Prospects for a 'Bewältigung' of Extreme Violence in Britain’s Imperial Past

Abstract

This article addresses how (‘selective’) British memory has served to emphasize the extreme violence perpetrated by others at the expense of a critical examination of brutalities in ‘British history’. Not least, the genocidal violence perpetrated by (British) settler colonisers, as well as the extreme violence that was inherent throughout the systems of administrative colonialism. The ‘history wars’ in Australia have not penetrated ‘British history’. Assumptions are often based on British ‘exceptionalism’; an approach mirrored by British memorialisation and museum exhibitions, including Britain’s Holocaust Memorial Day and the Imperial War Museum. That the knowledge produced by scholars on the key linkages between Britain and extreme violence is not translating to the wider public, has been demonstrated through Brexit debates. The British Empire has loomed large in these discussions, on all levels of society, and politicians have been particularly willing to use ahistorical narratives to further their causes. The ongoing significance of empire to British national identity has also been demonstrated by recent polls on perceptions of the British Empire. National narratives are currently being confronted across Europe in the face of increased right-wing populism and anti-EU sentiments. In this context, thresholds are continuously being crossed. An example of ahistorical/selective narratives is the British foreign secretary’s comparison between the EU and a Soviet gulag. ‘Balance sheet’ approaches to the Empire in particular have served to continue narratives of British ‘exceptionalism’. This crisis or selectivity of memory has brought us to a crossroads. A responsible and critical assessment of Britain’s relationship with extreme violence is necessary; we must move beyond a patriotic approach (Drayton).