I wrote this for the OU's student magazine in March 2000 - does anything change. Please comment!!
THE HISTORY OF THE GREENWICH
PENINSULA
Writing a history of the
industries which preceded the Millennium Dome on the Greenwich Peninsula was,
as it turned out, far from easy. The
official story was about site pollution with a subtext that the old and bad was
to become the new and clean. They didn't
want to know about anything that suggested past was not, perhaps, all that
awful. How does the historian cope with
a subject, which 'authority' is wary about and which a number of others are
likely to be upset by?
Research into the Dome site
raises a lot of issues, some in the wide historical context and others of
interest only to historians of particular industries. My research at the OU on the waste products
of early gas manufacture in the context of surrounding industry gave me a head
start with some of the manufacturers who had been on site in Greenwich. Further
work produced exciting material, which validated some of my previous
conclusions and identified a number of exciting and innovative factories. Any eventual book had to appeal to the widest
public, and time constraints would leave much of the research only half-done.
Despite
all this activity I had, however, never really been able to address what I felt
were the wider issues raised by the research. Tentative attempts to draw
attention to some of them had met with a horrified response from several
quarters 'how can you compare the Millennium Dome to the industries which went
before it? I was aware, as they should have been, that the construction of the
Dome on that particular site in Greenwich was yet another step in the
exploitation of the area for economic gain.
I also felt it likely that there were some bodies who would not welcome
publicity about their activities – albeit that these activities took place over
a hundred years ago.
Greenwich
Marsh, as the peninsula was once always known, had been embanked and drained in
time immemorial and administered by its own management body separately from the
rest of the town. Much of it had been in
institutional ownership from the seventeenth century and these charitable
bodies acted as developers in the nineteenth century to encourage and promote
industry. Many sites had harboured
manufacturers who had been both ground breaking and important in a very wide
context. I could not believe that subjects like the first Atlantic cable, the
biggest gas holder in the world and guns for the Confederates in the American
Civil War, financed by the opium trade, would not find an audience.
There
were a number of points I wanted to make. First was that the Dome is just
another stage in the continuum of development in an area which has been home to
many industries with a world wide influence - and that the reasons for this are
connected to the geographical context, land use and ownership. Publicity represented 'Royalty and Time' as
the main historical contribution made in Greenwich but it seems very clear that
its people have had a much wider impact beyond that. The presence of the Tudor Royal Palace with its
military requirements and the consequent need for scientific research, also
engendered by the Royal Observatory have been of great significance to local
industry. There were a number of important points concerning individual
industries and their influence in a wider context- for example, the aspirations
of the gas company which encompassed new ideas on public service and industrial
partnerships.
There
was also a wider, more political, context about the role of the historian in
regeneration. In Greenwich, throughout the 1980s, we had watched the
development of the London Docklands Area. What had been the greatest port in
the world simply disappeared. Many sites of great interest to industrial
historians were demolished without the smallest attempt at recording. As they
were replaced with new developments an ethos emerged which appeared determined
to deny what had been there before. Reference to the past was only made in
reference to jolly cockneys or to soured industrial relations. It is remarkable that of all the industrial
centres of Britain, London - arguably the greatest of them all, has no
industrial museum and this situation seems likely to continue despite brave
attempts. Very few people from outside
east London have any idea of the extent of this industrial heartland and most
people would not believe in it. Why has
the history of the vast engine for the economy of Britain simply been written
off?
In
Greenwich there was already a groundswell about the fate of the site of the
Royal Arsenal. This vast armaments
factory had been closed to all except those who worked there. Among the army of ex-workers however are a
number who have become historians. When the site was eventually opened up to
the public much had already been demolished and the only 'heritage' input into
the site's future was to be yet another artillery museum – nothing about the
technological and scientific skills which allowed the military machine to
function. Many ex-arsenal workers were
ready to protest and my work on Greenwich marsh found a ready audience with
them.
I
began to try and get some support for a book about the industries around the
Dome. Publishers and booksellers, could not grasp its wider context, but only
saw it as, unsellable, local industrial history. I was told that no one would be interested
outside a few enthusiasts in the local area.
Others, including some local academics, could not see the Dome as part
of continuum of development, saying anything that went before it was not of
interest and was old and dirty. The official line was that the Dome was a break
with the unpleasant past. They have been
perfectly happy to promote the past of Greenwich when it is about Henry VIII,
or Lord Nelson, - but not, in the most
extreme example, to talk about the contribution of one local factory to the
development of the Internet. They were
also, of course, afraid that something embarrassing might be uncovered.
I
published the book myself in June
1999 with some help from my ex-employers, a Docklands 'community watchdog'
organisation. It was not easy to maintain the integrity of the research while
at the same picking my way through the various sensibilities. Initially sales
were to friends and locals and, then, increasingly to those who had lived and
worked on the Peninsula. The press,
except for one national newspaper has taken no interest. A number of other books have been produced
and an 'official' history is on its way.
As far as I am aware none of them have taken on the issues of the past
of the site in a global context – the 'old and dirty' theme remains. The only information about the past which
will be available to visitors on site will be the official history of the
politics behind the Dome and - I presume
– some populist stuff about 'Royal Greenwich'.
Recently
the landscape designer on the Dome site said that in laying out the park area
that they would not adhere to the 'current fashion for industrial
heritage'. This comment reveals a great
deal about what is wrong with the way that 'regeneration' tackles history. Much industrial history has been presented in
what has sometimes been a very trivial way.
Objects are isolated from their context and used as decorative
features. Museums are often set up to
present the past in a way which is easy to take in and, frequently very
superficial. It is no surprise then that the whole subject is seen as a
'fashion' by urban designers - rather than something which was the stuff of so
many lives. A similar problems is that it is often very difficult to get
decision makers to understand that people researching their family histories
are ordinary folk who have become historians through choice and that their
search for knowledge will often lead them far beyond the mere names and dates
of their ancestors. So sources of information are cut off and destroyed because
it is thought they will be of interest only to the few. The desire of people
from all walks of life to know about the past needs to be taken in a serious
and unpatronising way.
I began by describing the
difficulties I knew I would encounter in writing a history of the Dome site -
and it has been a minefield - but one I have quite enjoyed finding my way
through. Perhaps this article is the first step in saying what I really think
about the site and its history. Those
who visit the Dome will have no chance to find out about the achievements of
its forerunners. I don't want this to sound like a complaint. - I didn't and
don't expect anything. What emerges –
and this is also a conclusion from my experience as a 'watchdog' in London
Docklands – is that historians and regenerators each need to keep themselves
apart. The regeneration of industrial
heartlands all over this country is a political issue and developers will
manipulate the background to the site for whatever purpose – often for very
good on es. Historians mustn't be sucked
in by this – they need to keep their own integrity and they do need to have an
independent and honest stance when meeting the developers. They also need to be kept informed, or to
take steps to find and not be afraid to engage in debate. No one will take you
seriously if you go along with trivialities but you do need an intelligent
appreciation of what the political agenda is.
PS - That was all 18 years ago. I eventually sold a just under 4000 copies of the book, Greenwich Marsh, and am constantly asked for copies (try Amazon!). It is very out of date now and needs revising. Last year, because of new residents, who might be interested, I considered an update. Self publishing is all very well but bookshops won't take it, and you end up selling it all, via reviews, by post and in the few friendly shops (thanks to the - now closed - Glass Wardrobe, and more recently Warwick Leadlay and Sabos). In 2000 my husband was still alive and very willing to pack and post - but I can't face doing it on my own. I have contacted various publishers with a record of publishing local history - but, no, they would only take it if - I financed it, halved the written content and provided more pictures, and guaranteed that the proposed cruise liner terminal would display it in their foyer.
and - while I am in a bad temper - I could say a thing or two about the 'independent' bookshops. Its not so much that they won't take your book but it's the sneers that go with the refusal 'Oh! whose the clever one then?'. I have never met so many unpleasant people. One (now defunct) local bookshop did take 6 copies of Greenwich Marsh - on the understanding that they kept the entire cover price. They sold the 6 in three days - and then refused to take any more on the grounds that they had to 'cut the leaflets up with scissors'. I have no idea what these leaflets were and why they had to be cut. As a result of this I don't care how evil Amazon is but I will not go into 'independent' bookshops. I remember the TV series 'Black Books' - it was too right!
