| Simon Schama, writer and presenter
of the BBC’s History of Britain, has hit back at Scottish and Welsh criticism of the
series. Senior academic figures on the celtic fringe had complained that
the programme amounted to a history of England with only nominal reference to other areas
of the multinational state.
Professor Schama told the JT: "I totally reject the claim that that the
programme is any way anglocentric. I can only invite my critics to come over here if they
think they’re hard enough."
Professor Christopher Harvie in turn argued that Schama’s meta-narrative
was a deliberate choice, echoing in major respects, a Whiggish view of history; "In
effect, Schama is saying that all the regional historical narratives can be subsumed under
one Great British narrative. Schama presents this as 'common sense' when in fact it’s
a highly contentious and theoretically precarious undertaking. Additionally, Schama fails
to take into account the fact that we hate Jimmy Hill, 'cos he’s a poof, he’s a
poof." |
Dr Fiona Watson, who has recently
argued that Scottish historians need to concentrate more of their research effort on the
nation’s historical links with Europe, concedes that Schama’s account will
appeal to viewers: "Precisely because it is a straight single voice
narrative, viewers will find it reassuringly authoritative. Unfortunately, Professor
Schama has yet to respond to a more serious criticism of his work, centring on the
allegations that he’s shite and he knows he is."
In closing this round of what promises to be an ongoing debate, Professor Schama
took off his shirt, stood on top of the table and reminded onlookers of England’s
success in two world wars and one world cup, while celtic critics took advantage of the
confusion to piss in Professor Schama’s lager. |
