The problematic tendency of the current UK government to impose their own definition of 'impartiality‘ on major cultural institutions is exacerbated by their refusal to embrace historic complexity.Exhibit A: decolonisation.Thread (1)
https://www.ft.com/content/25642d90-d79c-416f-9ebe-30895790bfa9 via @financialtimes

As someone who has spent 6 years writing a PhD &a book on one small aspect of the end of empire (in the Persian Gulf), the politicisation, emotionalisation and over-simplification of the term 'decolonisation‘ is extremely frustrating to me. Why? (2)

Because it summarises a highly complex global phenomenon that most professional historians studying it do not even agree on. One might argue that there are almost as many definitions of 'decolonisation‘ and 'imperialism‘ as there are books and case studies on the topic. (3)

This is not a bad thing by the way. Disagreement is what drives scholarship forward. Doubt, uncertainty (and yes, that includes questioning one‘s own earlier conclusions) is what motivates historians to find out more. At least it should. (4)

The worst kind of scholarship is one which only seeks for facts to support the author‘s (or curator‘s) own conclusions, or, worse, that of the person who hires him or her. Independence of academic enquiry is just as vital to a democracy as a free press is.(5)

After 6 years, I felt I had barely scratched the surface of that immense,century-old system that was the British Empire. Personally, I did not find the term decolonisation methodologically that helpful. My research on the Middle East doesn‘t make me an expert on India/Africa.(6)

This is why I would question the cultural secretary‘s competence to decide the intellectual value of a respected scholar‘s work. I have not read it, but it is absurd that his focus on decolonisation appears to be sufficient in the government‘s eyes to disqualify him. (7)

The question whether or not the empire 'was a good thing or a bad thing‘ is, plainly, pointless and intellectually unsatisfying. Studying imperialism does not make you either 'woke‘ or 'proud’. It makes you a historian who wants to understand the world around you. (8)

But most importantly, the government cannot convincingly equate a scholar‘s research with political activism if they themselves equate their own view of history with 'impartiality‘. Certainty is the enemy of intellectual enquiry. Which is why it is not a government‘s job. (9)

PS: Yes, I said I would stop working but I am really bored of waiting now. So here we are.