Across various websites and different social networks, I’ve seen a lot of talk of owning history lately. I’ve seen a good fifty posts from people in the UK who are upset that Victoria aired in North America first because they feel that they own Queen Victoria. (Facebook groups, I’m looking at you.) Around St. Patrick’s Day, people of Irish descent claiming Ireland’s history. And it goes on and on. As an historian and an individual, I’ve been thinking on this for a while now. Who owns history? And what does owning history mean?
Owning History: The Individual
The Victoria example really highlights the individual experience for me. Yes, I am Canadian, and that is how I identify. However, I do have English, Scottish, and Irish ancestry, and I had ancestors living in all three countries during the Victorian period. So, as an individual it feels like that history is part of my history. Also, as a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I also have learned that British history is a part of my history. However, I have spent the last few weeks seeing UK citizens and residents raging that someone else gets to see their history first. (I’m optimistic that it is just Brexit rage manifesting itself…) So, if the UK “owns” that history, what does that leave me with? I suppose I am history-less until my ancestors reached Canada by this standard. I personally think that people put too much stock in their genealogy (those ancestry dot com ads get everyone it seems) but I think most of us appreciate having some idea of where we come from.
I think that the nationalist approach to history can be problematic, too. It puts me in a weird place, as someone who studies early Irish history. On one hand, all of the people that I studied did in fact live on the island we now call Ireland. On the other hand, they didn’t see themselves as a unified people by any means. And in many cases when people do focus on studying the history of one people, it quickly becomes an “us vs other” thing. I don’t think that anyone studies history from a nationalist history to “other” anyone else, but it is difficult to avoid it. And I completely admit, I have no idea what the answer is.
Why do we feel the need as individuals to “own” history? And what does “owning” history actually mean? Does it mean that we get all television shows, books, and movies that “belong” to us first? Does it mean that we have a say in how it is portrayed? Do we have control over who is allowed to see it? Where is the line?
Owning History: The Historian
And now from the academic side. Studying anything at a higher level presents its own challenges. There is always politics around it, no matter what. And there will always be someone to argue against you- it’s the nature of academics. (Or at least the nature of the humanities.) I enjoy the challenge of a good historical debate as much as anyone more than most. However, there is quite a difference between a good debate, and feeling like I don’t have a right to study something.
Upon hearing that the UK owns Victorian history, I began to wonder, is it okay that I study English history if I am Canadian? Can I study nineteenth century Irish anglo-aristocracy if I am Catholic? Logically, as an academic, I know that is a ridiculous question to ask. If all academics limited their study to their own geographic, ethnic, and/or religious group (if applicable), some of the most respected academics wouldn’t be in their field. However, it makes me do a double take. Is it okay for me to study something as an academic but not as an individual? And if so, who determines that? I think that most of us trust academics to respectfully study and engage with a field of study but if they aren’t a part of the group that “owns” it, is that okay? I think we all have the instinct, “of course it is”, but why is that? Why is the academy free to study anything it wants but individuals aren’t?
Who Owns History: The Language
I do wonder if it is just an unfortunate turn of phrase that people don’t fully think through before using. I don’t think that any of the people that I follow on social media were truly implying that they have ownership over Queen Victoria and her story, and I think that they were frustrated that they have to wait longer. However, I’ve seen it over and over and over again, and it is quite a specific phrase to use. And it really is not pleasant to see that for a month on end when you are actively researching areas of Victorian history. And yes, I know that as someone who actively studies history and has done so for more than a decade now, I am more sensitive than most to things like this. But there may be people who keep hearing it and internalise it without questioning it. I think my blog makes it pretty clear that I would love everyone to study history, be it at any level, and I hate to think that people may be turned away from a subject or made to feel like they shouldn’t study it.
Sidenote: In terms of historical television shows like Victoria, there really aren’t that many spoilers because most of it is already known. And for many of the major Victoria questions, Daisy Goodwin addressed them herself before the show even aired here. Also, the UK at least has geo-blocking in place to help avoid spoilers. We rarely get that, and just have to deal with spoilers. It is 2019 folks; if a spoiler is your biggest complaint, life is grand.
Readers, I am curious to know your thoughts! Who owns history? And what does that mean for people who want to study it, casually, academically, or otherwise?
Cheers,
The Historian
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Pinterest | Bloglovin’
I totally agree with you. History belongs to everyone. If only more people were interested in learning about it!
It is actually one of the most popular areas of study in most liberal arts programs, at least in Canada, but sadly, at lot of people get sunk by the “you can’t do anything with history” line. (And I think a lot of people who are interested in it discovered it in secondary and post-secondary schooling.) I hope people realise that there are so many fun ways to take in history, it doesn’t have to be boring books!
I haven’t read any nationalistic rants about owning history and would dismiss them as risible if I did. Humans have roamed the earth long before the concept of history, all stories belong to all. Ironic to pick the Victorian era to get precious about, a monarchy with roots in Continental Europe and ambitions worldwide. Rewriting history from a nationalistic perspective, we know where that leads. What next, who owns physics?
I have to admit, they aren’t full blown rants but rather comments embedded, which almost seems more worrying! And many of them come about for very trivial reasons- at the end of the day, are you going to die that the colonies saw Victoria first?! It is so concerning to me though because of where those comments are thought patterns can end up. (And the irony doesn’t escape me haha)