The recent announcement that the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust will “decolonise” its collection is not just a local museum decision — it’s a cultural surrender wrapped in woke language. After research suggested that Shakespeare’s exalted status has been used to support narratives of white European supremacy, the Trust said it would review items and interpretive material to make the site more “inclusive.” This move has sent shockwaves through anyone who believes Western history and literature should be preserved, not apologised for.
That academic study and the Trust’s willingness to act on it are emblematic of an intellectual trend that mistakes critique for cancelation and guilt for moral clarity. Scholars involved argued that portraying Shakespeare as a singular universal genius can feed into Eurocentric narratives, prompting the Trust to rethink how the bard is presented to the public. Conservatives should not dismiss scholarly debate out of hand, but we must call out when debate becomes the thin end of a cultural wedge meant to delegitimize centuries of achievement.
This isn’t theoretical hair-splitting — the Trust has concrete plans backed by outside funding to change exhibits and programming, even adding events that spotlight non-Western perspectives alongside the Bard. Turning Stratford-upon-Avon into a stage for curatorial virtue-signalling, funded by progressive foundations, sends a clear message: Western heritage can be repurposed by activists rather than celebrated on its own terms. If taxpayers or tourists are funding heritage sites, they deserve honest history, not a politicised rewrite.
Look at what happens when institutions let insecurity and guilt run the museum: content warnings, sanitized exhibits, and a constant search for offense where none was intended. The Globe Theatre and other cultural institutions have already rolled out content guidance and trigger warnings for classical works — a path that ends with audiences being told how to feel rather than being trusted to think. This is not protecting people; it is infantilizing a society that should be teaching critical thinking, not ruling it out of bounds.
We should be proud of the achievements that shaped modern Western civilization — its art, literature, and legal traditions — without descending into triumphalism or ignoring real historical wrongs. Pride in one’s culture is not the same as hatred of others, and pretending otherwise is the intellectual equivalent of self-flagellation. Those pushing the decolonisation agenda often conflate celebration with supremacy, and that sloppy thinking must be resisted by those who value nuance, context, and the passing down of cultural riches to future generations.
Conservative readers should view the Stratford decision as a warning about what happens when cultural institutions bend to fashionable ideology: history becomes a battleground and ordinary citizens lose their heritage. We must demand that museums and trusts present full, honest accounts of the past without playing culture-war referee or reflexively apologizing for civilization itself. If defenders of reason and tradition don’t speak up, the next generation will inherit curated shame instead of the pride and perspective that build strong, free societies.
