If history consists of facts, then the role of historians is to present the facts. But there are so many facts that historians must choose which ones to present (or omit) and, in making their choice, they create a narrative. The nature of the story they tell is of necessity influenced by their interests.
The question in the title of this post is prompted by John Ellis’s latest contribution to Historycal Roots where he comments that he is playing his part in ‘showing that the presence of such men [of colour] was more widespread than critics of attempts to recognise their contribution would have people believe.’ John is one of a number of historians (he cites Stephen Bourne and Ray Costello as two examples) who are seeking to redress the balance by researching hitherto untold stories of the black contribution to British history.
There is little doubt, as John suggests, that not everyone is happy with this approach and the epithet ‘woke’ would be tossed in their direction as a criticism. I don’t doubt that ‘woke’ can be defined in a variety of ways. One definition I have seen is that woke is ‘a concept that symbolises awareness of social issues and movement against injustice, inequality and prejudice.’ Personally, if I was ‘accused’ of peddling ‘woke history’, I would be happy to accept the ‘charge’.
I recently had the pleasure of eavesdropping on a presentation that David Olusoga gave to a group of black educators (he was on zoom and I happened to be in the room when a legitimate participant was listening – these things happen!). I am always impressed when I hear David speak and I was intrigued by his discussion of the abuse he is subjected to on social media. Clearly this must be an unpleasant experience but he said he regards it as a sign of success – people are hearing a different version of history to the one they are used to and they don’t like it. The message that British history is not and never has been exclusively white is getting across. David said he was confident that the arguments would be won and that, in the future, people would wonder what the fuss had been about.
This reminded me of a short film I saw at the BFI (British Film Institute) on London’s Southbank when I popped in for an hour or two to shelter from the rain. The film, dating from 1958, featured interviews with a range of people discussing the then vexed topic of mixed marriage. Some of the views expressed were predictably repulsive but the last contributor, Lord Stanhope, opined that in fifty years’ time people would wonder what all the fuss had been about and that mixed marriages would be seen as entirely normal. Perhaps I am unduly influenced by living in London, but my perception is that Lord Stanhope has been proved correct while the repugnant views (extreme even by the standards of the time) expressed in the film by James Wentworth-Day, have pretty much returned to the primeval sludge where they belong. Although the film can be viewed free if you visit the BFI it seems you have to pay to view it online:
https://player.bfi.org.uk/rentals/film/watch-mixed-marriages-1958-online
You will need a strong stomach if you choose to watch it.
All of this is a rather long preamble introducing you to John Ellis’s latest contribution to Historycal Roots which you can read here: https://www.historycalroots.com/a-sri-lankan-in-the-die-hards-private-cyril-lorenz-mellonius-a-somme-veteran-of-the-middlesex-regiment/. Using Cyril Mellonius as its starting point, the article tells the story of the black presence in the Middlesex Regiment at the Battle of the Somme.
I should also draw your attention to another recent article by John tracing the naval career of John Addoo from Africa to his final resting place in Brockhurst, Hampshire. A career that encompassed the transition from sail to steam: https://www.historycalroots.com/from-sail-to-steam-john-addoo-1795-1855-an-african-in-the-royal-navy/ . It was remiss of me not to mention this article at the time of its publication.
I hope you enjoy reading both of John’s new contributions.