Details below of a communication received 16th June 2003 and seeking to clarify John's view of perceived failings within, what we should consider, a Cornish academic establishment working within an Anglo-centric system.
One can only agree that more, much more, could be done to raise the profile of the Cornish Debate by those within the higher academic institutions - whether within the Duchy or outside. If this can only be done by confronting those with an agenda of prejudice or an English Imperial mind-set, then let us open up a debate within the public arena. Let us purge the Anglo-Santa-Zone of its childish beliefs and predictable tantrums.
45 Higher Bore Street, Bodmin PL31 1JS Tel/Fax 01208 76336 :: Email:cornubian@tiscali.co.uk To
Professor Philip Payton
Institute of Cornish Studies17th Dec 2002
Dear Philip
Thank you for sending me a complimentary copy of Cornish Studies Ten. I would have attended the Tremough launch if it were not for a prior engagement. In view of your considerable experience of such events I am sure everything went well for you.
Although I have read sections from previous editions, this is the first time I have read a Cornish Studies cover to cover. It is clear that the overall theme is the celebration of ten years of the publication itself, together with the rise of what is called the 'new Cornish historiography'. It is inferred, and in many ways I would agree, that this phenomena begins with your appointment as Director of the Institute of Cornish Studies.
However, as Mark Stoyle points out, the objective of Kernowsceptics [as he politely calls them] will always be to 'push Cornish history back into the box labelled English local history and nail down the lid'. Unfortunately, Stoyle's effort to highlight a fundamental problem seems to reflect as much the failure as the success of the last ten years.
For the new Cornish historiography has never been out of its box. While many have opened the lid and peered inside, and various liberals have taken it out for a period of home leave, it always returns to its enforced confinement. Indeed, it will never experience freedom until the liberal intelligentsia have the courage to not only reveal the objective of Kernowsceptics [as Stoyle has done], but also their motivation, their methods of ensuring continued incarceration and the social implications of their actions. Aside from being less than assertive in its approach to promoting a Cornish historiography which incorporates all available evidence, this is present hierarchy's most notable failing.
This is not the only problem. Those who place themselves at the vanguard of promoting Cornish historiography are still reluctant to challenge many of the existing, highly politicised, myths. Stoyle fell into this trap with West Britons when, in a hurry to get to his specialist subject matter, he cited Malcolm Todd's almost childlike assertions relating to Cornubia's supposed incorporation into 'England' circa 938. When I asked Stoyle to substantiate his claim he could not do so. Because this is the period when state-endorsed history parts company with reality, and from this point on evidence which fails to complement state mythology is jettisoned, such assertions cannot go on being left unchallenged.
As it stands at the moment, the struggle for right and reason remains locked within the confines of a small, highly introverted, clique. As such, historical reality fails to permeate mainstream thinking or impact on the consciousness of the general public. Yet in the new climate of geo-political fluidity [coupled with a burgeoning minority rights legal culture] people are expected to utilise historical perspectives when making informed decisions about the future shape of their territory, ethnicity and status.
If the hitherto suppressed historiography is unable to etch itself onto the hearts and minds of the Asda sales assistant or Imery's plant operator, efforts in this direction cannot have any meaningful result. In such circumstances, the deliberate suppression of material relating to 'Cornish Studies as national studies' has become an issue of over-riding importance.
As I have attempted to explain in my new book, the only solution is for the Institute to move away from being a vehicle for the petty squabbles of academics, come down firmly on the side of historical reality and make every effort to get the associated, hitherto suppressed, historical evidence into publicly-funded museums, public authority literature and schools. I believe the Institute would function more effectively if it adopted this strategy.
After all, what reason is there for continuing to present a 'balanced' [meaning conciliatory] perspective when the so-called 'Cornish studies as local studies' dirty tricks brigade fail to reciprocate the favour?
In becoming a vehicle for petty feuds the Institute has been guilty of wasting energy and resources. The real fight is not in-house. It is with those public authorities bent on misrepresenting Cornish history for political and ideological purposes. This is where wasted resources transmit into real economic damage and social cost for Cornwall.
On a more personal note, as well as being disappointed with Bernard Deacon's continual dismissal of Breaking the Chains, I cannot agree with his suggestion that there are three equally valid models of Cornish Studies.
Firstly, whilst acknowledging that BTC had many faults, it also had much to commend it. In such circumstances, Bernard's given reason for dismissing the publication would carry more weight if he applied the same critical analysis to the writings of not just those who adopt the Cornish Studies as national studies approach, but also to those who push the Cornish Studies as local studies line. If he cannot bring himself to publicly criticise to a similar degree the likes of the Historical Atlas of South West England, then he himself is guilty of being 'cavalier with the evidence'.
This brings me to my second point. By giving 'Cornish Studies as national studies' and 'Cornish Studies as local studies' equal credence, Bernard infers that the state policy of downgrading Cornish constitutional, military, religious, economic, social and cultural historiography to the status of 'English local studies' is a bona fide academic position. This lends legitimacy to those who ignore, manipulate or censor historical evidence for political purposes.
As well as lacking academic legitimacy, the 'Cornish Studies as local studies' variant fails another test of parity. Whereas those who speak on behalf of Cornish Studies as national studies would be perfectly at ease incorporating Cornish studies as local studies material into their remit, the situation could never be reciprocated. If it were, Cornish Studies as local studies [as perceived and promulgated by public authorities] would succumb to a natural death - and those who articulate such a stance would be signing their position away. This is part of the reason why Bernard, and by association the Institute, should refrain from giving the two 'models' the same level of consideration.
Although there is much I should like to discuss about Cornish Studies 10, time, and lack of a decent platform, prevent me from doing so. Whilst acknowledging the contribution you have undoubtedly made towards fostering a new climate of understanding, and admiring your tenacity in this respect, my only hope is that you are right in saying that 'all this will pale into insignificance as we contemplate what lies ahead'.
Best wishes
John Angarrack
| ||||||||||||
