Search the blog

24 Feb 2009

Who owns our history?

George Monbiot, in Comment and Debate (The Guardian 24.2.09) questions the role of the National Trust in 'editing' the history they present to the public. The Trust aims to act as guardian and trustee for the nation, as proprietor (owner) of many examples of architecture and social history in the country. As a fund raiser, the Trust aims to attract visitors, to increase membership, and to act as conservator of our heritage.

Monbiot questions the sanitisation of history by the Trust, giving examples where the life of the actual users of the buildings are not mentioned; where perhaps not to scare visitors away with too much realism, history is selective. Admitting that "we can never hope to fully understand the past, but we can recognise that history is open to widely different interpretations... The Trust is ready to explore unfamiliar and uncomfortable history in new ways."

As a member of the National Trust, I have visited many sites and buildings. Never have I been exposed to "uncomfortable history" or seen displays or material which truly explores the true nature of life for the inhabitants over the years.

Has the time come, perhaps, to admit the past to the present, and freely discuss how lives were lived, how we view and evaluate them, or are we not ready for such a bold step?

Is part of the 'contract' between the Trust and its members/visitors that they shall not be upset or provoked on their way to the cafe or shop?

1 comment:

  1. I was going to make a post about the same article, I thought it was pretty interesting. In my opinion, the darker side of the history of our nation is, if anything, more interesting than that often depicted by Trust sites. The success of the 'Horrible History' childrens books, though obviously diluted, is testament to the accessibility of 'uncomfortable' histories to children especially. However, if such a direction were to be taken by the Trust, we cannot be sure what the aftermath of such a bold shift would be on national consciousness. The increased focus on slavery during the recent 200 year anniversary of its abolition was, to me, evidence of our 'the past is a different country' mind set. I heard many people discuss the anniversary flippantly as 'old news' and 'nothing to do with me'. I am sure that a more honest depiction of history should be part of the Trusts aims on all of its sites, but whether the British mentality is sensitive enough to tackle such histories fairly is most questionnable.
    -Rachel Cunningham Clark

    ReplyDelete