View - eTheses Repository - University of Birmingham

largely exclude an Irish dimension (eg Robbins, 1998; James, 2001). The way in which two
historians, Schama (2000; 2001; 2002) and Ferguson (2003) constructed the past is
particularly significant. Each of these historians used both books and a television series to
promote their ideas. Between 2000-2002 Schama produced his three books entitled The
History of Britain 1300 BC – AD 1603; The History of Britain 1603-1776 and The History of
Britain 1776-2000 to support his television series. Volume 1 of his trilogy was the most
profitable history book sold in 2000 (Bookseller, 2001). During the first three months of 2003
Schama’s three books ranked second, third and fourth, with volume III having sold 16,529
copies, volume II 10,518 and volume I 9,166 respectively (Bookseller, 2003b). Schama’s
first volume began with an inclusive perception of Britain, which was comparable to that
given by The Parekh Report (2000):
Imagine… a British history in which alteration, mutation and flux, rather than
continuity and bedrock solidity are the norm: that does not lead inexorably to a
consummation in the unitary state of Great Britain … This would be a history in
which a national identity - not just Britain, or in England, but in Scotland, Ireland and
Wales - was not fixed but a decidedly shifting and fluid quality… (Schama, 2000,
p.16-17)
However, the content of this volume proved somewhat different. The first chapter, which
covered the period up to the Norman Conquest, set Neolithic settlers within the context of
Britain, but the rest of the chapter was Anglo-centric, restricting itself to the area covered by
the Romans and conflicts between Saxons and Vikings. References were made to St. Patrick
and St. Columba but they were related to England’s past. This is supported by Haigh’s review
of Schama’s first volume in The Times Higher Education Supplement, which commented:
Like the Blair Project, the new history is modern - not 1950s Churchillian patriotism
or 1960s Marxian labour history, but a third way. As with Blairism, it is not clear what
the third way might be – something to do with change, multiplicity, heterogeneity,
fluidity, contingency, complexity… Despite third way slogans, it is a traditional, a
Churchillian agenda… It is a history of England… The Celts get it only when they are
a nuisance to the English. (Haigh, 2000, p.27)