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?