A guest post from Craig Kelly today. Craig is a graduate of Dundee University and Masters student at Uppsala Universitet in Sweden. He specialises in early modern northern European history with specific interests in historical theory, environmental, parliamentary, and protestant history. Whilst in the cold hinterland of central Sweden he blogs on his experiences under the title of ‘ScotinSweden‘ and has become partial to fika.
I want to start with the words that I have always wanted either to say or hear someone else say – the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on March 25th 1707, is hereby reconvened’
These were the words proclaimed by an elderly Winnie Ewing as she chaired the opening session of the re-established Scottish Parliament. Yet, no one would suggest splitting the parliament into an estate structure and recreating the Lords of the Articles, so how useful is this reminiscence? Â
In her post last week, Ruth Davidson turned historian when she claimed that ‘despite being in this political and economic union, we have still been able to maintain our own sense of nationhood’. Ruth, are you sure that has always been the case throughout the union? Is it fair to say that at the end of the nineteenth century Scotland had a distinct notion of itself?
Not to be left out, Tom Harris got stuck into a bit of historical theory when he countered Pete Wishart’s teleological trap ‘Pete wants us all to close our eyes, click our heels together three times and imagine that he was right all along to talk about the inevitability of independence.’
These are some early examples of the use and abuse of history in the constitutional debate. They are not the first and nor will they be the last. One side will appeal to our independent identity defined by Wallace, the reformation, and the early modern parliament. Whilst the unionists will hark to our glorious shared past during empire. Neither are wholly helpful, and neither are wholly correct.
Where the politicians are right is that our history, whether we are aware of it or not, plays a substantial role in our understanding of the world. Many in the south west may instinctually be drawn to side with unionism. Is it not fair to suggest that this is a correlation with traditional Labour heartland, which in itself is covenanter territory? Hardened Presbyterianism turned Christian socialism, now strong unionism. Neither can the independence movement be separated from wider historical processes of change. As Tom Devine once argued, the growth of nationalism is in response to a union ‘not fit for purpose in the twenty-first century.’
This post is an open letter to Scottish historians. Will you stand idly by as the nation engages in the most important debate of our time? I will always remember the consensus that Dundee historians held in a panel debate, where they agreed that it was not the role of academics to get involved in the public sphere. I disagreed then and I disagree now. These people who have dedicated their lives to understanding our nation’s history are better placed than most to postulate on our future. This is not a demand for Plato’s philosopher kings, but it is a provocation to the academic community in Scotland. Jean Paul Sartre believed that philosophy was not only for the lecture hall when he accepted a role in the French government. So you, the historians of Scotland, have a meaningful contribution to make to our ongoing constitutional debate. Will you maintain your silence, discuss only in the corridors of humanities departments, and listen with aggravation as politicians butcher our history for their own ends?
As humanities departments are targeted for cuts by culturally ignorant Principles the length and breadth of Scotland, is this not the perfect opportunity to demonstrate what the study of the humanities can contribute to society?
To Julian Goodare, Tom Devine, Alan MacInnes, Fiona Watson, Christopher Whately, Alan MacDonald, Keith Brown, and the others to numerous to mention. Is it not time, to quote Charles Terry, ‘to play a fitting part in the nation’s history’?
Â
#1 by Aidan on October 3, 2011 - 9:55 am
The split goes all the way back to the Antonine Conquest.
The covenant resisted English rule and was really a further episode in the long struggle between the Lord of the Isles and the Highlands in alliance with England against the free lowland Scottish Kingdom (and it’s alliance with France, though obviously by the time of the Covenant that had been over for century). That included the South West on the English side, against what you characterise as “Labour heartlands”.
#2 by Craig Gallagher on October 3, 2011 - 6:07 pm
Now, this I will simply not endure.
You believe there is a cultural split in Scotland that dates back to the Romans? I pity you trying to advance that thesis, I shudder to imagine how much evidence would be involved in proving that point.
The Covenant did not resist “English rule”, as you put it. The Covenanters were concerned solely with popery and the correct manner of worship, which put them on a collision course with King Charles I, yes, but he does not constitute English rule as he was King of Scots at the time. And the famed Auld Alliance persisted up until the Glorious Revolution of 1688, some forty five years after the end of the Covenanter hegemony, after which it broke under the strains of the Nine Years War and English looting of Scots trading vessels heading for French ports.
No, the roots of Scottish nationalism and unionism are much more recent, and owe far more to the nineteenth and twentieth century labour movements than they do to any nursing of grievances about 1707.
#3 by Aidan on October 4, 2011 - 10:32 am
I’d argue that the varying degrees of Romanisation played a role in the subsequent post-Roman history, not so much the split between Bernica/Northumbria in the eastern central belt and the essentially Celtic – British Strathclyde in the west and south west but between those and the un-Romanised H&I (with obviously varying gradation between them).
The Covenant wasn’t, as you point out, about secular monarchical legitimacy, but I would argue that it was a resistance to monarchical legitimacy in spiritual matters which were of paramount importance in those days.
Of course Scottish nationalism and unionism owe much to responses to nineteenth and twentieth century capitalism, but those responses did not occur in a historical vacuum – which is surely the point you’re trying to make here?
#4 by Craig Gallagher on October 5, 2011 - 12:10 am
They did not occur in a vacuum, but equally they were not subject purely to the influence of history. Large-scale popular movements such as that are almost always incipient on the ground, rather than designed or fostered from long-term process (or so I believe).
I suppose my objection is to taking such an enormously long view of history as you have. You might root the ancient national divides in the UK to Roman borders, but equally you might remember that the Kingdom of Strathclyde was populated by Brythonic (Welsh) Celts, while the northeners were largely Scots and Picts from ancient Ireland.
#5 by Aidan on October 5, 2011 - 10:11 am
Absolutely. I’m not saying that there haven’t been historical processes at work since then that have altered things. I’m not even saying that the patterns of population and cultural change that have occurred since then have been caused by that (I did try to point out the differences in population roots but obviously didn’t do that very clearly).
I guess my point is fundamentally that you can’t pick a starting date at some conveniently relatively recent date in the past such as the high to late middle ages and start analysing from there.
That’s the problem with history, there’s always a bit more to it.
I do agree we should pay more attention to it, Western invasions of Afghanistan haven’t gone particularly well since ‘Eck the Great and the Seleucid Empire.
#6 by Anonymous on October 3, 2011 - 10:01 am
Unfortunately, the Dundee academics didn’t see a problem with turning their back on influencing public debate, as absolutely no-one has been listening to academics for many years. The “public intellectual”, a common sight on the continent, barely exists here, despite Radio 4’s best attempts to create them.
Further, academics will not bite the hand that has just fed them a little bit more. It’s the most difficult time to be in academia that most can remember, with sackings, massively increased job insecurity, and mergers; let alone the constant sinister pressure from university management to produce grant-attracting research (never mind whether the research is actually any good or not, just show us the money). This is thin and malnourished soil in which to try and plant the seeds of an active public debate.
As for a public discussion of the exact whys and wherefores of what happened in 1707, it’s not a serious proposition (however welcome it would be in theory). No one is making serious television anymore. The space in newspapers (for whoever still reads them) for such a series of articles is increasingly scant.
The best we can hope for is a bite sized chunks history on something like STV 2 or BBC 2 Scotland (at 1am) presented by someone like Lorraine Kelly or Fred MacAulay, interspersed with cheeky references to football failures and clootie dumplings to attract the international punters. “Civilisation” and “The World at War” type programmes will never be made again, as nobody has the time or the inclination to watch them, according to the TV execs, and they don’t have the money to make them (some of the historical talking heads mentioned would be looking for a good wedge to appear, and no history programme is complete these days without some sort of battle re-enactment of expensive CGI graphics).
I enjoyed reading your article but sadly I feel it’s a bit naive. I agree that the public debate is needed, but for a variety of cynical, self-interested, academic-political and economic circumstances reasons, it’s not going to happen.
#7 by Doug Daniel on October 3, 2011 - 12:40 pm
I would just point out that Neil Oliver’s History of Scotland series was a perfect example of the BBC at its factual documentary best, and there was a series with Dr Iain Stewart about a year ago too about the history of Scotland’s landscape. So there can be good programming when minds are put to it.
Although I suppose one of the things that made these programmes stand out so much was that they stuck out like a sore thumb in the TV schedule. It’s a shame that Neil Oliver’s series did in six programmes what could so very easily have been stretched out into six series.
#8 by setindarkness on October 3, 2011 - 8:48 pm
Yep, they were both great programs. I’d love to see more of that sort of stuff.
#9 by Craig Kelly on October 3, 2011 - 12:54 pm
Doug, I actually blogged about Neil Oliver’s programme before: http://mightdriftaway.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/neil-oliver-scotlands-answer-to-marmite/
Anyway, anonymous: in some ways your comment sums up the problem – the academic community are terrified to put themselves into the public sphere. I’m not saying that is out of cowardice or disinterest, and I accept all the points you make about cuts, job insecurity, unscrupulous senior management, and so on. On its own, this is a debate we should be having. Is our academic community being shackled by the reforms going through HE? If so, surely they are being deprived of one of their main functions – to inform public debate. And surely we, the public, are being deprived of the tremendous contribution academics could make to debates such as this.
I’m not saying I know in which form academic historians’ contribution can be made, I’m just saying that it needs to be somewhere. Be that tv, newspapers, QT, whatever. John Gray was once described as the UK’s answer to the French ‘window smashing’ intellectuals. Isn’t it time Scotland got some of our own? People who display the latest thinking and trends in historiography, people who unabashedly show the need and benefits of the humanities, and people who can frame our constitutional debate away from the snipes, infantile attacks, and bastardisation of our history.
#10 by Iain Menzies on October 3, 2011 - 1:52 pm
ok first off….on this whole idea of the reconvening of the Scottish parliament. That whole idea is…frankly, mince. Anyone who has spent anytime looking at the old Scots Parliament (as we both have….at length…) knows that there is some degree of debate as to the powers of that parliament notions of sovereignty ‘rivals’ and all the rest of it. What cannot be said with a straight face (unless i would suggest your making a nationalist political point) is that what we have now, is the rebirth of what we had then. There is little basis for calling the scottish parliament (as is) as parliament on any grounds other than its powers over tax. and thats before i get into details about whether or not the current body can even pass genuinely primary legislation.
I also think you are wrong to pick up on ruth davidson in the way you do. Dont get me wrong the more i hear of her the less i have to say for her, but most of the institutions that exist now that ‘show’ we have a distinct scottish identity have been with us since the union, and before. You can argue that scots for whatever reason opted into, or out of, a certain level of ‘scottish’ or ‘british’ identity at different times, but i dont think anyone would seriously suggest that come 1708 we were all just thinking of ourselves as “North Britons’.
Also i dont see how the old Parliament (tie in as it was to teh Union of the Crowns, and the reformation can be seen to fall on the nationalist side and not the unionist. Indeed the reformation point i would argue falls as much on the side of the unionist as the nationalist. Especially when you start talking about the Hanoverian succession and the Jacobites….
Also i think you are WAY off when you start talking about the south west. (he types sitting in covenanter territory) The idea that we were all prebyterians then found the holy land of Christian socialism dosent have any correlation with the political dynamics of pre 1960 west central Scotland. remember for a VERY long time in the first half of the last century the most successful political force in that part of Scotland were the proto conservatives in the Unionist and progressive parties.
I will make one final point just now the biggest problem with what you have here that i can see is that you are groping towards looking to history to help settle what Scottish identity is. I’m afraid i just don’t buy the idea that there is a singular Scottish identity.
#11 by M G on October 3, 2011 - 2:39 pm
Last week,in all fairness 2 academics and AL Kennedy did put forward valid reasons for the inclusion of Scottish history in the curriculum,on Newsnight.
From a viewers point of view, they were not partisan but obviously ,just as Gordon Brewer could not appear to accept that the status quo was fine,their facial expressions appeared to say otherwise.
Within the very limited time they had,they tried to explain that there are whole swathes of Scottish culture,be that literature,poetry ,art etc which have influenced and been influenced by events that are neglected which would contribute to how Scotland has been shaped.
Unfortunately ,just as one of the academics was beginning to expand his view, he was interupted.
Interestingly,the other academic was originally from Ireland and just as G Brewer was incredulous that children in Ireland are taught Irish history (warts and all ),the academic appeared incredulous that Scottish children are not taught Scottish history.
#12 by Doug Daniel on October 3, 2011 - 5:03 pm
That was one of the most inspiring editions of Newsnicht I’ve seen in a long time. It was fantastic to see the whole panel united behind the idea and completely flummoxing Gordon Brewer. It’s great to see this issue getting the attention it deserves, and for those that matter rejecting the nonsense about it being “brainwashing”. As one of the panellists said, no other country in the world would even consider it to be wrong to teach children about their home culture.
#13 by Craig Kelly on October 3, 2011 - 3:03 pm
Iain, where to start? OK, first off you misunderstand my opening. I am agreeing with you that there are insufficient similarities between the early modern and devolved parliaments to draw a comparison. It’s crude at best, and more likely deeply misleading. That was my token dig at the nats (note token).
I would, however, disagree that my attack on Ruth Davidson is without merit. Throughout the union we see various points of disintegration and rebirth of Scottish identity. Consider, for example, that at the beginning of the twentieth century 9 out of 10 Scots considered themselves British before Scottish (a direct flip of the statistic we see today). There was undoubtedly points during union where Scotland (or maybe more accurately the central belt) considered itself as North Britain. Whilst that is no longer the case we shouldn’t overlook the changing identities that hitherto prevailed.
Again, and this won’t surprise you, I disagree on the South West. I admit, it is a crude causation which is far more complex than I present it, but it is a correlation nonetheless. Are you denying that Fife and the South West – areas of covenanter support – are not indeed also areas of traditional Labour support? When we take into account the founding principles of the Labour Party, Christian socialism should not be ruled out of the equation. The fact that the Labour Party today is ultra-unionist is again a causation that is at least food for thought.
Lastly, yes, I am looking to map Scottish identity. Let’s be honest, it is a fairly recent phenomenon which owes more to Walter Scott than William Wallace – we’re all Highlanders now. So why is it wrong to ask academic historians to take part in this debate? As much as you – and we’re not far off in our opinions – I want a genuine debate based on empirical evidence, not some farcical appeal to a history that few understand and lacks any real influence upon us today.
We can both clamber over the reformation and claim it for our respective sides, but that’s exactly what I’m arguing against. I’m calling for academics to enter the fray and remind us that although contested, these historical events and processes are part of both unionist and nationalist politics – after all, we share a history.
#14 by Iain Menzies on October 3, 2011 - 4:29 pm
in my defence, my response was fueled as much by too little coffee and not enough food as a reasoned counter point 😉
On Davidson, and your stats. Im tempted to say so what. Give me numbers for 1750 and 1800 and maybe we can talk….but surely we can recognize that what were talking about, national identity as we sort of understand it today is a largely alien concept pre union, and was an 19thC innovation.
And no i am not denying fife. and at this point i should probably say as little about fife as possible.
I dont buy the connection you are making between the covenanter’s and Labour support. Rather i would point to heavy industry and mining and well…trade unions. Long term historical narratives around the emergence of the labour party are all well and good. Very interesting even and provide for good debate. But i dont think that you can really do a history that is connected to reality that gods back more than 200 years on that score.
I am not a Highlander…..its pretty but you know I would never say i was a Highlander.
Fond tho I am, like you, of history, I think you are going to be constantly disappointed. Our history will always be perverted (and that is the word were looking for) by politicians for their own good. either by misrepresentation, or selective quotation.
I tend to the view that Scotland (or at least that part that ‘mattered’) wanted the union in 1707. But even if it was something more sinister than that, I dont really see the relevance. There is a point at which we have to move past history, and recognise that it is all ours, and its not for one political party to claim above the others.
#15 by Anonymous on October 3, 2011 - 3:12 pm
I don’t accept for a moment that the academic community is “terrified to put themselves in the public sphere”. That’s clearly nonsense. My point was that the broader circumstances mitigate against academics taking the public role you crave, however much they may privately wish to.
The Bologna process and tuition fees, with the concomitant individualisation of academic experience and the substitution of the old liberal education notion of “rounded learning” with notions of “career”, “economic viability” and “employability” are slowly ruining the UK tertiary education sector, certainly in humanities and the arts sector.
Students are now “consumers” and “investors in their future” and have been for about the last ten years; academics are moving towards being joint “brand managers” of the institutions they teach at; any public profile, therefore, is geared more towards selling and PR rather than genuine intellectual debate.
Of the historians you mention, Chris Whatley is probably one of the more high profile and his work is openly sceptical of Scottish claims to nationhood/ the whole received narrative around 1707. The two best Scottish historical writers both work abroad- Chris Harvie and Tom Nairn.
So I say again, the call for a reasoned and informed debate about the role that historical events have had in shaping perception s of the Scottish present would be welcome; but its very unrealistic to expect that it will happen to any great extent.
#16 by Craig Gallagher on October 3, 2011 - 6:50 pm
I wouldn’t say they all work abroad. Allan I. MacInnes is a really good historian and he works at the University of Strathclyde.
#17 by Gary Cocker on October 3, 2011 - 5:11 pm
Without wishing to second-guess Craig, I think the point he was making was that the very fact you have posted anonymously (and, although I shall cheerfully withdraw the point if mistaken, are an academic) proves some level of fear amongst academics for “put[ting] themselves in the public sphere”. At a certain level it is understandable when areas such as the Humanities are suffering from swingeing cuts and nobody wants to give their employer any reason to target them for redundancy/a cut in pay etc etc, but equally it is nonsense to say it’s nonsense when, notwithstanding the hubris of assuming many academics read BN, not a single academic has put their name to either a rebuttal or endorsement of this article.
#18 by Iain Menzies on October 3, 2011 - 6:34 pm
” not a single academic has put their name to either a rebuttal or endorsement of this article.”
I should hope not too since this post only went live after 9 and its a school day 😉
#19 by Barbarian on October 3, 2011 - 10:43 pm
I hate history being brought up for the independence argument. No one living today has lived in an independent Scotland. Life and politics were different three hundred years ago. People do not want to go back, they want to move forward.
It’s about time the SNP focused purely on the future. Leave the past to the academics and those who have an interest in history.
#20 by Craig Gallagher on October 3, 2011 - 11:53 pm
Regarding your overall point – and I speak as a Scottish student pursuing my History PhD in Boston, Massachusetts – I think you’re right. The role of history in this debate is extremely important if people are to get a true sense of the context of the question surrounding independence. Why do we have a claim to it? What are the arguments against it? These are all matters of history.
I did my undergraduate at Strathclyde, which I would imagine means that I come from a different position on a lot of Scottish issues than yourselves up in the northeast (at least, going on what my Strathclyde professors thought of the likes of Whatley and Patrick at Dundee) but I agree they need to make a more substantive contribution across the board. My dissertation reader used to routinely complain about Neil Oliver and the Wallace-isation of Scottish history, although I think his main gripe was that Oliver is an archaeologist by trade rather than a historian (and, well, he is far too simplistic on rather a lot of important detail, but that’s beside the point).
On the historical details you mention, though, I think you are way off. To say there was no Scottish Nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century ignores the Home Rule movement that emerged alongside the issue of Irish independence in 1883, and again in 1913. Also, to link the Solemn League of Covenant to Unionism is just daft. Although they did advocate an international movement in favour of greater Presbyterianism, I can’t honestly think of anything the two movements have in common other than that transnational dimension. To talk about traditions of Christian socialism is to apply twentieth century terms to seventeenth century problems and betrays the very teleology you (rightly) lambast Tom Harris for employing.
Unionism is born of the combination of deap-seated Protestant militarism inherited from the Northern Irish communities that emigrated in the late nineteenth century, and the transnational socialism of the labour movement – which includes Catholics and Protestants – that so dominated Scottish politics until the 1990s. The rise of nationalism might well be attributed to the decline of these two movements, or perhaps even more likely, the acquisition of substantial territory from these two trends by the Big Tent Scottish Nationalism espoused by the SNP.
#21 by Craig Kelly on October 4, 2011 - 10:37 am
Craig, those are fair points and I’m glad you share my sentiments regarding the necessary historical context for the debate.
I would defend myself slightly and point out that I wasn’t trying to impose Christian socialism on the Covenanters. I was merely pointing out that it is the same geographic communities which saw widespread support for the Covenant, where Christian socialism then grew in the early twentieth century, and then (and I admit this is a leap) provide the stronghold of modern unionism.
On the late nineteenth century Scottish nationalism front I concede, in part. I think it is still fair to say, irrespective of the movements that you point out, that during this period there was far more of a homogeneous British identity which incorporated – at least – the central belt of Scotland.
The Neil Oliver gripe is a common one, but I’m inclined to think (as I think you’re hinting at) that it is often motivated by academic snobbery.
Anyway fair points, and I’m glad an academic responded to the post. I’d love to hear about the Strathclyde professors’ views on Whatley and Patrick. I carried out my dissertation under MacDonald – so I never worked with either, but I’m obviously aware of their work.
Cheers.
#22 by Craig Gallagher on October 5, 2011 - 12:13 am
All the points you make are fair, and as you say, it’s good to have a conversation from the point of view of a fellow academic. I have far less hostility to your post than I might to Ruth Davidson’s! Haha
As to Whatley and Patrick, let’s just say a few of the professors I worked with were rather underwhelmed that the latter did all the research for the former’s seminal work on the Union. And that Whatley reserved some choice remarks for their work in the footnotes to said book. Prof. MacInnes, in particular, was withering in his response in “Union and Empire”. My dissertation was with Prof. Young who was of the same mind.
#23 by Scottish republic on October 4, 2011 - 1:05 am
Robert the Bruce, king of Scots.
This is Scotland’s story, encapsulating the very best of the Scottish character and the very worst but ultimately one of the most gripping stories in world history.
That should be taught to kids at school.
#24 by Craig Gallagher on October 4, 2011 - 3:05 am
First of all, kids do get taught about Bruce at school, it’s one of the few avowedly Scottish stories on the current curriculum). Secondly, Robert the Bruce isn’t even the most interesting subject from Scottish history, never mind world history.
The events surrounding the Battle of Flodden, or Mary Queen of Scots, or the Bishop’s Wars, or Darién (in particular) make for far better bedtime reading (if that’s how you view history).
#25 by Alwyn ap Huw on October 4, 2011 - 3:29 am
When the smoking ban was first introduced in Wales, I was standing outside my local having a fag with a nationalist friend.
My local overlooks Conwy Castle, one of the “ring of stone” castles built by Edward I in order to crush and contain the Welsh after the death of Llywelyn in 1282.
My friend told me that he was going to stop smoking because he couldn’t abide looking at that “Symbol of Welsh Oppression” every time he wanted a fag. I told my friend that I would carry on enjoying a fag in the pub doorway, because when I look at the castle I see a building with a Red Dragon flying from its turrets that is under the care of the Government of Wales; it is a symbol of our perseverance, we are still here, Edward failed and that seeing that castle makes me a proud Welshman.
The historical facts on which both my friend and I based our smoking decision are the same, and are both as historically accurate from an academic point of view. The narratives (the spin) that we put on that history were both as valid! The narrative is the realm of poets, artists, storytellers and politicians, not the realm of academic historians.
That a Scottish Parliament was adjourned on March 25th 1707 is a fact. That a Scottish Parliament was opened on 12 May 1999 is also a fact, arguing about the validity of Dr Ewing’s statement is not about fact it is about narrative!
#26 by Barbarian on October 4, 2011 - 9:55 pm
At the risk of having some heavy and blunt objects thrown at me, I think Dr Ewing’s statement about the reconvening of parliament was patronising mince.
Most people are interested in what the Scottish Parliament will do for the people of Scotland, whether independent or not.
I have a strong interest in history, especially military and mediaeval, but when it comes to independence I look forwards at the economic benefits, as that is what will carry everything else.
(apologies if I myself sound a bit patronising!!)
#27 by Alwyn ap Huw on October 5, 2011 - 3:15 am
In fairness to Dr Ewing, I’m sure that she is also interested in what the Scottish Parliament will do for the people of Scotland, and looks forward to the economic benefits that independence might bring.
By stating that Dr Ewing’s narrative about the reconvening of the 1707 is patronising mince, you obviously have a different narrative to hers, but that doesn’t invalidate her “right” to use the historical facts in order to create her narrative for better or worse.
“Our brave soldiers fought valiantly against the cowardly terrorists” is as valid a narrative as “Our heroic freedom fighters took on the might of the invader’s army”, despite the fact that (depending on which side you are on) you might condemn one of them as abhorrent.
My point is that historians furnish us with facts, what we make of those facts is outwith the role of the historian. So, in the context of this article, when an historian starts to use historical knowledge in a political debate such as independence v unionism s/he steps out of his/her role as an historian and steps into the role of political commentator.
#28 by Craig Kelly on October 5, 2011 - 5:46 pm
Apologies Alwyn but your understanding of the historian’s job is completely wide of the mark. Historians do not provide you with ‘facts’, they present an interpretation of reality in the past; be that a given event, process, or person.
Even if I agreed with you – and if I did I certainly wouldn’t be pursuing this career – what would be wrong with a historian speculating on current politics? Is there something inherently warped about historians that we are not entitled to a view on current debates?
To return to the article, I think you misunderstand my point. I believe historians have a role to play in public discourse to inform debate, to set parameters and provide a historical context, and to prevent politicians cynically manipulating history for their own ends.
One last point, you are right that narrative can be morally charged – but in the example you provide, or any other of that ilk, it would be ahistorical and therefore is a charge that does not apply to historians. Whilst, as I said, historians provide an interpretation – they go to great lengths to avoid this kind of moral imposition.
I think you need to redress your understanding of a historian.
#29 by Anonymous on October 6, 2011 - 9:13 am
point 17- why would academics bother rebutting anything said on here? It’s a small blog on the internet about politics and political debate. With great respect to the editors and contributors of this site, many people have still never heard of it. It’s not got the profile of “Good Morning Scotland”, for goodness sake. (although it does have better political coverage) If academics spent their days rebutting everything from angry postgrads on small blogs around the internet, they’d get no work done.
I am an academic, of sorts, and have been employed by many academic institutions in the past. I have a reasonable public profile in my own field. However, I have my own reasons for my anonymity, none of which are any of your business- rest assured that this ludicrous imaginary “fear” of “speaking out” etc isn’t one of them.