Read on Twitter
I grew up obsessively watching David Starkey's Henry VIII series. My mum videoed them all for me. It was one of the things that sparked my love of history. Watching him become more comfortably being racist in public has been a bigger lesson than any historical ones he taught me. https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642
White men dominate the telling of our histories and the stories deemed worthy of being passed down.
Hilarious to see very prominent historians discard the lessons we're taught early on about bias, source material and subjectivity.
Also arguing that we don't talk about something because it happened "200 years ago"... what the hell is your entire career built upon?
Also arguing that we don't talk about something because it happened "200 years ago"... what the hell is your entire career built upon?
Also, arguing that we don't talk about Roman Catholic disenfranchisement is bollocks b/c it's covered loads DURING THE TUDOR MODULES, WHICH IS THE ONE SUBJECT ALL UK KIDS GET TAUGHT & WHERE STARKEY MAKES HIS ££££. However that statement DOES apply to teaching on Northern Ireland
Which is both very sparse in England and, if properly taught from the beginning, would quickly disprove the notion that Catholic disenfranchisement ended 200 years ago in territories colonised by England.
Anyway, the point is, once you start questioning the narratives these people present as 100% objective, you question everything else too and learn to think more critically. That can be a swifter path if you are someone with lived experience that contradicts what they are saying.
Which is why it could be harder to convince a sceptical white person of the fact that David Starkey - an extremely academically 'qualified' historian with the cultural stamp of approval from platforms like the BBC - is talking racist bollocks.
It's also learning to unpick what is bollocks, what is fact with a different interpretation, what is speculation and what is objective reality. There is never any one version of a history, merely a broad consensus on events and outcomes with quibbling over details and impact.
