Why Historians should be stripped of Citizenship

Some 15 odd years ago, the Home Office issued a handbook for the Citizenship test which contained glaring errors- perhaps because it was written by a Professor of Political Theory. Historians protested and were heeded. The handbook was rewritten.

Now, it appears, the Historical Association has penned another open letter to the Home Office which supplies a novel argument for why they themselves, as Historians, should be stripped of Citizenship of any country under the Sun.

Oddly, this was not their intention. They were simply virtue signalling on the BLM issue. But 'woke' stupidity of this sort creates a disproportionate backlash. Thus, we should get angry with these cretins, not laugh at them simply.

We are historians of Britain and the British Empire and writing in protest at the on-going misrepresentation of slavery and Empire in the “Life in the UK Test”, which is a requirement for applicants for citizenship or settlement (“indefinite leave to remain”) in the United Kingdom.

This is misleading. There are significant exemptions to this requirement. 

The official handbook published by the Home Office is fundamentally misleading and in places demonstrably false. For example, it states that ‘While slavery was illegal within Britain itself, by the 18th century it was a fully established overseas industry’ (p.42). In fact, whether slavery was legal or illegal within Britain was a matter of debate in the eighteenth century, and many people were held as slaves.

This is misleading. In the United Kingdom, only the Judiciary can decide whether something was or is illegal. English law is based on 'artificial reason'. The stare decisis view is that Slavery was indeed illegal by the Eighteenth Century because, at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, Lord Holt had decided there could be no action of trover re. a black slave because the Common Law did not recognize any difference between blacks and whites. This is not to say that any cognizable offence was committed by holding or coercing slaves. Some types of sexual intercourse, not always considered Rape previously, are known to be wholly abhorrent and illegal now. Yet such rapes occur. Similarly, the existence of slaves did not mean slavery was legal at that time. By contrast, it was indeed a flourishing and wholly legal industry overseas by reason of positive law.  Somerset's case decided that no positive law had established slavery on this soil in the manner that it existed overseas. Academics may dispute this but if they do, they will be forced to concede that, during the course of the Seventeenth Century, slavery of the overseas type could have been legal for White English people as well. In other words, ambiguity in the Law cuts both ways.

Some people from Africa enslaved some people from Britain during the Seventeenth Century. Such cases declined as the power of the Royal Navy outmatched that of the Corsairs. Still, the fact remains, if some Historians want to dwell on one aspect of that repugnant trade for a gesture political purpose, others will want to air the other side's grievance. That way madness lies.

The handbook is full of dates and numbers but does not give the number of people transported as slaves on British ships (over 3 million);

It also does not tell us the percentage of members of the Historical Association who are stupid liars. The figure may be less than 100 per cent because some of them may be in a coma.

nor does it mention that any of them died. It also states that ‘by the second part of the 20th century, there was, for the most part, an orderly transition from Empire to Commonwealth, with countries being granted their independence’ (p.51).

This is true. France, Holland and Portugal's transitions were far more violent. In Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola etc, bloody wars were fought before the Imperial power agreed to hand over power. Britain's one major 'colonial war' was against the Boers. But they were White, not Black. Subsequently, the Boers were friends of the British though they left the Commonwealth in 1960 because India and other 'New Commonwealth' objected to admitting the Apartheid Republic. Only one ex-colony refused to join the Commonwealth- Burma, now known as Myanmar. But its subsequent trajectory was far from salutary.

In fact, decolonisation was not an ‘orderly’ but an often violent process, not only in India

But the Indian view is that the transfer of Power, as opposed to what the Muslim League did with that power, was orderly and non-violent. India still has violent confrontations with its Muslim neighbor. It may once have been fashionable to blame everything on the Brits, but the fact is Britain too feels it has to lock up some Muslims from that region because they keep stabbing innocent people for some obscure reason.

 Had the transfer of power not been so amicable, India would scarcely have remained in the Commonwealth.  Furthermore, Indians consider Mahatma Gandhi to be the leader of the Independence Movement. Are these stupid, lying, Historians suggesting the man was a terrorist or a guerilla leader?

but also in the many so-called “emergencies” such as the Mau-Mau Uprising in Kenya (1952-1960).

Where else in British Africa was there anything similar? Anyway, the UK remained good friends with Kenya. Thus the actual hand over of power was amicable and orderly. Why not mention the Malaysian or Cypriot Emergencies? The fact is Malaysia welcomed Britain's role in putting down the Reds. Cypriots now understand that 'Enosis' was not possible.

We call for an immediate official review of the history chapter.

I call for the immediate disbandment of the Historical Association. They are a bunch of stupid liars.

People in the colonies and people of colour in the UK are nowhere actors in this official history.

This is not an official history. It is a handbook for a purpose which is not historiographical. These fools are telling a blatant lie.

The handbook promotes the misleading view that the Empire came to an end simply because the British decided it was the right thing to do.

Independence was granted to colonies by elected British Governments which considered this was the right thing to do. It is false to say that any country was granted independence, as opposed to unilaterally declaring independence, because the British people, at the time, felt it was the wrong thing to do. On the contrary, the sentiment was that the thing should have been done sooner.

Similarly, the abolition of slavery is treated as a British achievement, in which enslaved people themselves played no part.

 Since British parliament passed laws in this regard without any outside pressure, these laws are indeed a British achievement. It is not the case that enslaved people had any influence over legislative deliberations or the outcome of Parliamentary voting procedures.

The book is equally silent about colonial protests, uprisings and independence movements.

Just as it is silent about the degree of cretinism of the Historical Association.

Applicants are expected to learn about more than two hundred individuals.

But do so after about 10 hours of preparation.

The only individual of colonial origin named in the book is Sake Dean Mohamet who co-founded England’s first curry house in 1810.

I found the name of Mary Seacole when I took the test.

The pages on the British Empire end with a celebration of Rudyard Kipling.

He is mentioned after Sake Dean & Isambard Brunel. Why? Because he won the Nobel Prize and a poem of his, which is reproduced, has often been voted the Nation's favorite.
This is perfectly reasonable. Many British people genuinely like and can recite portions of Kipling's poetry. But so can many Indians and Pakistanis.

The “Life in the UK Test” is neither a trivial quiz

It is a multiple choice test which is easy to pass if you have basic comprehension and memory retention skills. The content is not challenging or controversial.

nor an optional discussion point. It is an official requirement

to which there are exceptions

in the application for settlement or citizenship and provides essential information about the United Kingdom.

Some of the information may be 'essential' but some isn't. No claim is made that information provided is exhaustive. 

The handbook ‘has been approved by ministers and has official status.’

As what? The answer is it is a text which has been approved for the purpose of helping people demonstrate that they meet a requirement, unless they are entitled to an exemption, such that they may gain Citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain.

It is not the case that the handbook has 'official status' for any other purpose- e.g. giving comprehensive information of a type essential to live in the UK. If such were the case, why are British people not being supplied with it? How on earth have they been managing to exist for thousands of years without its invaluable guidance? 

It requires applicants to remember and repeat the information it contains, which is, then, tested in an official multiple choice test.

So, it makes it easy for anyone of average intelligence who can comprehend English to pass the text with a minimum of time consuming preparation. Surely, that's a good thing- if you think immigration is a good thing? The alternative to having a jejune handbook is to have something scholarly or purely polemical. If the thing is scholarly, it discriminates against people who aren't scholars. If it is polemical, it would be a tool of the party in power to push forward its ideology and to score off against its rivals. Thus the correct answer to 'Winston Churchill is famous because'
1) He was a war monger who ground down the faces of the poor
2) He perfected a technique of Gramscian hegemony involving, as Deleuze & Guatarri, might put it a Molar deterritorialization of the Hegelian 'beautiful soul' within a context of Marcusian repressive desublimation as Keynesian chrematistics.

The examination is ‘based on ALL parts of the handbook’, which includes the parts mentioned above.

Though if you skip the history part, because of a conscientious objection, you can still pass.

This publication and its official view of British history is not a left over from the distant past.

The Historians Association claim that there is an official view of British History. This is a stupid lie.

It is a recent innovation, and some of its most misleading passages date only from the third edition published by the Home Office in 2013 which, with minor updates, remains the official text to this day.

There are no misleading passages. It is the Association's letter which is based on stupid lies.

This official, mandatory version of history is a step backwards in historical knowledge and understanding.

Are these cretins saying that people like myself, who took the test, were  indoctrinated in an 'official' and 'mandatory' version of history? How come none of us noticed? The fact is, you read the handbook and then take a few sample tests. If your English comprehension is good, you start passing the test within a few hours. But you are no more indoctrinated in British history than you are in British Law or Geography or anything else.

Historical knowledge is and should be an essential part of citizenship.

No. People with mental impairments must not lose their 'right to have rights'. The Historical Association may have a vested interest in getting 'jobs for the boys' but their members are, on the evidence of this letter, comparable to the Nazis in their contempt for mentally disabled people.

The fact is, Historical knowledge is often inversely related to Civic Sense. Often,  such knowledge is worthless. It makes people stupider than they need be.

Historical falsehood and misrepresentation, however, should not.

Should these stupid liars be stripped of their citizenship for this utterly Fascist suggestion? No. They teach, or were taught, a shite subject. All we ask of them they is not to masturbate in public.

In 2019, 125,346 individuals applied for naturalisation; almost all will have had to pass the test before applying. Many thousands more took the test in order to settle here. For many, it will have been their introduction to British history.

No. Their decision to seek British citizenship is likely to have arisen from prior knowledge of Britain's long history as a place where people like themselves had done well.

For applicants from former colonies with knowledge of imperial violence, this account is offensive.

I know many who took the test, as I did myself. None reported any such reaction. On the other hand, people with a genuine grudge against this country, because of things which happened long ago, are likely to consider the suggestion that they want to visit, or settle in, this country highly offensive.  If your ancestors were insulted and injured by the British, why would you want to go there and pay taxes and contribute to the prosperity and security of the descendants of those evil people?

For those from outside the former Empire without prior education in history, the official handbook creates a distorted view of the British past.

Whereas, if the Handbook said 'Britain tortured and killed and robbed and enslaved Brown and Black people. The British have, historically, shown repugnance and disdain for those of darker skin'- would these Historians be happy? Perhaps. But the White Supremacists would be happier still. If they wish to insult a new citizen on the grounds of color, they can say 'you knew what you were signing up for. You read the handbook. +Historically this is a Racist country. Deal with it.'

For those with a basic knowledge of history, whatever their background, it puts them in the invidious position of being obliged to read, remember and repeat a version of the past which is false.

But if colored people accept the Historians' view of what is true, they should feel ashamed of themselves for betraying their own insulted and injured ancestors simply so as to get a better material standard of life in a historically Racist country.

For British citizens in general, the official history perpetuates a misleading view of how we came to be who we are.

But British citizens are not obliged to read that handbook.

The aim of the official handbook is to promote tolerance and fairness and facilitate integration.

Indeed. The fear was that some immigrants were intolerant, unfair in their behavior, and did not want to integrate. This handbook is meant to make applicants for citizenship or settlement more aware of what this country expects of them. Naturalization can be stripped. Indefinite leave can be cancelled. The cost of misbehavior falls upon the applicant.

In its current version, the historical pages do the opposite

There is no evidence of this. Many people like me, permanently domiciled in the UK, took Citizenship simply as a matter of convenience because we were frequent travellers to an EU state.  It is not the case that, after reading the 'historical pages', we became less tolerant or opposed to fairness or hostile to integration. Nor did, by some occult manner, the rest of the British population which did not read that Handbook at all.

As historians we believe in debate, but interpretations of the past have to be based on facts.

So do interpretations of the present. These Historians haven't just told stupid lies about the past, they are telling stupid lies about there being 'an official, mandatory' version of British History. They are lying about the effect this handbook has had on those, like me, who read it. They are trying to stir up trouble where no trouble exists. Shame on them!

The distortion of the past is a challenge to democratic culture and liberal values.

No it isn't. We don't give a toss about these stupid liars. Our culture and values can't be damaged by shitheads teaching a cretinous subject.

Historical misrepresentation should not be officially sponsored by the state.

No, indeed! Leave it to this bunch of cretins.

We, therefore, urge the Home Office to review the “Life in the UK Test” as a matter of urgency. Until the history chapter has been corrected and rewritten, it should be formally withdrawn from the test.

No doubt, there are people in the current administration who will welcome the chance to make this portion of the test much, much, harder. It seems the useless idiots of the Historical Association do have some use value after all- but only to bigots. What they may not realize is, if the test gets harder, then people who studied History will fail it while STEM subject mavens will breeze through just with a little cramming.