This summer, both the National Portrait Gallery and Tate Britain are presenting new displays that are meant to reflect the 'inclusive' and 'diverse' identities of Britain.

So, what does this immigrant to Britain think of how contemporary British cultural institutions are treating British culture?

Supposedly, I fit nicely among their target audience. In reality, as an immigrant looking to be included in this nation, I am perplexed by my visits. For two publicly funded museums tasked with telling the story of this country through the portraiture of its eminent figures and its art, their curators seem unsure if this is a nation worth being a part of, and if there's a fair story to tell about it.

A shame then that the wall texts think so little of the artwork itself. Portraits of the long-dead are chided for their connections to colonisation and slavery. John Locke's anti-slavery liberal theories, for instance, are caveated by his involvement in Carolina's constitution. William Gladstone's democratic reforms are negated by the existence of his father's slave plantations. It's hard to figure out what this scattershot approach to history adds to the understanding of visitors, other than serving as a nagging sign of the curators' moral high ground. I am reminded of Mao's Red Guards digging up the remains of historical figures to denounce them as counter-revolutionary.