I've been concerned for some time about the use of the phrase "historical abuse" to refer to the CH abuse cases and convictions...
Also, the recent suggestion from The Archbishop of York that bringing allegations into the open would have "re-traumatised victims"...
Both feel like deliberate or inadvertent attempts at gas-lighting??
The "historical abuse" phrase aim to embed the feeling in all of us that the events and the consequences were all somehow in the distant past, and thus don't have any bearing on the victims today - however it's unarguable that the consequences for many are as real today as they were when they happened; so there's nothing "historical" about the abuse at all??
It also suggests a disconnect between today, and "history" - i.e. "there's nothing to see here NOW, this all happened in the past...." I guess I can see why any organisation would wish to distance themselves from those events, but it's always worried me that by calling them "historical" it absolves the organisation from drawing any parallels with what is or might be happening NOW in the organisation? This is particularly true when there are teachers or clergy in the organisation who were there when the abuse happened (and will/may have known about it?), and are still there now - this also feels like a deliberate attempts to separate themselves from the allegations somehow?
Is the "re-traumatise victims" statement from the Archibishop another example of gas lighting?? Trying to suggest that victims don't want it tackled or talked about, and effectively trying to speak for them - is this a legacy of the "stiff upper lip" and the ultimate "boarding school survivor syndrome", in the Establishment?? Better not to talk about it, brush it under the carpet, and deal with it that way??
Interested in others' views. I'm not sure I've articulated this very well - but both things feel closely linked and make me feel very uncomfortable, particularly given my own experiences at CH, my elements of Stockholm Syndrome, and definite boarding-school-survivor-syndome.....which I'm only in recent years beginning to understand and acknowledge...
Thoughts?
"Historical abuse" and "re-traumatising victims" - gas-lighting?
Moderator: Moderators
- jtaylor
- Forum Administrator
- Posts: 1887
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:32 am
- Real Name: Julian Taylor
- Location: Wantage, OXON
- Contact:
"Historical abuse" and "re-traumatising victims" - gas-lighting?
Julian Taylor-Gadd
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992

Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
https://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992

Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
https://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.
-
- UF (Upper Fourth)
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:02 am
Re: "Historical abuse" and "re-traumatising victims" - gas-lighting?
Interesting post.
I have written about my years at CH in an earlier post and how I could not leave the school early enough. That was my way of closing the door on one part of my life. I personally would have preferred that the abuse cases had remained dormant but realize that it is of vital importance that they do come to the surface so that just punishment is given.
I agree with you about the term historical abuse, why not just use the word earlier instead of historical. Historical in these case implies that it can be swept under the carpet as something that was accepted as normal earlier.
All around the world more and more cases of abuse are being brought to the surface it seems this is just the tip of an iceberg. Just how much an iceberg remains to be seen at CH?
I have written about my years at CH in an earlier post and how I could not leave the school early enough. That was my way of closing the door on one part of my life. I personally would have preferred that the abuse cases had remained dormant but realize that it is of vital importance that they do come to the surface so that just punishment is given.
I agree with you about the term historical abuse, why not just use the word earlier instead of historical. Historical in these case implies that it can be swept under the carpet as something that was accepted as normal earlier.
All around the world more and more cases of abuse are being brought to the surface it seems this is just the tip of an iceberg. Just how much an iceberg remains to be seen at CH?
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:31 pm
- Real Name: David Redshaw
- Location: Saltdean, East Sussex
Re: "Historical abuse" and "re-traumatising victims" - gas-lighting?
There's an interesting twist on this brushing-it-under-the-carpet business in Robert Verkaik's book 'Posh Boys'. But in this case it comes from the parents. In the 1990s Hampshire Constabulary were investigating abuse at a prep school in Dorset but were hampered by parents of the victims. Ex-chief superintendent Gill Donnell said: "I recall quite clearly one parent saying to me the most important thing for him and his son was that his son got into Eton. This was his future and nothing was going to stand in the way of what was happening, and that included an investigation into child abuse."
-
- 3rd Former
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:31 am
- Real Name: Chris Grady
Re: "Historical abuse" and "re-traumatising victims" - gas-lighting?
Thank you for the very helpful reflections on terminology. The trauma/pain continues - some find perspective and maybe even closure, but for most as far as I can see it is abuse which lives in the present, although it may have been first perpetrated in the past. I hope what Rob, Lia & Hilary as mediators, and we have been doing over the years is a help, but it never puts what happened into a historic / under the carpet place in people's lives. The Lost Voices Heard event on Fri 30th May will be part of a process of help. Thank you JTaylor and all those who have mediated this Forum.