Anthony Barnett (London, OK): When the prime minister came out in the Telegraph to say he liked the idea of a museum of British history I thought it was ridiculous and no deep and wider reader like him could get it so wrong. Jon wrote a witty response to the absurd idea and the 'black humour' of the British and Vron Ware posted on the international rather than national meaning of British history. But it seems that Gordon does not read OurKingdom and Tristram Hunt reports in today's Guardian that he has found £100 million to create a 'National Museum of British History' in London. An absurd misnomer as the first word is a mistake. Hunt modestly describes the idea as "deranged". He suggests that a much better approach is being adopted by the British Library and the National Archives in their forthcoming 'Taking Liberties' exhibition of milestone documents on the British constitution - though I have a bet that its curators will not have the nerve to include Charter 88 despite its 20th anniversary casting it suitably into the past.
I think there is a really important issue here about education and citizenship as well as shared history, that is being missed. People need to think for themselves. This is the foundation of freedom and democracy. Teaching history is an important part of education because it assists this. The idea behind the "National (sic) Museum of British History" is that it will reveal to the school children taken through its pious spaces "the" story of Britain. As if there was only one received version. It will instruct them what to believe rather than assist them to argue for themselves. My point is not a post-modernist one that there is no story only superimposed narratives. On the contrary, one of the great things about history is that it poses questions: Which side would you have been on in the civil war? Would you have voted to chop off the King's head at the time? Would you have fled to America with the puritans? Backed home rule for Ireland? Backed or broken the General Strike? Supported appeasement? The arguments needed to answer these questions make you think about those you might disagree with - they let you see that history could have been different and therefore so could our conditions today.
The idea of one single golden thread defining the British "nation" is stifling, oppressive and, as Tristram says, Sovietical. It is particularly astonishing that it should be tarted around when the British Museum itself is threatened with budget cuts. At the risk of repeating myself - but why not! - there is a great opportunity for the BM to go global thanks to the wonderful Acropolis museum. If, instead, the government decides to protect Britishness like a snail withdrawing into its shell, it will be building a waxworks if not a tomb.
