WITH almost the whole world, it seems, focused on the coronavirus pandemic, not least because of the prospect of a vaccine becoming available soon, “wokeness” is not an issue of major concern to most people. But it has come to the fore again in Britain with a group of Tory Members of Parliament speaking out against what they maintain is an attempt to rewrite or denigrate the nation’s history.

It has now become clear the National Trust and other publicly funded bodies and charitable organisations are intent on attacking Britain’s heritage and history when, ironically, their mission is to be its guardian. Their purpose is being perverted by political posturing in which, self-evidently, they should not be involved. Critics say these bodies have been infiltrated by a small and unrepresentative clique who, inspired by Left-wing ideology, are pursuing “culture cancelling” and the re-evaluation and rewriting of history.

It is said that such action derives from “wokeness” which has reached Britain with a vengeance. There is no space today to investigate the deeper meaning of this at its various levels. But, it originated in the US during the Obama presidency as a sort of outreach of identity politics and the political correctness of the late 1980s and 1990s; and it is gradually becoming a major cultural and social phenomenon. It has grown recently with the greater activity of the Black Lives Matter movement following the outrage of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis last May. But, in the view of many, it has gradually gone from “you can’t say that” to “you must say this”.

Being “woke” is to be aware of issues concerning social and racial justice and being prepared to challenge them. Most people would probably agree that, in countries like the US and Britain where institutional racism still exists in varying forms, such awareness and willingness to take action against it is a worthy ideal. However, “wokeness” has also resulted in the “cancel culture”. This means the rejection and cancelling of all views and voices other than those in support of the accepted dogma of what is decreed by a vociferous and persistent minority to be the orthodoxy of the time. It also includes “no-platforming”, which has been all the rage in British universities and amounts to the rejection and silencing of anyone with a controversial or separate view that does not conform with the decreed orthodoxy.

All this, of course, is alien to the fundamental requirement in a democracy of freedom of speech – as exemplified in the quotation regarded as describing this principle and which is often misappropriated to French historian, writer and philosopher Voltaire. He is claimed to have said that “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

There is, nonetheless, in the view of some a positive side to being “woke” because it shows curiosity about other people and an interest in how the world may look from another perspective. Furthermore, to question assumptions and the received wisdom of the day - together with entrenched ideas and attitudes - is the mark of an intelligent individual and thus not something to be discouraged.

In practice, however, the particular manifestation of “wokeness” in Britain in the shape of the behaviour of the National Trust and others is being widely deplored. This is mainly because their plan to become “actively anti-racist” in providing “context to remembrance of historical figures” is seen as being unnecessary, subjective and intrusive – and it can lead to extremism.

According to reports, the Trust is actively trying to establish links between the properties for which it is responsible and Britain’s imperial past. It claims to have “linked” more than 100 of these properties with slavery and colonialism. As an example, none other than Winston Churchill and his country house in Kent in the south of England are under investigation because of his opposition to independence for India.

More widely, there has been the immediate caving-in by a body called Historic Environment Scotland to a single complaint by a junior doctor – described as a British Indian – about the content of a sign next to the India Cross at Edinburgh Castle that he found offensive. Then there is the addition of the name of former Poet Laureate, Ted Hughes, to a dossier linking him to the slave trade because of the involvement in it of a relative of his who had died some 300 years before Hughes was born. Other names – supposedly to be added to the dossier because they might have benefited from the slave trade in which relatives were involved – are famous figures like Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde and George Orwell. But how ridiculous it is even to think that any such writer should be judged on the basis of distant ancestors.

Another example is those responsible at the National Maritime Museum who at least have been labelled “unheroic characters” for attempting to re-evaluate the heroic status of the victor of the Battle of Trafalgar against the French in 1805, Admiral Lord Nelson.

And yet another idiocy – this side of the Atlantic – is that, reportedly, the first settlers in America, the English Pilgrims, have been “cancelled” so that there has been no formal celebration of the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the Mayflower on November 21, 1620 – arguably, one of the most important dates in US history.

Generally, it seems to me to make no sense to excoriate those living centuries ago on the grounds they did not object to the existence of slavery or imperialism – or, for that matter, to such horrific punishments like being “hung, drawn and quartered”, public flogging and lesser evils like forcing children up chimneys or the horror of open sewers. Such were considered normal at the time. That does not make them acceptable by our standards, but it was what actually happened in earlier times.

It is illogical to wrench historical figures out of their context and expect them to have had modern views on such issues. Moreover, people today should not be held accountable for the actions or transgressions of previous generations. In the words of the Pulitzer Prize-winning eminent US historian and author Barbara Tuchman, “one of the worst things that we moderns can do is to assess and judge the happenings of the past by the thoughts and morals of the present”.

GOOD TIMES, BAD TIMES

TWO totally unconnected and contrasting anniversaries caught my eye last week – one grim and joyless, the other happy and joyous. I refer to the 75th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials and the 73rd wedding anniversary of The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

First, the Nuremberg war crimes trials of senior Nazis at the end of the Second World War opened at the city’s Palace of Justice on November 20, 1945. The first trial lasted less than a year and included Nazi leaders Goering, Hess and Ribbentrop among others, but not Goebbels, Himmler or Hitler himself, all of whom had earlier taken their own lives.

It ended with 12 death sentences and numerous prison terms.

It is widely considered that, by conducting the Nuremberg trials, the four victorious powers of the war – the US, the Soviet Union, Britain and France – laid the foundation for a world criminal justice system to hold to account those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In his speech to mark the 75th anniversary, the German President acknowledged this in urging the world to honour the “legacy” of the landmark proceedings that eventually led to the establishment of today’s International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Secondly, against this grisly and wretched background, by contrast what an enjoyable task it is to draw attention to the 73rd anniversary of the Royal Wedding on November 20, 1947. The Queen, who is 94, was a 21-year-old princess when she married Philip Mountbatten at the ceremony in Westminster Abbey. They embarked on a marriage which is the longest of a British sovereign. He, of course, became the Duke of Edinburgh who is now 99 and has retired from public duties. But, to the delight of his many well-wishers, he looks to be in continuing good health.

Buckingham Palace marked the occasion of this anniversary by releasing a photograph showing The Queen and Prince Philip opening a card from their great-grandchildren, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. What a pleasure it is to be able to write about this happy event.

TRUMP’S TEMPER TANTRUM THROUGH THE COURTS MAY END UP BENEFITTING BIDEN

THE unrelenting criticism and demonization of President Trump for refusing to concede the election to his rival knows no bounds. But I believe there is another dimension to this which could work to Biden’s advantage; namely, the simple fact that getting the courts to rule on the Trump campaign’s challenge should bring to an end further controversy about the validity of the election result so that Biden’s legitimacy in a bitterly contested election will be strengthened.

Despite Biden’s condemnation of Trump’s post-election challenge as undemocratic and divisive, his action could thus work in Biden’s favour. Trump has the right of challenge, but his critics claim he has provided no evidence of vote rigging, flawed counting or irregularities in relation to absentee mail-in ballots. No one outside his close circle of advisers and his legal team knows what he has got up his sleeve until it has been presented in court. We have been told he has numerous affidavits alleging fraud in one way or another. Who knows the strength of the evidence and whether it will stand up in court, though, from what we already know, the chances of its doing so appear to be slim.

So far, none of his legal challenges has succeeded. But, if he has real evidence of electoral malpractice and believes the election was stolen from him, Trump should surely be allowed to continue his challenge and have it tested in the courts. However, the general view seems to be there probably is no substantive evidence of any serious malpractice that would affect the election outcome.

That said, one of Trump’s legal team is still claiming there was fraud of huge proportions and House of Representatives Republicans have now called for an election probe. But, in order for malpractice and fraud in the electoral process to be ruled out, the legal proceedings should run their course and reach a conclusion one way or the other. Completion of the court procedures should benefit Biden not just because he will be declared the undisputed winner but also that it will put to rest the controversy over the poll and draw a line under the claims of the Trump camp and his many supporters who believe the election was stolen.

Despite Biden’s clear win of the popular vote by some five million, he only prevailed in some of the key states by narrow margins and those states had significant numbers of electoral votes. So, with Trump gaining some 74 million votes, the country remains seriously divided, and it must surely be in Biden’s interest to secure ultimate legitimacy through the authority of the courts. It is also in the interest of the nation as a whole to be reassured about the integrity of the electoral process; and this may also be important in relation to the two run-off Senate races in Georgia during January.

So, I, for one, take a rather different view from others about Trump’s legal challenges. I think these are ultimately a good thing because the courts will have the final say and the rule of law will prevail. It is in the interests of President-elect Biden and the rest of the country that these challenges should be played out to their conclusion so that any doubts about the legitimacy of the outcome of the nationwide poll on November 3 will be finally resolved.