When History and Values work against each other

I recently attended a discussion which addressed British imperial history. It was the closing session of an interesting weekend, where the chair of the event dialogued with a respected author.

The chair – a bright, young, respected academic – asked about how we might view historians like Niall Ferguson, whose articulation of history were strongly in line with his neoliberal political views.

The speaker made a valid point that no one likes to read negatives about their home country. Hence, some historians exaggerate some aspects, omit others, and interpret a lot in line with their own view of our collective self. He described how British history, as taught in schools, has huge omissions – and how the job of the historian is to tell the story accurately.

One of the audience made an excellent point that historical narratives are weaponised to forge national identities. So the story is written is such a way as to maximise that effect. Here politics trumps accuracy.

The exchange reminded me of an active debate some fifteen to twenty years ago in the UK.

The Labour government of Blair and Brown had spent some effort in trying to unite the country on “British values”. What made liberty, human rights, democracy etc unique to Britain was not exactly clear. Most Western states claim these for themselves – as well as a few others besides. Selective extracts of British history were used to nurture these in the national curriculum.

At the time one right wing thing tank promoted the idea of sending free copies of HE Marshall’s Our Island Story to schools in the UK to promote a traditional narrative of British historian to promote a national story. They bemoaned the trend at the time to cover aspects of history that were inclusive for people in modern Britain where some hailed from former occupied colonies in the Caribbean, Africa and South Asian.

I sent for a copy of Our Island Story back then and found it hugely entertaining. It was written like a children’s fictional tale – basically the story of England and Britain that I learned during my traditional UK education – inclusive of myths (King Arthur), bigotry and bias (The Crusades), and imperial omissions. Great for forging a national story – but bits of it unlikely to stand up to scrutiny and much of it certainly not inclusive for modern Britain.

The Blair and Brown governments recognised that the traditional narrative was less likely to be useful in a globalised world, where school children didn’t only have heritage from former colonies, but from European countries as well. Hence, the emphasis on values.

Yet the traditionalists realised that when these values are used to judge past history and current policies, they don’t create confidence in Britain – they do the opposite and undermine it. Hence, the criticism, that “we’re always talking Britain down.”

So history can become both a weapon & casualty of identity formation. A weapon, when it is used as a tool to pit the British against the French, Germans, Saracens etc. – and a casualty when the fear of relating it accurately leads to omission and censorship because it conflicts with values.

I have previously shared some of my own experience in articles elsewhere, but it is worth repeating some examples. I never understood why the Roman and Norman invaders that I learned about weren’t portrayed quite as evil as the French, Spanish and Germans who emerged later in the ‘Island Story’. And if the Welsh and Scots were shortchanged in the story, then the Irish got swindled big time. And how come the English never seemed to do anything wrong – I mean, I don’t recall being taught about a single military defeat – except the Charge of the Light Brigade. (Have I understood the phrase ‘the exception proves the rule??). In the history of Britain in India, how come Robert Clive was portrayed as a hero when later accounts I read describe him as a sociopath- and Mir Jaafer was a hero when my parents told me the name is synonymous for ‘traitor’ in India Pakistan and Bangladesh? (Think Judas in the Bible or Benedict Arnold in the USA). We were told the Crusaders were Lion-hearted and the Saracens (a word I have never heard in the Muslim world) definitely bad. The fact that ‘Saladin’ (Salahuddin) got something of a good press made me realise the giant of history that he truly is.

I never had to judge this history by any specific values, but if I had to judge it with the omissions included and the biases corrected according to the alleged ‘British values’ , many of the characters would deserve to be in the Hague (had there been such a court in that era).

This dilemma between national story and values is not unique to Britain. During the discussion I attended we heard that in India the post-partition narrative of Mughal India was sanitised to promote a cohesive multi-faith India. This narrative has been challenged and a new narrative has been created that is arguably more inaccurate- writing out anything positive to do with Muslims, to forge an idea of India that is fiercely Hindu nationalist.

One contributor suggested optimistically that this was a temporary phenomenon that would correct itself. My feeling is that if so, it would be over a generation or more.

Nationalist histories are often artificial, inaccurate and more easily detached from objective values of right and wrong . The Zionist narrative of occupation is replete with fallacies. Atrocities during the Nakba are either denied flatly or else justified by the nation’s need for survival.

Yet when I have reflected on these matters as a Muslim, I find there is a harmony between the narrative story that binds people – and the values by which both our historical experience and contemporary politics can be judged. The narrative history for a Muslim starts from stories in the Quran and the Seerah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) . Whilst there can be divergent perspectives in understanding the Rashidun Caliphate, for a majority there is considerable unanimity in uniting around key historical moments.

Thereafter, where views diverge more and more, the history can be judged by the values.

If the history (or contemporary policies) are judged problematic by these values, then we learn how not to do things, rather than feeling we are talking ourselves down.

The past century however is particularly challenging. Muslim nation states expend huge energy in building a national narrative but critiquing these from the viewpoint of Islamic values is tantamount to treason if you challenge that national story. Kemalism in Turkey is sacrosanct. The Al Saud Family is off limits for criticism, just as Nasser was for decades in Egypt. In countries like Pakistan there is no consensus as to whether the state was meant to be Islamic or merely a homeland for Muslims.

This is a challenge for Muslims today. If they judge recent history by Islamic values, it will lead them to challenge the national identities that divide them. That would be a radical and welcome change.

Abdul Wahid has been active in Muslim affairs in the UK for over 25 years. He has been published on the websites of Foreign Policy, Open Democracy, the Times Higher Educational Supplement, and Prospect Magazine. You can follow him on social media https://linktr.ee/abdulwahid101010