WHY DOES BRITAIN HATE ITS PAST?
Politically correct National Archives accused of rewriting history
THE National Archives has been forced to withdraw a display about British colonialism following accusations of ‘Empire bashing’.
The exhibit claimed British rule over its colonies was ‘profoundly oppressive’ and failed to mention William Wilberforce’s successful campaign to abolish the slave trade.
Critics said the presentation was one-sided and did not acknowledge any of the positive things that came about during the period.
The display, titled ‘Empire & Colonialism’, originally sat in the Keeper’s Gallery, which aims to give visitors to its base in Kew, South-West London, an overview of key moments covered by the Archives’ 11 million records. Tony Adler, 69, complained in 2009 that it was not balanced and presented a ‘distorted’ view of the past which was ‘unremittingly anti-British’.
The National Archives originally rejected his complaint, but this month agreed to reword the display following an appeal to the organisation’s chief executive and an internal review.
Bosses admitted it had presented a view of Britain’s colonial history without ‘due impartiality’. The National Archives also agreed to replace a board with an erroneous claim that Magna Carta helped the poorest in the population when it was drafted for the benefit of barons seeking to protect their own interests from King John.
And, in addition, it said it would take down a blog post about the Partition of India which Mr Adler had complained had given an antiBritish perspective.
Yesterday, Mr Adler, a retired history lecturer, said he was glad the changes had been made but said it should not have taken seven years of campaigning for them to take action.
In a letter to The Times, he said the National Archives had been ‘Empire bashing’ by using ‘extravagant language’ which ‘betrayed the archives’ obligation of fairness’.
His view was supported by Anthony Glees, director of the Centre For Security And Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham.
He said: ‘Museums should provide their visitors with facts, not opinions. The National Archives is a public record office, not a soap box. The things that were done well during the Empire... should be set alongside the many errors and wars imperial Britain waged. Not everything was good... but not everything was bad or violent. Nothing must be hidden or distorted, for otherwise the past is reduced to propaganda.’
The National Archives, a non-ministerial government department, said it had removed the blog post so it could be edited to comply with its code of impartiality and it will be republished. A spokesman said: ‘The National Archives is the official archive and publisher for the UK Government. We provide access to the nation’s history and connect people and communities with the millions of stories in our collection.
‘At the heart of this complaint lies a disagreement over interpretation. Throughout history historians have argued about how to interpret sources, about how to assess the relative importance of events and about the origins of institutions.’
‘Museums should offer facts, not opinions’
AS the taxpayer-funded guardian of official records, The National Archives should present a brass-plated, impartial version of history. So it is profoundly depressing that its officials appear to be succumbing to the disease of political correctness that is damaging so many great institutions.
Thanks to the efforts of an amateur historian, we now know a major exhibition attended by thousands of children has betrayed a profoundly anti-Empire bias.
Yes, terrible mistakes were made in the Empire. But it also has a benign legacy in the democracies and judicial systems that exist in Canada, Australia, India and some parts of Africa.
Universities long ago succumbed to the Marxist notion that all empires are bad, and Britain’s particularly wicked. But The National Archives must not follow suit – and, instead, just stick to the facts.