders why this is.
Truly excellent article. Have you also noticed that apart from the sinistre spectre at this left-wing feast, the main benificiaries of this are the very groups who are happy to continue their own participation in racism, slavery & supemacist behaviours.
BLM like it’s cousin, the Nation of Islam, are specifically anti white, anti-western groups who use violence to subjugate anyone weaker (for that read, more educated &/or civilised) under their thumb by any means necessary.
Re The Guradian (canât be bothered to correct my spelling mistake), they tried to do the same a year earlier on the 75th anniversary of D Day. They published an utterly tendentious and unfunny cartoon by Bell, which, in effect, said that D Day succeeded because of the sacrifices of the Soviet Army.
It is certainly true that the Soviets tied-up large numbers of German soldiers but the Allies were also fighting in Italy, the Balkans, the Far East, and by sea and air also; the balance is nowhere near as distorted as is sometimes pictured. I would happily concede that we should commemorate more fully the Soviet contribution. I would, for example, like to see VE Day moved to May 9, which is when the Russians mark the occasion.
I think what particularly riled me was the insult to the very few remaining D Day veterans; how dare some snivelling metropolitan Ă©lite traduce the sacrifice of those men and women. And, if anyone wants a sense of hard the fighting was, the casualty rates for British and Canadian soldiers from D Day to Apr 45 were equivalent to the worst days of 1914-18; it was no âwalk in the parkâ, as the Guradian suggested.
An excellent comment, thank you for articulating what others feel so strongly too. We are not uniquely angels nor devils, not should we try to divide world history up into heroes and villains.
When will we start discussing the ultimate goal of this ideology that seems to be trying to destroy the West from within? This piece does well in displaying the impacts that this ideology has had but I’ve hardly seen any discussion of what is driving it. I don’t buy that something this self-destructive just organically came to be. The only explanation I’ve seen is that it’s communists finally starting to have their way, and although this new race/oppression-obsessed ideology definitely shares some key tenets with communism, most of the largest private corporations in the world also openly embrace this ideology so I’m still left confused.
(sorry that this isn’t very related to your comment, I’m not a paid subscriber so I can’t make my own comment)
“If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people Iâve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. Again â Iâm fairly sure they wouldnât.”
It is well known that Tongans once took part in the practice of cannibalism (perhaps even more reprehensible than slavery). Must Tongans forever be apologising for their cannibal forebears?
That’s awfully long.
Excellent comment
History has always been a battleground as modern ideas clash over how our past should be interpreted. Facts are secondary to narrative in today’s teaching of history – and our broader society and culture suffer as a result.
Those that have been profiting from a hopelessly skewed version of history wish to silence those that dare speak out against it and they have been gifted an important head-start. The identitarian left has already captured most of the teaching profession and most of the cultural institutions of this country – certainly the majority of our museums. Those who might otherwise push back against this pernicious and divisive agenda often choose to stay silent, mainly down to their fear of accusations of racism. The first, and to my mind, most important way to tackle these lies is through education.
Much of the current fashion of supposedly âdecolonising the curriculumâ has in fact narrowed rather than broadened what is taught. Itâs decades since any children were told the British Empire was a force of unalloyed good for the world, but the pendulum has swung far too far the other way. The current fashion is to teach that it was simply a 300 year carnival of atrocities and depredation. What lessons can be learned from History if it is shorn of all context and nuance?
The past â as LP Hartley famously noted – is a foreign country, they do things differently there, and those who insist on judging the past by the acceptable norms of C21st activism, only make themselves look ignorant and foolish. But it plays well to those who wish (possibly âneedâ) to believe that the whole of history is rooted in racism.
Our cultural institutions, our universities, the BBC, indeed nearly all the Metropolitan Left, have associated endlessly negative baggage with British history and, indeed, ‘British-ness’. It has infected any debate involving pride in our history with a national self-loathing, the idea that patriotism is xenophobic at heart, the idea that British history is something only to apologise for.
I’m very proud to be British. As a student of history I am well aware of terrible things that happened (usually hundreds of years before I was born) but I am still unapologetically proud to be British. This country has had an enormous impact on the world – some of it very good, some very bad.
But it is our history. It for the most part happened in our ancestors’ day. Nothing I can do or say will change that history. My pride has no more bearing on it than my guilt would. Nor, for that matter, the Guardian’s disapprobation.
Look around us and we can see that the racial grievance industry is enjoying a boom time. There are careers to be had, books to be written and fortunes to be made. Who cares about speaking the truth if you can make a buck from spreading falsehoods? No sense in trying to bring communities together when your lucrative career depends on stoking resentment on one side of the racial divide and feeding a sense of guilt to the other. Activist academics like Kehinde Andrews, along with fellow race hucksters like Robin Di Angelo, Ibram X Kendi and the Guardianâs Afua Hirsch, are – as I see it – profiting as arms dealers in the culture war.
Slavery was an abomination. It is as close to a moral absolute as one can get that it is wrong for one human being to “own” another – but it is unjust, and arguably racist, to hold one race more accountable for that abomination than another. No one should ever try and excuse the slave trade, but they should, if they’re honest, set it in historical context and perspective. Why uniquely condemn the British and Americans when – as a simple matter of fact – they were involved in a hideous practice that had been going on in every part of the world for thousands of years?
The only unique position that Britain holds in the history of slavery is that in 1807, Britain was one of the first countries on earth to abolish the slave trade, not merely on her own shores, but across the Empire, and then expended treasure and blood to police the seas to end the trade worldwide.
Teach that and you might lessen the sense of grievance that has been inculcated by the partisan and partial teaching of history.
The Guardian line seems to be that anyone who has pride in being British has somehow admitted to something unhealthy and ‘problematic’. Why?
If a Frenchman is proud of being French, would they immediately mistrust his motives in the same way? I’m willing to bet they wouldn’t.
If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people I’ve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. Again – I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t.
So, what is so different about a British person expressing pride in their nationality, their national story, their history? Why does the Left automatically suspect a British patriot of some sinister subtext?
Maybe a patriot SHOULD recognise the faults in his own country, I wouldn’t disagree with that idea. Blind patriotism, alongside blind hatred (blind anything) is reflexive and unthinking.
In 2020, as the rest of the country celebrated the 75th anniversary of VE Day, the Guardian went into overdrive, producing a whole slew of articles that seemed determined to undermine the occasion. Their attitude was that anyone who showed pride in Britain’s wartime past was jingoistic and somehow laying claim to glories that belonged to another generation, yet in the light of the BLM protests, the Guardian was happy to promote the idea that we should all shoulder the guilt for anything bad done by this country in its imperial history.
Admiration for heroes in the very recent past is backwards looking, yet we’re somehow on the hook for reparations to the colonised 200 years later? It doesn’t seem a consistent position. Why should the statute of limitations for guilt should run so much longer than that of glory?
If you look at the world through racist tinted glasses everything looks racist. And that might well be a conscious act to ‘simplify’ your thinking. An ideological vision.
But the world is a far more complex place.
It is nothing more than a power grab through historical revisionism.
Turning the Roundheads into a leftest ideology !o!
The Roundheads WERE a leftist ideology.
The conservatives were the conservatives.
That seems so self-evident, I’m amazed that there was any discussion at all on that.
That seems so self-evident, I’m amazed that there was any discussion at all on that.
The Roundheads WERE a leftist ideology.
The conservatives were the conservatives.
Turning the Roundheads into a leftest ideology !o!
But when will we start discussing the ultimate goal of this ideology that seems to be trying to destroy the West from within? This piece does well in displaying the impacts that this ideology has had but I’ve hardly seen any discussion of what is driving it. I don’t buy that something this self-destructive just organically came to be. The only explanation I’ve seen is that it’s communists finally starting to have their way, and although this new race/oppression-obsessed ideology definitely shares some key tenets with communism, most of the largest private corporations in the world also openly embrace this ideology so I’m still left confused.
Removing response. Didn’t realize at first that this had been multiply posted elsewhere.
What? I can’t make my own comment because I’m not a paid subscriber so I asked the same question to multiple people that I would like to see what they would have to say.
What? I can’t make my own comment because I’m not a paid subscriber so I asked the same question to multiple people that I would like to see what they would have to say.
Removing response. Didn’t realize at first that this had been multiply posted elsewhere.
It is nothing more than a power grab through historical revisionism.
But when will we start discussing the ultimate goal of this ideology that seems to be trying to destroy the West from within? This piece does well in displaying the impacts that this ideology has had but I’ve hardly seen any discussion of what is driving it. I don’t buy that something this self-destructive just organically came to be. The only explanation I’ve seen is that it’s communists finally starting to have their way, and although this new race/oppression-obsessed ideology definitely shares some key tenets with communism, most of the largest private corporations in the world also openly embrace this ideology so I’m still left confused.
If you look at the world through racist tinted glasses everything looks racist. And that might well be a conscious act to ‘simplify’ your thinking. An ideological vision.
But the world is a far more complex place.
âThere is no acceptable neutral position on this subject [racial injustice;]; to stay silent is to be complicitâ.
This is one of those phrases which drives me absolutely mad. It is not offered as one opinion among many which we might discuss and adopt. The essence of it is authoritarian, even tyrannical: we are right, you must think what we think, and any deviance from this opinion will result in opprobrium being heaped upon you. It leaves no option for people to simply be quiet and/or apolitical. One is always allowed not to have an opinion.
That is has crept into somewhere like a botanical garden is simply absurd. I am very glad that I had my excellent British education before these kind of theories started seeping into every single discipline. We were allowed to think and discuss and very few constraints were placed upon us. It was hugely enriching and set me up for life.
A few weeks ago I visited an art exhibition and I read the introductory text at the start, as I always do – even though it always involves wading through the undergrowth of some quite abstract language. And there, wouldn’t you know it, was a bald statement of “this is a response to institutional racism”. No mention of where this institutional racism was supposed to exist (i.e. which country), or what it might consist of, or any explanation of the meaning of the term. It was just wanged on in there: a command to the reader to simply accept.
I didn’t. I will not be told what I have to think without at least being presented with explanations/arguments. I admired the pretty pictures but then left the gallery.
Even as your covid symptoms wane (hopefully), your forthrightness doesn’t!
The textual imposition upon an essentially visual medium (art) is another example of people being told what to think. As an artist, i deplore this, and really do try to avoid the accompanying blurb but, like yourself, find myself drawn to it. Unlike yourself, i wait till after i’ve appraised the artwork on show before doing so. I have to say, it almost invariably diminishes it (if the art was worth looking at in the first place).
Another example is the use of words or phrases in what is proffered as art. (Tracey Emin, look away now!) If the piece is meant to be serious, it’d be the equivalent of a novelist adding little doodles to a text examining our humanity, or even large colourful doodles as the novel itself.
Thanks, Steve. I’ve tested negative now for covid. Just waiting for smell and taste to return. It’s certainly a funny thing. Have always been a very direct person and I think living in the German speaking area has made the tendency stronger, as it is more culturally acceptable here to “come right out” with things. I think getting older also makes you less willing to beat around the bush.
Thanks, Steve. I’ve tested negative now for covid. Just waiting for smell and taste to return. It’s certainly a funny thing. Have always been a very direct person and I think living in the German speaking area has made the tendency stronger, as it is more culturally acceptable here to “come right out” with things. I think getting older also makes you less willing to beat around the bush.
Youâve put your finger on the most important point. When the writer suggests that âthe pendulum has swung too far,â he treats issue as a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. This is, in my judgement anyway, a mistake. The modern world broke from the ancient world in the most radical of ways, by disputing the very existence of an extended physical world for us the sense or experience, and positing instead that only impressions, phantasmagoria, or reveries, exist, but no real âwalls of the word.â There is no âcommon senseâ because there is nothing to sense in common. It is this view, again in my judgment, with which the âcommon senseâ wing does battle.
Well said Katherine. I, too, enjoyed a grammar-school education in 1970s Britain and was taught how to debate robustly, including arguing for propositions that I myself did not share. Today’s activists cannot debate at all, which is why their first response to opposition is to pin labels.
Like you, I refuse to subscribe to this systemic racism myth. The term could legitimately be used to describe apartheid South Africa or pre-civil rights America, where racism really was baked into the system. But to use it for Western Europe and modern-day America â as if they were just more of the same â is patently absurd and an abuse of language. It’s like Trudeau boasting that Canada is genocidal. Really? So Canada is right up there alongside Nazi Germany and 1915 Turkey? Not only is this appallingly low-resolution thinking (to quote JP) but it is also a preposterous slander against the people of Canada. Preposterous is a word we should be using far more than we do.
As to the remedy: I’m coming round to the realisation that we must be more strident in our opposition to these totalitarians. That we must refute their asinine assertions wherever and whenever we can. That we mustn’t care or waver just because they brand us “right-wing”… Where I’m stuck is on the question of what form our resistance should take. That’s the hard one. Best wishes to Vienna from Switzerland.
GrĂŒezi!
Preposterous is an amazing word! “Ridiculous” is my go-to, but I shall try and sneak a preposterous or two back into speech!
“Splendid” is another word which I feel is in almost criminally short supply these days.
When will we start discussing the ultimate goal of this ideology that seems to be trying to destroy the West from within? This piece does well in displaying the impacts that this ideology has had but I’ve hardly seen any discussion of what is driving it. I don’t buy that something this self-destructive just organically came to be. The only explanation I’ve seen is that it’s communists finally starting to have their way, and although this new race/oppression-obsessed ideology definitely shares some key tenets with communism, most of the largest private corporations in the world also openly embrace this ideology so I’m still left confused.
GrĂŒezi!
Preposterous is an amazing word! “Ridiculous” is my go-to, but I shall try and sneak a preposterous or two back into speech!
“Splendid” is another word which I feel is in almost criminally short supply these days.
When will we start discussing the ultimate goal of this ideology that seems to be trying to destroy the West from within? This piece does well in displaying the impacts that this ideology has had but I’ve hardly seen any discussion of what is driving it. I don’t buy that something this self-destructive just organically came to be. The only explanation I’ve seen is that it’s communists finally starting to have their way, and although this new race/oppression-obsessed ideology definitely shares some key tenets with communism, most of the largest private corporations in the world also openly embrace this ideology so I’m still left confused.
Even as your covid symptoms wane (hopefully), your forthrightness doesn’t!
The textual imposition upon an essentially visual medium (art) is another example of people being told what to think. As an artist, i deplore this, and really do try to avoid the accompanying blurb but, like yourself, find myself drawn to it. Unlike yourself, i wait till after i’ve appraised the artwork on show before doing so. I have to say, it almost invariably diminishes it (if the art was worth looking at in the first place).
Another example is the use of words or phrases in what is proffered as art. (Tracey Emin, look away now!) If the piece is meant to be serious, it’d be the equivalent of a novelist adding little doodles to a text examining our humanity, or even large colourful doodles as the novel itself.
Youâve put your finger on the most important point. When the writer suggests that âthe pendulum has swung too far,â he treats issue as a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. This is, in my judgement anyway, a mistake. The modern world broke from the ancient world in the most radical of ways, by disputing the very existence of an extended physical world for us the sense or experience, and positing instead that only impressions, phantasmagoria, or reveries, exist, but no real âwalls of the word.â There is no âcommon senseâ because there is nothing to sense in common. It is this view, again in my judgment, with which the âcommon senseâ wing does battle.
Well said Katherine. I, too, enjoyed a grammar-school education in 1970s Britain and was taught how to debate robustly, including arguing for propositions that I myself did not share. Today’s activists cannot debate at all, which is why their first response to opposition is to pin labels.
Like you, I refuse to subscribe to this systemic racism myth. The term could legitimately be used to describe apartheid South Africa or pre-civil rights America, where racism really was baked into the system. But to use it for Western Europe and modern-day America â as if they were just more of the same â is patently absurd and an abuse of language. It’s like Trudeau boasting that Canada is genocidal. Really? So Canada is right up there alongside Nazi Germany and 1915 Turkey? Not only is this appallingly low-resolution thinking (to quote JP) but it is also a preposterous slander against the people of Canada. Preposterous is a word we should be using far more than we do.
As to the remedy: I’m coming round to the realisation that we must be more strident in our opposition to these totalitarians. That we must refute their asinine assertions wherever and whenever we can. That we mustn’t care or waver just because they brand us “right-wing”… Where I’m stuck is on the question of what form our resistance should take. That’s the hard one. Best wishes to Vienna from Switzerland.
âThere is no acceptable neutral position on this subject [racial injustice;]; to stay silent is to be complicitâ.
This is one of those phrases which drives me absolutely mad. It is not offered as one opinion among many which we might discuss and adopt. The essence of it is authoritarian, even tyrannical: we are right, you must think what we think, and any deviance from this opinion will result in opprobrium being heaped upon you. It leaves no option for people to simply be quiet and/or apolitical. One is always allowed not to have an opinion.
That is has crept into somewhere like a botanical garden is simply absurd. I am very glad that I had my excellent British education before these kind of theories started seeping into every single discipline. We were allowed to think and discuss and very few constraints were placed upon us. It was hugely enriching and set me up for life.
A few weeks ago I visited an art exhibition and I read the introductory text at the start, as I always do – even though it always involves wading through the undergrowth of some quite abstract language. And there, wouldn’t you know it, was a bald statement of “this is a response to institutional racism”. No mention of where this institutional racism was supposed to exist (i.e. which country), or what it might consist of, or any explanation of the meaning of the term. It was just wanged on in there: a command to the reader to simply accept.
I didn’t. I will not be told what I have to think without at least being presented with explanations/arguments. I admired the pretty pictures but then left the gallery.
The history of the world is littered with examples of dominant cultures growing through conquest. Every part of the world has this. If it is for the rabid left only a bad thing when white people do this, then white people are being held to a higher standard. It seems to me that all of these people are the true white supremacists. They just feel so guilty that they need to tear it all down to assuage their guilt
The history of the world is littered with examples of dominant cultures growing through conquest. Every part of the world has this. If it is for the rabid left only a bad thing when white people do this, then white people are being held to a higher standard. It seems to me that all of these people are the true white supremacists. They just feel so guilty that they need to tear it all down to assuage their guilt
I grew up in a colony in Africa. Peace, no hunger, schools, hospitals , roads, Police that didnt need bribes, no colour bar in any places. The colonial officers were not disliked. And they did not dislike their peoples.
The world of the moral puritans- who were never there- and knew nothing of it – cannot grasp the reality.
I grew up in a colony in Africa. Peace, no hunger, schools, hospitals , roads, Police that didnt need bribes, no colour bar in any places. The colonial officers were not disliked. And they did not dislike their peoples.
The world of the moral puritans- who were never there- and knew nothing of it – cannot grasp the reality.
“To many people, all this is beside the point. Their real concern is with the present, and with those aspects of the past which serve their arguments about the present. Their anger against the past is provoked by a small number of totemic issues, of which race and empire are the most sensitive.”
This is the key. These people have no interest in history or rational debate. They loathe and resent us, and they’re looking for retribution for the ills they fantasise that they’ve inherited (or, in the case of self-loathing Westerners, that they fantasise they’re guilty of).
“To many people, all this is beside the point. Their real concern is with the present, and with those aspects of the past which serve their arguments about the present. Their anger against the past is provoked by a small number of totemic issues, of which race and empire are the most sensitive.”
This is the key. These people have no interest in history or rational debate. They loathe and resent us, and they’re looking for retribution for the ills they fantasise that they’ve inherited (or, in the case of self-loathing Westerners, that they fantasise they’re guilty of).
When Lord Sumption writes, those with sense listen. I recall my own lecturer trying to indoctrinate me with the poisonous, pernicious nonsense of Said’s Orientalism. I think it marked a turning point for me as I knew instinctively what the man was claiming was not borne out by my own readings in history. Racial and other identity politics are a cancer on our society and hopefully this well-reasoned intervention goes some small way to ending its stranglehold on our U.S-dominated national conversation.
When Lord Sumption writes, those with sense listen. I recall my own lecturer trying to indoctrinate me with the poisonous, pernicious nonsense of Said’s Orientalism. I think it marked a turning point for me as I knew instinctively what the man was claiming was not borne out by my own readings in history. Racial and other identity politics are a cancer on our society and hopefully this well-reasoned intervention goes some small way to ending its stranglehold on our U.S-dominated national conversation.
Thank you for this very interesting essay. It put words to some of my own intuitions and fears, which I never could have expressed as intelligently, precisely and courageously as the author. It will be of great help in many conversations on this subject.
Thank you for this very interesting essay. It put words to some of my own intuitions and fears, which I never could have expressed as intelligently, precisely and courageously as the author. It will be of great help in many conversations on this subject.
Nail this on the door of every so-called university.
Nail this on the door of every so-called university.
The reason Africans don’t flood back to the land from where they were cruelly sold by their own race is simple. They’re not stupid and don’t want history to repeat itself.
The reason Africans don’t flood back to the land from where they were cruelly sold by their own race is simple. They’re not stupid and don’t want history to repeat itself.
In its relatively short life Unherd has published many excellent pieces but this essay I hold to be the very best so far. I know I will re read it many times – and be improved as a result of doing so. The messages and leaning contained in this work cannot be ignored but must be taken up and implemented. My sincere thanks to the author and to the publisher.
In its relatively short life Unherd has published many excellent pieces but this essay I hold to be the very best so far. I know I will re read it many times – and be improved as a result of doing so. The messages and leaning contained in this work cannot be ignored but must be taken up and implemented. My sincere thanks to the author and to the publisher.
Gosh, almost no comment, as yet – why? I am no absolute fan of Sumption (I think, probably contrary to most commentators on this forum, that he was very wrong about lockdown, sitting nicely in his French castle) but he is an interesting, intelligent chap with a very wide knowledge who writes well. So to answer my own question I have almost no quibble with this excellent essay which I greatly enjoyed and gives a fine basis for much further investigation.
One small quibble might be that, having recently read around the subject, I would say that the original Roundheads were actually rather more liberal towards religion than is generally thought, Cromwell himself saying that as far as he was concerned a man’s religious conscience was his own concern, it was his expression of that in public worship that was the issue.
That’s very much my opinion of Sumption too. He should not – and i’m sure he’d agree with this? – regard himself, and nor should others, as some kind of guru whose word is the final word on any subject.
He does think and write with astonishing clarity. I suspect the initial reluctance to comment may be due to first of all, readers taking time for the many strands of his essay (based on a lecture) to sink in; and secondly, for fear of seeming to think/write with less clarity.
The publishing of this by Unherd is hugely welcome. It sets out in serious fashion an intellectual baseline by which the appraisal of current cultural trends can be judged. I guess this is no coincidence, given his judicial reputation.
He is a truly great historian! No better way to discover 100 Years War. Hence this erudite passionate appeal for good History and a vigorous fightback versus the New Roundheads! Look at the white washed walls in Church. Remember!
One day, one day, I will, honest, get around to reading his three-volume monumental history of the Hundred (and a few) Years’ War. If only he put out a c.300 page summary!
At least one can scrape off the whitewash – I can’t recall any instance of the Parliamentarians burning down any churches, and at least they put a stop to much bear-baiting and c**k-fighting, albeit not because of animal cruelty so much as people having fun.
One day, one day, I will, honest, get around to reading his three-volume monumental history of the Hundred (and a few) Years’ War. If only he put out a c.300 page summary!
At least one can scrape off the whitewash – I can’t recall any instance of the Parliamentarians burning down any churches, and at least they put a stop to much bear-baiting and c**k-fighting, albeit not because of animal cruelty so much as people having fun.
Sumption was one of the few voices of reason who dared to challenge the official narrative during the Covid hysteria. One by one, the positions he took are now being validated, as the truth come out about the unintended consequences of lockdowns, the care home scandal, the ineffectiveness of masks and the dangers of vaccines untested on humans and produced at ‘warp speed’.
This article is a long-overdue and welcome rebuttal of the worst excesses of wokery, with the analytical rigour of a former Supreme Court judge.
That’s very much my opinion of Sumption too. He should not – and i’m sure he’d agree with this? – regard himself, and nor should others, as some kind of guru whose word is the final word on any subject.
He does think and write with astonishing clarity. I suspect the initial reluctance to comment may be due to first of all, readers taking time for the many strands of his essay (based on a lecture) to sink in; and secondly, for fear of seeming to think/write with less clarity.
The publishing of this by Unherd is hugely welcome. It sets out in serious fashion an intellectual baseline by which the appraisal of current cultural trends can be judged. I guess this is no coincidence, given his judicial reputation.
He is a truly great historian! No better way to discover 100 Years War. Hence this erudite passionate appeal for good History and a vigorous fightback versus the New Roundheads! Look at the white washed walls in Church. Remember!
Sumption was one of the few voices of reason who dared to challenge the official narrative during the Covid hysteria. One by one, the positions he took are now being validated, as the truth come out about the unintended consequences of lockdowns, the care home scandal, the ineffectiveness of masks and the dangers of vaccines untested on humans and produced at ‘warp speed’.
This article is a long-overdue and welcome rebuttal of the worst excesses of wokery, with the analytical rigour of a former Supreme Court judge.
Gosh, almost no comment, as yet – why? I am no absolute fan of Sumption (I think, probably contrary to most commentators on this forum, that he was very wrong about lockdown, sitting nicely in his French castle) but he is an interesting, intelligent chap with a very wide knowledge who writes well. So to answer my own question I have almost no quibble with this excellent essay which I greatly enjoyed and gives a fine basis for much further investigation.
One small quibble might be that, having recently read around the subject, I would say that the original Roundheads were actually rather more liberal towards religion than is generally thought, Cromwell himself saying that as far as he was concerned a man’s religious conscience was his own concern, it was his expression of that in public worship that was the issue.
Here in Switzerland, I confess I had never heard of Mr Sumption but I seldom read a more powerful essay against the intellectual regression prevailing in more and more academic circles. According to a poster below, the author is presently living in a French castle. This could help him survive the probable backlash and may be the physical harm this lecture might trigger.
I gather that JS spent much of Lockdown in the UK where the ârestrictionsâ were far less draconian than in France.
Incidentally besides being a former UK Supreme Court Judge, he is a noted historian specialising in âThe Hundred Years Warâ, and a former Kingâs Scholar at Eton.
Friends describe him as having a brain the size of a planet!
I do think your observation about the nature of continental lockdowns should be made more often. I remain of the opinion that aside from the first lockdown, where very little information was available, all subsequent ones were unnecessary and have done unimaginable damage to our economy, children and the fabric of society.
This said, speaking to friends who live in Italy, they endured restrictions which were harsher, for longer and which were enforced by the Polizia and Carabinieri with great efficiency. Worse even than Scotland. Going to the shop to buy food often required you to present your papers to a goon in a silly hat and explain yourself.
I couldnât agree more.
Sadly Europe was an absolute disgrace, latent fascist/ communist instincts were given full rein with simply awful results.
At least over here we had the âexemption ruleâ for Mask wearing, which even my Swiss friends found completely incomprehensible ! âYou donât even need the authority of an expert?!!!â etc.
So perhaps Magna Carta, Simon de Montfort, the execution of Charles I, and the Glorious Revolution were NOT in vain, and we can thank Lord Jonathan Sumption and Peter Hitchings Esq for reminding us of this.
I couldnât agree more.
Sadly Europe was an absolute disgrace, latent fascist/ communist instincts were given full rein with simply awful results.
At least over here we had the âexemption ruleâ for Mask wearing, which even my Swiss friends found completely incomprehensible ! âYou donât even need the authority of an expert?!!!â etc.
So perhaps Magna Carta, Simon de Montfort, the execution of Charles I, and the Glorious Revolution were NOT in vain, and we can thank Lord Jonathan Sumption and Peter Hitchings Esq for reminding us of this.
I do think your observation about the nature of continental lockdowns should be made more often. I remain of the opinion that aside from the first lockdown, where very little information was available, all subsequent ones were unnecessary and have done unimaginable damage to our economy, children and the fabric of society.
This said, speaking to friends who live in Italy, they endured restrictions which were harsher, for longer and which were enforced by the Polizia and Carabinieri with great efficiency. Worse even than Scotland. Going to the shop to buy food often required you to present your papers to a goon in a silly hat and explain yourself.
I gather that JS spent much of Lockdown in the UK where the ârestrictionsâ were far less draconian than in France.
Incidentally besides being a former UK Supreme Court Judge, he is a noted historian specialising in âThe Hundred Years Warâ, and a former Kingâs Scholar at Eton.
Friends describe him as having a brain the size of a planet!
Here in Switzerland, I confess I had never heard of Mr Sumption but I seldom read a more powerful essay against the intellectual regression prevailing in more and more academic circles. According to a poster below, the author is presently living in a French castle. This could help him survive the probable backlash and may be the physical harm this lecture might trigger.
Brilliant,the best article I have ever read about anything serious
Brilliant,the best article I have ever read about anything serious
To paraphrase Tom Stoppard in Night and Day, “On any other subject, they could talk like normal human beings. But when the subject of their strike came up, it was as if their brains had been removed and replaced by one of those little golf ball things found in typewriters which only had five words on it. You’d need a more flexible language to describe a dispute between two amoebas.”
Stoppard was talking about the union wreckers of the 70s, but his description is even more apt about the “woke” today. The statements these once respectable institutions make about their efforts to “decolonise” subjects that were never colonised in the first place sound not so much like hostage videos as the “confessions” of former thought criminals in Orwell’s 1984.
But… I would point out that McCarthyism lasted 10 years. China’s Cultural Revolution lasted 10 years. Even prohibition (founded in another strain of puritanism) lasted 10 years. And of course the militant Trots Stoppard was writing about seem rather quaint and ridiculous now. This too shall pass.
I suppose then that we have to ascertain when it began and hope for ten years since that time to come quickly.
I suppose then that we have to ascertain when it began and hope for ten years since that time to come quickly.
To paraphrase Tom Stoppard in Night and Day, “On any other subject, they could talk like normal human beings. But when the subject of their strike came up, it was as if their brains had been removed and replaced by one of those little golf ball things found in typewriters which only had five words on it. You’d need a more flexible language to describe a dispute between two amoebas.”
Stoppard was talking about the union wreckers of the 70s, but his description is even more apt about the “woke” today. The statements these once respectable institutions make about their efforts to “decolonise” subjects that were never colonised in the first place sound not so much like hostage videos as the “confessions” of former thought criminals in Orwell’s 1984.
But… I would point out that McCarthyism lasted 10 years. China’s Cultural Revolution lasted 10 years. Even prohibition (founded in another strain of puritanism) lasted 10 years. And of course the militant Trots Stoppard was writing about seem rather quaint and ridiculous now. This too shall pass.
Great piece, thank you.
The one concept I would quibble with is in the final paras, about societies in the past having shown both light and shade. Those are value judgements based on a modern scale of values projected onto the past, onto a situation where that value scale was unknown. The past is a fact, and facts are not susceptible to value judgements.
Value judgements are only relevant to the here and now, to the choices we make in our private and in our political life (i.e. as voters). I get the feeling that the most fervent virtue signallers are engaging in the practice to compensate for their cowardice in moral action today.
You make a very good point in your final paragraph..If one was overwhelmingly concerned by slavery and exploitation there are many opportunities to confront and seek to suppress such activities in the way that our Victorian forebears did. However, there is in fact little desire among those so concerned with the wrongs of the past to actually combat slavery in Africa or China or exploitation in Rotherham and elsewhere. Instead the Nelsonian blind eye is applied or the practices excused as authentic alternative cultural manifestations. It is safe to confront the sins of the past whose members canât rise from their graves to fight their corner.
I’m not sure that the past is a fact, in fact I would think that it ain’t! Lord S himself points out that sources are by their very nature incomplete, and we are given new insight into, and new ‘facts about, history all the time. Remember that history is written by the victors!
You make a very good point in your final paragraph..If one was overwhelmingly concerned by slavery and exploitation there are many opportunities to confront and seek to suppress such activities in the way that our Victorian forebears did. However, there is in fact little desire among those so concerned with the wrongs of the past to actually combat slavery in Africa or China or exploitation in Rotherham and elsewhere. Instead the Nelsonian blind eye is applied or the practices excused as authentic alternative cultural manifestations. It is safe to confront the sins of the past whose members canât rise from their graves to fight their corner.
I’m not sure that the past is a fact, in fact I would think that it ain’t! Lord S himself points out that sources are by their very nature incomplete, and we are given new insight into, and new ‘facts about, history all the time. Remember that history is written by the victors!
Great piece, thank you.
The one concept I would quibble with is in the final paras, about societies in the past having shown both light and shade. Those are value judgements based on a modern scale of values projected onto the past, onto a situation where that value scale was unknown. The past is a fact, and facts are not susceptible to value judgements.
Value judgements are only relevant to the here and now, to the choices we make in our private and in our political life (i.e. as voters). I get the feeling that the most fervent virtue signallers are engaging in the practice to compensate for their cowardice in moral action today.
A fine dissection and disembowelling of the academic ârotâ that lies at the heart of the racial politics fanaticism that has captured our future âintellectual capitalâ. We know who the âstokersâ are and that âthey know not what they doâ . This Essay should be in the briefcase of every university historian and on the curriculum of every one of those âbusinessesâ aka universities. Oh, and send copies to Grauniad and Aunty B. They are in need of a history lesson âŠ.
A fine dissection and disembowelling of the academic ârotâ that lies at the heart of the racial politics fanaticism that has captured our future âintellectual capitalâ. We know who the âstokersâ are and that âthey know not what they doâ . This Essay should be in the briefcase of every university historian and on the curriculum of every one of those âbusinessesâ aka universities. Oh, and send copies to Grauniad and Aunty B. They are in need of a history lesson âŠ.
“It seems obvious that one can be an excellent plant scientist and an outstanding plant historian without taking any view at all on racial injustice.”
Quite.
But I’d go further. It is also likely that one cannot be an excellent plant scientist if one takes an unscientific view in other domains (history) and has such muddled priorities !
“It seems obvious that one can be an excellent plant scientist and an outstanding plant historian without taking any view at all on racial injustice.”
Quite.
But I’d go further. It is also likely that one cannot be an excellent plant scientist if one takes an unscientific view in other domains (history) and has such muddled priorities !
The reason people keep making these ridiculous, ‘anti-racist’ statements is because being ‘woker-than-thou’ is something of a one-way bet.
If they stay silent, in academia or museum curating, then they risk the disapprobration of their peers. Funding dries up. Careers stagnate. Publishers turn down their book proposals.
But if they speak out, what happens? Their peers cheer, because they are toeing the party line. A Guardian editorial might give them a little pat on the head, if they’re lucky. They might get some polite criticism, vide Jonathan Sumption, above. But nothing bad happens to them.
So, if were in their shoes, what would you do?
Honestly, I cannot bring myself to utter this nonsense, despite it now permeating my profession. Iâm generally keeping my head down and making measured criticisms when I can. Many colleagues think the same, but also keep schtum for obvious reasons.
Honestly, I cannot bring myself to utter this nonsense, despite it now permeating my profession. Iâm generally keeping my head down and making measured criticisms when I can. Many colleagues think the same, but also keep schtum for obvious reasons.
The reason people keep making these ridiculous, ‘anti-racist’ statements is because being ‘woker-than-thou’ is something of a one-way bet.
If they stay silent, in academia or museum curating, then they risk the disapprobration of their peers. Funding dries up. Careers stagnate. Publishers turn down their book proposals.
But if they speak out, what happens? Their peers cheer, because they are toeing the party line. A Guardian editorial might give them a little pat on the head, if they’re lucky. They might get some polite criticism, vide Jonathan Sumption, above. But nothing bad happens to them.
So, if were in their shoes, what would you do?
Universities are the petrie dish for these mono cultural permitted views.
Universities are the petrie dish for these mono cultural permitted views.
Being a gringo, it’s been easier to frame things in terms of “Neo-Puritans,” but, obviously, “New Roundheads” does the trick. They were set on their own Great Resets, on building a new City on the Hill.
Meanwhile, I sometimes find myself thinking about such ambitious efforts to reset society as the Khmer Rouge initiative after the fall of Phnom Penh in 1975. Those guys were very serious and effective in implementing their own Great Reset… to “Year Zero,” no less, in their parlance. Everyone would be forced to live in a purely agrarian society.
There were some complications to deal with. For example, collectivizing all agricultural production did shatter agricultural productivity. A large share of the population would either starve to death, or, the local authorities could select inconvenient people for execution and thus spare the more compliant among them from the prospect of starvation.
Population reduction; agriculture liberated from the use of fertilizers; equality imposed on the survivors. The Green Nirvana.
Being a gringo, it’s been easier to frame things in terms of “Neo-Puritans,” but, obviously, “New Roundheads” does the trick. They were set on their own Great Resets, on building a new City on the Hill.
Meanwhile, I sometimes find myself thinking about such ambitious efforts to reset society as the Khmer Rouge initiative after the fall of Phnom Penh in 1975. Those guys were very serious and effective in implementing their own Great Reset… to “Year Zero,” no less, in their parlance. Everyone would be forced to live in a purely agrarian society.
There were some complications to deal with. For example, collectivizing all agricultural production did shatter agricultural productivity. A large share of the population would either starve to death, or, the local authorities could select inconvenient people for execution and thus spare the more compliant among them from the prospect of starvation.
Population reduction; agriculture liberated from the use of fertilizers; equality imposed on the survivors. The Green Nirvana.
In all discussions about the evils of racism, I am continually surprised to see little or no reference to the fact that there can be very few people living in the UK (or Europe, for that matter) who are not living today within (say) 20 miles of a slave. Few seem interested.
It would also be nice to see more reference to the recent attacks on Scott Adams, creator of the excellent Dilbert comic strip, for pointing out that data from a Rasmussen Reports poll found 47% of black Americans disagreed with the statement âItâs okay to be white.â
But perhaps the oddest fact, that I think only Douglas Murray has had the cojones to discuss, is the extraordinary racism and anti-semitism of comments to Engels and others written by none other than Karl Marx. If someone dug up similar comments from Beethoven, or Leonardo, perhaps, all their collected works would have gone through the shredder in a week. Most curious.
In all discussions about the evils of racism, I am continually surprised to see little or no reference to the fact that there can be very few people living in the UK (or Europe, for that matter) who are not living today within (say) 20 miles of a slave. Few seem interested.
It would also be nice to see more reference to the recent attacks on Scott Adams, creator of the excellent Dilbert comic strip, for pointing out that data from a Rasmussen Reports poll found 47% of black Americans disagreed with the statement âItâs okay to be white.â
But perhaps the oddest fact, that I think only Douglas Murray has had the cojones to discuss, is the extraordinary racism and anti-semitism of comments to Engels and others written by none other than Karl Marx. If someone dug up similar comments from Beethoven, or Leonardo, perhaps, all their collected works would have gone through the shredder in a week. Most curious.
“it was a period in which cultural and scientific developments fundamental to the modern world almost all emanated from Europe or from European settlements elsewhere.”
Perhaps it’s time to notice the elephant in the room? Whitey gave the modern world virtually everything that it values. And if not whitey himself, then most of the remainder was produced within the framework of Whiteness. That is to say, even if some POC is honored as the inventor/discoverer of something or other, he probably did it after receiving a White education and while working at a White institution. In short, to cancel Whiteness is to cancel civilization.
There have been civilizations that have been non-white, so your point is overegged. It is true however, as Lord Sumption asserts, that for the past four centuries (until the Second World War) the west, Europe, ‘whites’ whatever you want to call it, has pushed its conception of civilization across the world, for good or ill. Given the willingness of so many postcolonial societies to engage in ‘white’ civilization we clearly did something right.
There have been civilizations that have been non-white, so your point is overegged. It is true however, as Lord Sumption asserts, that for the past four centuries (until the Second World War) the west, Europe, ‘whites’ whatever you want to call it, has pushed its conception of civilization across the world, for good or ill. Given the willingness of so many postcolonial societies to engage in ‘white’ civilization we clearly did something right.
“it was a period in which cultural and scientific developments fundamental to the modern world almost all emanated from Europe or from European settlements elsewhere.”
Perhaps it’s time to notice the elephant in the room? Whitey gave the modern world virtually everything that it values. And if not whitey himself, then most of the remainder was produced within the framework of Whiteness. That is to say, even if some POC is honored as the inventor/discoverer of something or other, he probably did it after receiving a White education and while working at a White institution. In short, to cancel Whiteness is to cancel civilization.
Best thing I’ve read on Unherd in weeks. Just brilliant. Articles like this that criticize the whole idea of injecting political ideology into every single facet of life are the reason I pay my subscription fee. The notion that one should at least make an attempt at intellectual objectivity is all but dead on this side of the Atlantic. We’re past that point here. In the USA, your choices are pick a side or drop out of the fight entirely.
Praise indeed from âSoldier Blueâ!
Oh is that what we’re calling me now? How did you come up with that name?
Oh is that what we’re calling me now? How did you come up with that name?
I dont know whtch side of the Atlantic is ”this side”.
Praise indeed from âSoldier Blueâ!
I dont know whtch side of the Atlantic is ”this side”.
Best thing I’ve read on Unherd in weeks. Just brilliant. Articles like this that criticize the whole idea of injecting political ideology into every single facet of life are the reason I pay my subscription fee. The notion that one should at least make an attempt at intellectual objectivity is all but dead on this side of the Atlantic. We’re past that point here. In the USA, your choices are pick a side or drop out of the fight entirely.
“Once a person or an institution is touched by slavery or empire, nothing else about them matters, however important or admirable…” The Guardian has thus far dodged that one.
“Once a person or an institution is touched by slavery or empire, nothing else about them matters, however important or admirable…” The Guardian has thus far dodged that one.
to âremedy the highly selective narrative of traditional academiaâwhich frames the West as sole producers of universal knowledgeâby integrating subjugated and local epistemologies⊠And yet these same narrow-minded academics refuse to even discuss objectively what they term ‘pseudo science’ like alternative histories etc…let alone real debate over the highly selective issues they preach about – double standards much?
to âremedy the highly selective narrative of traditional academiaâwhich frames the West as sole producers of universal knowledgeâby integrating subjugated and local epistemologies⊠And yet these same narrow-minded academics refuse to even discuss objectively what they term ‘pseudo science’ like alternative histories etc…let alone real debate over the highly selective issues they preach about – double standards much?
Pedant alert and point of fact: here are states that abolished slavery before England did —
Rhode Island 1652
Vermont 1777
Pennsylvania 1780
Massachusetts 1783
Michigan 1787
Ohio 1802
Indiana 1816
New York 1827
And the ones that didnât to give a balanced picture?
Very interesting. What are your sources; and most importantly what official documentation do we have? It would be great to be able to clearly demonstrate this.
And the ones that didnât to give a balanced picture?
Very interesting. What are your sources; and most importantly what official documentation do we have? It would be great to be able to clearly demonstrate this.
Pedant alert and point of fact: here are states that abolished slavery before England did —
Rhode Island 1652
Vermont 1777
Pennsylvania 1780
Massachusetts 1783
Michigan 1787
Ohio 1802
Indiana 1816
New York 1827
Paul Cudenec’s article at Winter Oak on covert Impact Investor funding of ‘radical’ and supposed anti-racism groups provides good insight into the systematic nature of destruction of both historicity and objectivity. He notes ‘When an arm of the capitalist system surreptitiously pours money into avowedly anti-capitalist networks, there is obviously a question of control at stake….More than taking control of radical groups and networks to ensure they present no real threat to the system…. By diverting radicalsâ attention and energy into the dead-end narcissism of identity politics, the 0.01% ensure that their own domination is not challenged.’ https://winteroak.org.uk/2021/02/10/controlling-the-left-the-impact-edgenda/