Policy Exchange have a campaign to prevent "history" being "re-written & erased". Out of respect I am going to assume this is a genuine misunderstanding of history. But I still call bullsh*t. @RichardEvans36 @simon_schama @DavidOlusoga @1972SHP
policyexchange.org.uk/press-release/…
policyexchange.org.uk/press-release/…
First we need to be clear that whilst history might well inform our political choices, what we are mostly talking about in the statues debate is how we choose to remember history - it is an act in the present and not the past. @RichardEvans36 wrote about this brilliantly here 
This an attempt to discredit the current critique of public memory by trying to produce egs which look ridiculous. Equally "decolonising" the curriculum is presented without any exploration of what this actually means i.e. studying problematic people and events in MORE depth!
I do have some sympathy with the final point here. I suspect some companies are trying to distance themselves from their links to problematic pasts (and presents) but is "being on the right side of history" a bad thing?
Yes. Whose history is it? Despite not wanting a "culture war" PE seem happy to pit people against one another. Presumably the thousands who came out in protest don't count as people, nor the millions who have supported online. But a poll of 1560 people on 18-19 June. Yep
And there is an arrogance in the Policy Exchange claiming to be the ones starting the discourse here. Those who toppled statues have tried to have this debate over many years with nobody listening. Toppling the statues DID start the discourse.
These findings are the result of an absolutely appalling survey. They create headlines from leading and skewed questions. Let's look briefly at that survey.
The survey is contemptible in terms of design. People are presented with ridiculous binaries which ignore differences between history and contemporary memorialisation. And false definitions: an assumption that Rhodes' contemporaries did not see him as a racist.
Consider a re-working of this question and you will see how insidious it is: "The memorial to Jimmy Saville, who was a benefactor of good causes, but who also had some accusations made against him, being torn down by demonstrators" Do you agree with this action?
Isn't it fascinating that so many think that children don't know enough to make a judgement about statues (based on what I'd like to know) and yet feel they know enough to make their own value judgements about exactly the same issues. A rose tinted view of Great Man history
The one interesting finding here is that when the ridiculous choices and language of violence are removed, most people clearly thought not enough was being done to reveal the colonial past. This finding did NOT appear in the main story!
Once again we get the false claim that history is being "re-written". History of course is always re-written - it is a search for truth. There is absolutely no attempt to separate out history as argument and acts of civic remembrance. As @simon_schama points out this IS history
The idea that somehow our existing acts of public remembrance somehow create a "shared sense of belonging" is also laughable. This sounds like some kind of throwback to Empire Day. We can't even manage to cover Welsh and Scottish history well in England!
Some big claims about group make up here. A few historians who should know better. Economist called Andrew Roberts' "History of English Speaking Peoples": "a giant political pamphlet larded with its author's prejudices" Plus a lot of strong opinions.
On a serious note, if you are an historian and claiming that taking down statues is erasing history, you must know what you are doing. You are either involved in dog whistle politics or you have no sense of what history actually is.
I actually have great respect for Trevor Phillips but don't think he could be more wrong here. He is right that this should not distract, but then this is the ultimate distraction here. @DavidOlusoga makes the same case: theguardian.com/global/2020/ju…
The point about Rhodes seems entirely misplaced. I might have had some sympathy in the past, but this has rumbled for a long time. Removing Rhodes' statue does not erase him from history. He appears in books, classrooms, museums etc.
We can both condemn lionising Rhodes AND seek to understand him historically. We can look at his actions and record, as well as how contemporaries viewed him, without a statue existing. We can also explore how & why interpretations of him have changed over time.
This is an extremely strange way to avoid abrasive discourse. Policy Exchange are setting themselves up as the moderate middle ground on the back of an extremely abrasive survey and support from some fairly right-wing historians. Not my idea of avoiding abrasion.
This the powerful playing victim. Can I implore every #historyteacher to send Policy Exchange examples of how history has been distorted so much that BAME people, or the working classes, or women have been rendered silent. Let's show the real evidence here! See egs.
