Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
If you want access to bonus episodes, reading lists for every series of Empire, a chat community, discounts for all the books mentioned in the week's podcast, ad-free listening and a weekly newsletter, sign up to Empire Club at www.empirepoduk.com.
Hello and welcome to Empire with me, Anita Arnon. And me, William Durrenpool. So we are recording this episode of Empire during a week of official mourning here in Great Britain after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning monarch in British history.
And it is, I mean, it's an extraordinary time, William. And I think partly because most people haven't gone through this before, because by very virtue of the fact she's been on the throne for such a long time, most people have never been through a state funeral or a position where they've lost somebody who was so woven into the fabric of British life.
I believe that in both houses of parliament, in the upper house and the lower house, there's only one peer who was around when the last monarch died. So it's completely new, even for the politicians, this is a completely new territory. I mean, speaking for ourselves, both of us grew up in Britain. Every stamp we licked as a child, every coin that we put into a slot machine or a parking meter, every note that we withdrew from our wallets from our earliest days was
all had her face on it. And it is an extraordinary change. It's like the sky changing colour or something. It's the things we've always imagined to be there are suddenly not. I mean, just to give people who don't live in, I mean, I'm in London at the moment, just an idea of what's happened to the capital city.
If you travel by tube, as I do, you have to go up very, very long escalators and there are advertising screens all the way up. And they always have different things that they want you to buy. And every single one of them had a picture of the queen. Every single commercial outlet that I passed, whether it was a coffee shop or an electronics shop, or even, you know, sort of the Waterloo, the workers at Waterloo had felt moved to put something up saying what a shock it was and what sadness this company stroke was.
group of individuals was feeling. So, you have all of those corporate messages which are coming out. You also have this outpouring from the general public. So, there are places where people are leaving floral tributes. They're also leaving in great numbers and they've been asked not to do this now for the sake of the environment. Bunches of flowers, but marmalade sandwiches as
as well. And this is to mark the fact that to many people, the Queen was the nice lady who appeared with Paddington Bear. To many, she was sort of the nation's grandmother. But if you look at Twitter, and it's never a lovely place to hang out, but it has become...
very much more heated in the last few days. And that's because that is the vision of the Queen here, but there is a very different vision of the Queen elsewhere, William, right? I think for most Brits, the Queen represents the most cosy of images, corgi dogs, horses, pipers and kilts, Paddington bear, marmalade sandwiches, all these things that we've just been talking about. But if you go on social media, particularly, uh,
any stream coming out of former British colonies such as India or Pakistan or Kenya, there's an utterly and completely different perception of the Queen, of Britain, of the Empire, which brings us back in a sense to why we started this podcast in the first place. Me as the Brit living in India, you as the person of Indian descent born and brought up in England.
And we have both become aware separately, which is why we're doing this, of huge differences of understanding in the basic
building blocks of the understanding of recent history, of recent politics. And this has never become clearer or more stark than in the last week. And it's sort of exemplified, I think, in the dissonance with which reactions are being reported. So on the one hand, you're hearing a lot in Britain about, you know, the Commonwealth is mourning and the Commonwealth, you know, she meant a lot to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth isn't
If you like the ghost of empire, it's what's left after the end of the British empire.
But in India, certainly, there was one day of official mourning, just the one day. But it happens in the same week that vestiges of colonial rule have been swept away, like really remarkable ones. So, there is a huge road, a very wide road in Delhi, which used to be called Rajpath, right? Everybody knows it as Rajpath. It is the king's way. Originally, it was king's way. The king's way. King's way translated to Rajpath, which means the same thing, but in Hindi.
and it has now been changed to , which is the road of duty. You had a space where the queen's ancestor, George V, his statue used to stand. That has been taken away and in its place is a statue erected. This is the same period of time we're talking about. A
a statue of Subhash Chandra Bose, who we have spoken about briefly in this podcast before and will speak about again, but was an implacable enemy of British rule to the extent, William, that he was willing to do a deal with Hitler to get them out. And the Japanese. And the Japanese.
And he is loved specifically for that reason, that he wasn't a Gandhian who believed in nonviolence and satyagraha, but someone that was prepared to take a more violent route. And this is why modern India, rising, feels him to be such a hero. And it's him rather than Gandhi that's now under that canopy. There was a moment in an earlier reign when...
I think they tried putting Gandhi up in that space, and he looked so uncomfortable in his dhoti under this very sort of imperial canopy that he was taken down again. And now we have Netaji there instead. So yes, I mean, there's a very confused and divided response to the queen's death in India. I've had some Indian friends who seem to be deep in mourning.
other Indian friends who are appalled that anyone in Britain is in mourning. And I just read something I got from a friend, an Indian, an ethnic Indian living in South Africa yesterday on her Instagram. And this is by no means a sort of far-fetched
a ranting radical. This is someone that writes very gentle novels and is a notably gentle person, but this is what she put on her Instagram yesterday. Thinking of all the black, brown, and indigenous communities around the world today who have been and continue to be affected and deeply impacted by that family's violence, theft, colonization, imperialism, white supremacy, colonialism, and participation in genocide.
Solidarity to you all. And on the other side of that coin, I have seen tweets by people of Indian or Pakistani heritage saying, "This is a huge thing that has happened."
some saying the mildest things of she was a unifier or some sort of praise. Presented dignity. Yes, that kind of thing. Loyalty, duty, those words. And they have been introduced by others saying, how dare you? What's wrong with you? There is no grey space
there seems to be, which is the space that we are elbowing our way into because we really do feel there is. At the moment, in the last few days, it feels as if you cannot have this conversation without being denounced by somebody.
I've seen, on one hand, people like Shashi Tharoor and Satnam Sanghera, who've written very movingly about the worst atrocities of the British Empire. They've put up posts mourning the Queen and have been accused of rank hypocrisy.
by some of their followers. Equally, one of my best friends, Maia Jasanoff, who's a professor of history at Harvard, who is one of the most learned scholars on empire and who is politically center or even center-right rather than left, being introduced in the Daily Mail as a woke historian because the New York Times published her piece about her
about the links of the royal family to slavery and some of the atrocities of imperialism. And what she said, in a sense, was unquestionable fact. She's one of the most respected historians of empire. But because she raised these issues, particularly, I think, probably the timing with which the New York Times published her piece,
immediately after the Queen's death. She was regarded and sort of introduced in the Daily Mail as an ultra-woke, lefty, Marxist, ranting radical, which is complete nonsense. So
We have both found that there is, in a sense, a real need to talk through this, to see how that has happened, to see how the same woman can evoke such radically different reactions in different parts of the world from intelligent and well-informed people. We can't think of a better person to have that chat with than the historian David Olasuga, who is a British historian and who...
inhabits this space and analyzes these things. He wrote a very impressive, I thought, article in the Observer where he touched upon all of these sensitivities, William, and all of these food groups, if you like, were sort of chewed over.
It would be good to know how he's been feeling. Shall we welcome him on? Let's do that. David, thank you so much for joining us on Empire. Your article starts with this line, which I thought was really affecting. Our ancestors were better prepared for moments like this.
What did you mean by that? Well, if you had come of age in the first half of the 20th century, you would have gone through this four times. Through abdication and death, you would have seen these ceremonies that seem very strange and arcane and unusual to us because they haven't been performed for 70 years. You would have gone through this four times.
To us, the corollary of being the longest reigning monarch in British history is that no one or very few people have memories of these ceremonies and these emotions. I mean, one of the striking things about this moment is the number of people describing their surprise at their emotional response to the passing of the Queen.
um, were just out of practice, um, because, um, the late queen lived so long. And it's thrown up so many issues, which seem to be being discussed, um, in what feels like dangerous territory that, you know, the mildest of comments are saying, you know, the passing of somebody, and we were talking about this just earlier, you know, if you put the word duty with the queen, you may be attacked by one side. Um, if you talk about the other side, that there is a
problematic empirical history behind the institution of the Crown, you get attacked by the other side. Does it feel like dangerous terrain to you at the moment? Oh, I think it does. And I think everybody in the public eye, every organisation, company, institution is worrying about making a mistake or being seen to be disrespectful or perhaps over respectful. I think it is a very fraught moment. And I think anyone who remembers the passing of Diana
will remember that there are these very rare moments when famously unemotional people, the British, suddenly become almost like emotionally incontinent. I mean, it's a very, very dangerous moment because there is a sort of sense of what you should feel. I think there's also a big part of this moment is
is the thing that we are really bad at doing, which is understanding that two difficult things can be true at the same time, that there is nuance and contradiction. This is an old woman who was there for everyone's lives and that people have very strong feelings for. And of course, this is also a personal familial tragedy. That's absolutely all true. And I think people who have, I think, willfully put that aside, I think they sound callous. Yeah.
But at the same time, it is also an institution that many people, around 40% of the population, think should not exist in its current form. There is also a legitimate debate about the role of hereditary positions of any sort in a democracy. And those two things can be true at the same time. And believing one doesn't make you a sort of traitor or an enemy of the people.
and being emotional about it doesn't make you somebody who wants to question the role of monarchy. Do you think that there is a widening gulf at the moment between those two different perceptions of the queen and the royal family? Is it something that's getting more stark? Well, I think the really interesting thing is that this idea of the monarchy as an institution has almost been, not entirely, but almost been invisible because when you say the monarch, you think of the queen.
She is the monarchy. And the idea that the monarchy exists without her, beyond her, then it suddenly does seem much more like an institution. It's a bit like when you say the war.
Even in the recent years when Britain has been at war in Iraq or Afghanistan, when you say the phrase the war, people know you mean the Second World War. When you say the monarchy, people think of the Queen. Well, now she's no longer there. So this institution has been embodied for so long by an individual that suddenly it is more exposed to be an institution. And we've lived through a time when all of Britain's institutions have.
have been questioned, have been found wanting, have been called into question. And I think the monarchy, because the Queen is now gone, is more overtly an institution and therefore more overtly a danger of being judged and assessed. And we were also getting an insight for the first time in 70 years about what the institution sees when it looks in the mirror as well. I mean, I was really sort of struck by all of the addresses delivered by King Charles III now, which have all included
a reference to the Commonwealth. So just to quote the first address that he made to the nation after the death of his mother, he said, "'Alongside the personal grief that all my family are feeling, we also share with so many of you in the United Kingdom, in all the countries where the Queen was head of state, in the Commonwealth and across the world, a deep sense of gratitude for more than 70 years in which my mother as Queen served.'"
of so many nations. So, you know, that is how the monarchy sees itself. It was the first thing that he said in his accession speech as well, pretty much, where he talked about his sense of awareness of the great inheritance
that he has. And he again mentioned the Commonwealth in that. He said, I have been set in upholding constitutional government and to seek the peace, harmony and prosperity of the peoples of these islands and of the Commonwealth realms and territories throughout the world. Just those words
which may go without any kind of comment here in Britain and may seem perfectly reasonable, jar with some people's ears in those very former territories. And I think they do. And I think it's because of the moment in history when this historic moment is taking place. We are, as you know better than most people, in a moment of reassessment about empire, its legacy, its meaning. And
the ways in which we have not confronted and processed its place in the world and its place in British history. I think the monarchy in some ways is, in this respect, quite a typical British institution. We have these debates in Britain about whether the empire was a force for good or a force for ill in the world. And those debates are monologues.
It is if we on these islands can sit around among ourselves and decide whether the empire was good or bad, and then hand in the results like it's a test, as if it doesn't involve and that conversation does not necessitate it being a dialogue with the 2.3, 2.6 billion people around the world who are the inhabitants of former British colonies, more if you add in the United States.
That urge to have a monologue rather than a dialogue about empire is something which is absolutely breaking down. And the fact that the voices and opinions about the British monarchy, about the late queen, are emanating from former British colonies is because it was always a dialogue. We just ignored. We just didn't listen to the other side. But this moment, this generational moment, the other thing about the Commonwealth is it's very young.
And we can see through Black Lives Matter and events recently that the young have a radically different approach to history, whether they're in Britain, whether they're in India, whether they're in the Caribbean. And there is a determination amongst young people to question parts of history that have been delivered in certain ways. And empire is at the centre of this moment of reassessment. So you have a very young Commonwealth really thinking deeply about these ideas. Do you think the British really...
really understand that yet. Have they understood how much perceptions of their empire have changed elsewhere? I don't think so. And I think part of that urge to have a monologue rather than a dialogue makes that inevitable. We don't really want to have these conversations among ourselves, never mind with others. Whenever I'm talking about empire or slavery, most of the questions
most of the statements at the end of my talks, what they really are is ways of silencing people. They're ways of not having the conversation. Whenever I mention slavery, people will say, but what about African publicity and slavery? And I go, well, what about it? I'm talking about Britain. Whenever I mention the British Empire in Africa, people will say, well, what about the Belgians in the Congo?
These aren't actual debates. These aren't actual forms of dialogue. They are methods to stop a conversation happening. They are ways of silencing people. That urge to just stop these conversations from taking place is so strong that people genuinely don't know they're doing it. And I often find myself on stage saying, but why are you asking that question?
Why are you trying to take the conversation here rather than there? David, earlier in the summer, you and I were speaking together at a festival in Oxfordshire. And afterwards, we went for a book signing in the bookshop. And I noticed this sort of hunky, gym-going chap that was standing beside you. And he'd been following us around, and you hadn't introduced me to him, and he was clearly with you. And I said, hello, who are you? And he said, I'm David's bodyguard.
Could you tell us about why you needed a bodyguard that day? Yeah, it's a depressing thing to say, but the urge to shut down the conversation is accompanied occasionally by an urge to shut down the person who's trying to start the conversation. And I think, well, I know that I'm not alone in writers who...
talk about empire and talk about slavery in getting threats. And sometimes those threats are ones that have to be taken seriously. I think what's been new of recent years is that the threats are not just directed towards myself or people like me, but they're directed towards people who've asked me to come and speak.
And I think, again, this speaks to this determination to not have these conversations. There are people, my fellow citizens, who would rather threaten somebody who is writing about these histories than have this conversation. And I think it is, you know, obviously it's a small minority that probably, for the most part, I hope, keep hoard warriors. But I think it shows a deep and unquestioned and unthinking attitude
about British history. Just stop talking about it. You're making me uncomfortable. You're making me angry by bringing it up. Does it matter the person who is delivering the message? Let me just read something to you and just try and guess who wrote this. You tell me who you think wrote this.
It is a good thing to be proud of one's country, and I am most of the time, but it would be impossible to scan the centuries of Britain's history without coming across a few incidents that evoke not pride but shame. Among those, I would list the creation of the British officialdom in South Africa, of the concentration camp to persecute the families of the Boers. Add to that the Amritsar Massacre of 1919, the Hola Camp set up and run during the struggle against the Mau Mau. The northern and western regions were swept by a pogrom in which thousands of Igbo were slaughtered.
But there is one truly disgusting policy practiced by our officialdom during the lifetime of anyone over 50. And one word will suffice. It is Biafra. Who do you think said that? And what would happen if you said that?
Whoever said it doesn't realize or doesn't want to acknowledge that Britain also had concentration camps in Africa in which there were Africans during the Second Anglo-Boer War. Don't let it correct. It's the temptation of every historian I've ever met to say, and another thing. But can you guess who uttered those words? I'll tell you, it was Frederick Forsyth. Okay. Frederick Forsyth, who is a stalwart defender of
of the Queen who has written other pieces where he's called the President of France a clot and anyone who has a presidential system bowing down to clots and that the Queen would be a much better option. Those are the words of Frederick Forsyth. Now, I was startled by that because I thought if you would have said it,
Or if William would have said it. We should explain who Frederick Forsyth is. A great novelist writing perhaps at his peak in the 1970s, had a series of wonderful movies made out of his books like The Day of the Jackal, and later in life became a great stalwart of the spectator and tilted to the right. But as you so rightly point out, this is a statement that you would not expect from someone like that.
Well, because we're doing this and it's only in your ears, but you don't see the faces. And I had the pleasure of watching both of your eyebrows travel to the backs of your heads when I announced the name of that person.
But is that something, David, that there is a problem with who utters the words rather than the words themselves? Or is there a way of having this conversation and taking the heat out of it? Is it perhaps that, you know, people quite rightly can turn around and say, well, I didn't do it. Why are you making me feel terrible about this? You're making me on a personal level feel terrible and I don't want to feel that way. How much of that resonates with you? Well, I think that idea that, well, this all in the past matters.
Leave it alone. I didn't do it. Sins of the father. All of those arguments I would categorize again under ways of not having the debate.
Of course, nobody alive today is responsible for the transatlantic slave trade, but we all benefit from the wealth that it generated. This is not about blame. This is not about shame. This is about acknowledging our history. It's very interesting. I present a series on the BBC called A House Through Time, which is about the history of British cities through individual houses, and there are routinely...
within that series, programs, stories about class, about personal tragedies. Nobody has ever said in the course of, we've made four series,
16 hours of television. No one has ever complained about any single story we've ever done. Every tragedy, every form of violence, every form of abuse, every moment in British history that you could categorize as a sort of terrible eventuality has been tolerated by the audience. The only thing in all of those stories, literally hundreds of stories, that has garnered complaint was when in the house in Bristol
given it was on Guinea Street by the docks. The early owners of the house were involved in the transatlantic slave trade. Suddenly, that was not acceptable. Talking about the First World War was acceptable. The Blitz was acceptable. It's not about whether the history is upbeat or downbeat. Anything that takes place in the colonial realm, particularly to do with slavery, is just something that many people do not want to engage with. And they will find any device
any rhetorical idea they can just to shut down the conversation. And even, as I say, if that means trying to discredit or threaten the historians involved. And that determination to perpetuate ignorance, I think is one of the biggest challenges those of us interested in empire are up against. How far do you think the royal family understand this changing landscape?
Well, I've been surprised this year. I think it's been a year of quite incredible extremes. In the spring, we had the tour of the Caribbean by the now Prince of Wales and his wife. And I think...
almost all observers could see that that was a very badly misjudged tour. And I think it totally misunderstood how this new acknowledgement of history, how the toppling of statues, how a new generation coming of age and finding their voice, how that's changed the relationship between those islands and Britain and the monarchy. Slavery is out of the bag. People know it. People understand it. The reparations movement is growing and powerful. And I think that the iconography of that tour was something that would have
seemed quite fitting for the 1960s and that is the problem. So I think there was a moment when you thought this is an organization, this is an institution that doesn't get it. But then we've had speeches by King Charles III in which he has made, I think, rather fulsome acknowledgements that slavery was aberrant, that slavery was something that the British state was deeply involved in. He's yet to point out that the British royal family were also involved. But the
some of the statements that Charles has made this year, I think, show that he does get it. And I'm very hopeful. He's also somebody who I think, you know, does have a history of real engagement with the black British community. The personal words, and you're absolutely right. He said, and forgive me, I was just quoting because some people may not be aware of that, but he said, I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery's enduring impact. I think that's a remarkable statement by a now British monarch, um,
And I think it stands in incredible contrast to the sort of slightly ham-fisted messaging of the Caribbean tour. A further quote from that speech, he said, he talked about the darkest days of the past and the appalling atrocity of slavery, which forever stains our history. And then that was in Barbados. And then in Rwanda, Kigali, more recently, he spoke of the need to, and this is a quote, acknowledge the wrongs which have shaped our past.
Interestingly, David, when you're saying the conversation is so fraught and the conversation can sometimes be shut down, but events continue to roll. So just moments after Charles III was confirmed as king, you had Antigua and Barbuda saying, right, a referendum is due within three years. We're going to decide whether we want to stay under the crown or become a republic.
I think it's also the case that both Belize and Jamaica have to hold referendum to determine the new head of state.
And I think it's highly likely that some of those Caribbean states will follow Barbados and want an elected head of state. So I think that process is already underway. To me, it is unimaginable that whenever that day comes, when King Charles III passes, that his successor will be head of state of 14 nations in addition to the United Kingdom. I think that's just unimaginable.
I mean, it was interesting. Australia's response, though, was, you know, their new premier, Albanese, said, actually, I'll put it off for my first term. We're not going to talk about it for one term. But I think the response of many Republicans in Australia is that it is far more likely now that, again, that the monarchy is not associated entirely with the late queen, that this is something, this is the moment when the momentum towards
an elected head of state, the journey has begun, I think is the view amongst many Australian Republicans. Is it down to the work that historians are doing on empire? Or is it actually just a fact of demographics? Because I was just startled by this worldwide, one in three people aged between 15 and 29 live in Commonwealth countries.
And so these are people who have no association or even knowledge or even memory of empire. It is just not their story. It's not their story, but it is something which they're interested in. And I think they haven't got that sense that this is something not to be looked at, not to be analysed. I think there is certainly, we've now had decades of, I think, brilliant scholarship that has brought the empire forward.
into people's minds across the world. I think William's been writing about the East India Company for 20 years and I think it's an enormous contribution. But I think it's not just historians. I'd love to think historians have all the agency here. I think there is also a demographic generational shift. I was talking to somebody about stately homes in Britain and they were telling me that the cliche is that the parents take their teenage kids and the parents are looking at the elegant architecture and the kids are on the phone Googling this stately home to see where the money came from.
Because they don't have this desire to see history as recreation. They want to know and they sort of believe the great quote behind every great fortune is a great crime. They seem to almost instinctively understand that. So for reasons I don't understand, there's reasons nobody's, I think, come up with a good explanation for. There's a generational shift in attitudes, a willingness to see history as difficult, as challenging, as not as somewhere you go just to be told lovely, comforting stories.
When we were last on stage, David, in the summer at Cutlington Park, I said on stage, I'm not sure whether this house was built with slavery money from the Royal Africa Company or money looted from India with the East India Company. But it turned out, I googled it afterwards, it's actually both. And that gorgeous, peaceful looking park and that beautiful Palladian house, the money for it is dripping in blood.
Yeah, and I can see the urge just to go there and enjoy the architecture. It's absolutely beautiful. The grounds are spectacular. But evidently, demonstrably, as a generation for whom those questions that have been brushed under the carpet for so long are present and urgent. And what's most striking is that, I mean, this involves a completely different relationship with history. It's not history as recreation. It's not history as comfort. It's history as confrontation and challenge.
Now historians have always said, they've always wanted the history to be difficult, to be challenging. You go into the past and you are always disappointed with people who you might have admired in some ways. A nuance just becomes the background reality. But very often our relationship with history has not been about nuance. It's been about simplicity and about mythology. This generation, for reasons no one's explained, seem to have a relationship with history which I think is much more appropriate.
for the grubby, difficult, contradictory realities of the past. You mentioned at the end of your article, the puerile dreams of Empire 2.0 and post-Brexit politicians talking about buccaneering Britain. What's your reaction when you hear that kind of imperial nostalgia uttered by our politicians? Well, I think it's very notable that the part of the imperial story that they're nostalgic for is not the part where Britain actually is powerful.
It's the 17th century part when Britain is fundamentally piratical on the edges of a world of empires dominated by China, by India, by the Iberian powers. But I think it is juvenile and puerile, I think, is the apposite word.
The world has changed. There was a brief moment when navigational technology, maritime technology and military technology gave European powers the edge and allowed that sort of buccaneering attitude. But no, the buccaneers were pirates. Is that really the relationship we want with the rest of the world, even if it were possible, even if we had the power, which is a delusion? Is that really possible?
how we want to be seen by the rest of the world. We want to be pirates rather than partners. It's a fantasy, and like all fantasies, it's dangerous. And living in a fantasy can lead you to make very bad decisions, as I believe we have. The Commonwealth is that echo of what empire used to be. And it is also, you know, it
important to note how other countries see themselves as belonging to that family or not belonging to that family anymore. So, the Chogham meeting that took place in Kigali
The number of heads of state that did not attend. So, I mean, when I started my career, I went to a CHOC. I mean, heads of state, they all were there. It was a given. And if anybody didn't turn up, it was a huge scandal. In this latest round of Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, we had Nigeria turn up and Canada turned up and Boris Johnson turned up. South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa didn't.
India's Narendra Modi didn't. Pakistan's Shabazz Sharif didn't. Australia's Anthony Albanese didn't. Jacinda Ardern didn't. These people did send proxies, which would have been unthinkable. Even at the start of my career, even like 20 years ago, that would never have happened.
I think it shows the decline of the Commonwealth as a meaningful institution. Now, the Commonwealth has done some good things. I think its greatest hour was in fighting against apartheid South Africa. But in a world with a rising China, in a world where China is a key investor in Africa, and in a world where British power is evidently declined,
It is difficult to see this as an institution that has a clear and obvious function in the world. And I think it has for many decades been an institution in search of a purpose. And yet there are still countries asking to join. I mean, you've got Gabon and Togo. So we would very much want to be part of this. They joined just this year. Neither had any connection with the empire, but they wanted to be part of the Commonwealth.
And the same with Rwanda and Mozambique. And one of the dangers about talking about the Commonwealth is that many people have written it off at many points in its history. And it's been, I mean, famously, Margaret Thatcher did not really believe as fervently as the late Queen might have hoped in the Commonwealth mission.
You can see why small nations would seek alliances within the Commonwealth. I think it makes lots of sense. It's a voice. It's a platform. But is it really something that we can imagine, if we're honest with ourselves, being a voice in the world in the 21st century? Is it really something we think will be there at the end of the 21st century? I think that's very questionable.
What advice would you give to the government and the king if you wanted to advise them on the way forward for the Commonwealth? What future can you see for it?
Well, I'd love to think, and I think there's every reason to think, that the statements that King Charles made earlier this year speak to a recognition that these histories are on the move, these histories are changing people's relationships with Britain and the legacy of Britain. And I think that's a great move in the right direction, and I hope that they will follow in with the sentiment and the tone of those statements.
The other thing that the now king has said is that it is, of course, up to those nations to choose their head of state. And I think that, again, speaks to a sort of a realistic and mature understanding of the position that Britain finds itself in. I mean, one of the strange things about the Commonwealth is that for the first time in its history, very soon we may well have already passed that point if you listen to some economists. The most powerful nation is India.
economically, not the United Kingdom. It's a very strange moment when one of the former colonies is going to be a wealthier power, obviously demographically far superior to the former colonizer. So it is a moment when those dreams, those delusions of the past are just not sustainable. And it does seem to me that King Charles understands that and is looking for a new
a new function for both the monarchy and the Commonwealth. It leads to a really interesting relationship between the monarch and politics then, because we had Liz Truss, who is now Prime Minister, saying just in the run-up to becoming anointed as Prime Minister that she was sick and tired of people talking Britain down.
And you get that, and I know we've all heard it. Those who object to this line of research that we're involved in say, "If you don't like it, go away." And why do you keep talking the country down? You're weakening it somehow. Well, the "if you don't like it, you should leave" argument is almost exclusively reserved for historians of black and brown skins.
Again, these are ways of not having conversations, but they're also culture war tropes. I mean, this is said not in order to actually engage with the history, but to speak to ideas and sentiments that have come out of focus groups. So I sort of think we have to sort of recognise that.
those dog whistles for what they are and recognise that historians have a job to do and historians might not like it, but that is the job that historians have to do. The past doesn't exist to make us feel good. It's not there to make us feel warm and fluffy, feel pride. I don't think it's there to make us feel shame either.
I think the past exists and it's the job of historians in history is to, with a clear eye, look at the past, understand it, try to learn from it and be honest about what we have done, where we have been and who we have been. David Olshuga, an absolute pleasure having you. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us. Really, really wonderful. Thank you so, so much for coming. And I'm pretty sure...
that we're going to have quite a lot of you wanting to be in touch. So you know where we are. We are at EmpirePodUK on Twitter, and you can email us. William, do you remember our email address? It's so spanking new. It hasn't really bedded into my brain. EmpirePodUK at gmail.com. Thank goodness for you, a grown-up in the room. Good. So, yes, do get in touch with us. In the next few weeks, we are going to be bringing you, by popular demand, something on Gandhi.
And we will have a very special guest for that. We will also have something, I don't know about you, William, but every third ping in my inbox at the moment is from foreign media companies wanting to talk about the Koh-i-Noor diamond for some reason. It's strange. I'm going to talk about that in half an hour. So yes, we will talk to you and we will enjoy talking to you over hours about the Koh-i-Noor diamond. But till then, thank you very much for listening to Empire from me, Anita Arnott.
and me, William Drimple.