The ongoing efforts of museums to engage with contemporary issues and address the legacies of empire and slavery were critically examined at a debate hosted by The Times at the British Museum.
Entitled Whose History: Can Museums Preserve the Past While Addressing the Present?, the discussion explored the increasingly active role of museums in confronting societal concerns and historical injustices, particularly in relation to marginalised and formerly colonised communities.
The debate was chaired by The Times columnist Alice Thompson and featured distinguished panellists including artist Grayson Perry, historians Tom Holland and Simon Sebag-Montefiore, and Margaret Casely-Hayford, Chief Executive of the Gallery of Living History.
Grayson Perry acknowledged the necessity of rebalancing the presentation of historical artefacts but expressed concern that political discourse was at times overshadowing visitors’ enjoyment of exhibitions. He remarked that the contemporary cultural landscape often carried a “scolding” and “finger-wagging” tone, which, in his view, detracted from the appreciation of art and history. Later, Perry emphasised the importance of recognising that the civilisations responsible for producing remarkable artistic and cultural achievements were frequently marked by brutality. He contended that while modern society is more sensitive to such realities, an open acknowledgment of history’s darker aspects is essential for a healthy perspective.
Simon Sebag-Montefiore questioned the extent to which museums should continue to emphasise transatlantic slavery in their interpretations. He argued that, given the historical pervasiveness of slavery among the elite, it should not necessarily be referenced in every contextual display. Citing research such as the National Trust’s 2020 report on links between its properties and colonialism, he suggested that this area had been sufficiently explored and warned against what he termed a “permanent cultural revolution.”
Expanding on his perspective, Sebag-Montefiore maintained that while it is crucial to acknowledge slavery, a singular focus on it risks oversimplifying the complex historical narratives of the time. He also criticised the use of academic jargon in museum interpretation, asserting that it fosters exclusivity and diminishes the accessibility and enjoyment of exhibitions.
Margaret Casely-Hayford took a different approach, emphasising the need for maturity in confronting historical realities. She argued that museums should address societal and historical issues in a balanced manner rather than imposing perspectives upon visitors. Reflecting on her own heritage—descended from both a slave trader in County Clare and a Ghanaian chieftain’s daughter—she highlighted the importance of embracing multiple perspectives, stating, “This is me, this is who I am.”
Casely-Hayford further warned against the suppression of difficult histories, asserting that history must be openly acknowledged to facilitate societal growth. She drew comparisons between the different approaches taken by Bristol and Liverpool in addressing their involvement in the slave trade, citing the toppling of Edward Colston’s statue as an example of how repressed issues can manifest in public unrest.
Tom Holland likened the current changes in museum practices to a process of reformation, comparable to historical shifts in religious institutions. He posed fundamental questions regarding the recalibration of long-standing institutional principles, suggesting that contemporary debates revolve around decisions on which historical narratives to preserve, challenge, or revise. He noted that, much like the religious reformations of the past, the current period involves a reassessment of historical symbols, with some being removed and others being reinterpreted.
Holland acknowledged that while museum experiences need not always be entertaining, they should remain impactful. He praised the Rise Up exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, which examines the abolition of slavery, describing it as both powerful and thought-provoking. While not necessarily enjoyable in a conventional sense, he noted that such exhibitions have the capacity to challenge and expand visitors’ perspectives.
The discussion ultimately highlighted the delicate balance that museums must strike between preserving the past and engaging with the present. As these institutions continue to evolve, their role in shaping public understanding of history will remain a subject of vigorous debate, requiring sensitivity, nuance, and intellectual openness.