A fear of 'xenophobic nationalism' had contributed to a failure to teach British history in schools, historian Tristram Hunt told the Fabian Britishness conference

Speakers: Humayun Ansari, Paul Gilroy, Tristram Hunt, Francesca Klug, Gordon Marsden

A 'fear of xenophobic nationalism' contributed to a failure to teach British history over the last twenty years, historian Tristram Hunt told the Fabian Britishness conference. Leading historians and politicians taking part in the conference 'history lessons' debate supported the emerging consensus to put a new British narrative at the heart of the school history curriculum as long as it was an honest 'warts and all' portrayal which did not duck the negative aspects of Britain's global history.

The Fabian Review conference preview had generated significant public debate around calls for reforms to school history from Gordon Marsden as well as Linda Colley and John Denham. Gordon Brown's keynote speech had supported a new British narrative in history and citizenship, while disagreeing with criticisms of an excessive focus on Nazi Germany and the second world war in school history.

With a new narrative of British history being backed by voices on both the political left and right as well as by an emerging professional consensus. How far would this agreement extend to the content of such a narrative? Paul Gilroy questioned calls for Britain to 'stop apologising' for the Empire. 'When did we start apologising?', he asked.

Gordon Marsden MP, the Education and Skills Select Committee member and former history teacher, developed his argument that there was a 'need to get history right.' A strong engagement with a balanced history curriculum, he argued, provided people with the skills necessary for citizenship, enabling students to 'make decisions, formulate judgements and maintain perspective.' The present history curriculum was failing to capture the growing public engagement with history, while the lack of historic content in citizenship risked hobbling the new subject's potential.

Historian Tristram Hunt called for an 'intellectually rigorous history that put Britain, and Britishness, in a global nexus, as the need for a recognition of the role of centrality of empire in the formation of Britain and British national identity. Hunt picked on that iconic representation of national identity the, seemingly benign, cup of tea as exemplary of the way in which our national identity is founded upon a complex web of imperial relations, elements of which may be less than savoury to the national palate.

However, these stories must be told in full, argued the LSE's Paul Gilroy, academic and author of After Empire. The empire should be central to a 'core minimum history curriculum' for schools but Gilroy warned strongly against the tendency of such narratives to portray the British people as ultimately, the victims of history.

Yet schools are not the only site for the teaching of history. Textbooks for new British citizens produced by the Home Office to educate citizens for British society include histories that Francesca Klug described as 'Whiggish'.

'We must be able to distinguish between "who do we want to be?" and "who do we think we are?"' said Klug in her critique of narratives that failed to explore adequately historical moments that are closely associated with 'Britishness' – for example, not just the abolition of slavery, but its introduction too. Klug, professor of human rights and author of Values for a Godless Age, also warned that the value based national history of fair play and tolerance to which Gordon Brown frequently refers risked remaining alien to many who, in an unequal society, failed to experience them. If we are to teach a national history, Klug argued, we must avoid essentialist notions of 'Englishness' or 'Britishness' that draw on the same values as other democracies and yet seem to claim them as uniquely British.

The need for inclusive histories that reflect our diversity was reinforced by Humayun Ansari, of Royal Holloway College. Young, Muslim Britons needed to feel that their story was represented in the national history. The curriculum, he claimed, must come from the bottom up. History, Ansari went onto assert, had a crucial role in helping to understand the construction of Muslim identities in Britain today. It is only by looking at these identities historically that it is possible to 'gain the notions of continuity and change necessary to de-essentialise Muslim identities'.

The role of history in defining national identity, the panel accepted, did have its limits. Hunt warned against history becoming the 'play thing' of the state, whilst Marsden acknowledged that 'we should not seek to exclusively define ourselves through the past'. Yet although there are no clear cut solutions it appears that the question of history, citizenship and identity is one that must be addressed if the debate is not to be lost to the right. 'If we on the left do not make some effort to address the issue of Britishness' warned Marsden, 'with all its imperfections, the someone else will.'