1066 is widely regarded to be the most consequential year in the histories of England and Britain. The death of the heirless Edward the Confessor created a crisis of succession, resulting in numerous claimants to the English throne. The eventual coronation of William I resulted in a new dynasty of English kings, significant changes to the English language, and a novel government. Every schoolchild in England knows about the events of that year, and if asked to retell them, would likely recount the story portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. These two contemporary articles constitute the vast majority of our evidence for this period and therefore much of what children are taught about the creation of modern England is from documents that fall far shorts of what we might consider "reliable" today. Historians today look critically at the Bayeux Tapestry. Given that it was commissioned by the half-brother of William I, Bishop Odo, one might suspect that certain scenes depicted on the cloth were dramatised.
Nevertheless, the story of 1066 is essential to English identity, as are the founding myths of every country. The founding myth is the version of the past that dwells in the memory of the people. Founding myths are immortalised in cultural imagery, enabling generations that lived well after the events to insert themselves onto the battlefields where their country was born. Founding myths, even when exaggerated in certain aspects, inspire the collective, giving nations the blood to live on.
The first aspect of any national origin story is the idea that the course of events that occurred was unexpected and that they were the result of incredible human action. This concept is embodied in the founding myth of the United States. Traditional stories about the American Revolution frame the War as a conflict between the world-beating, invincible British Empire and the audacious American Patriots. The writers of the American story need their audience (future generations of Americans) to believe that, under regular circumstances, the Patriots would have no chance of independence. In reality, the War for Independence was more level a playing field than one might think. Although Britain was the world's primary military power at the time, it was waging war in both America and India simultaneously. When compounded with the fiscal state of Britain after the French and Indian War, one might begin to believe that the Americans had a fighting chance from the very beginning. Understandably, the version of the American Revolution taught to young schoolchildren omits many of these details. If one wishes to instil patriotism among its youth, it is unhelpful to downplay the successes of their nation. Children rarely understand nuance and therefore the founding myth of the American nation has plucky revolutionaries fighting against the British Empire.
Moreover, good founding myths enable the descendants of the founding generation to feel as if they themselves had established the nation. In settler-colonial societies like Australia and the United States, there are usually four main ancestral backgrounds:
- The settling people
- The indigenous population
- Peoples who migrated in the centuries after
- Peoples who were forcibly brought to the country (often as slaves)
People of each of these backgrounds appeals to their ancestry in some sense. "We built this society"; "we have lived here for centuries"; "we came to this country with nothing"; "we came here as slaves". In each of these cases, "we" does not refer to a group that the speaker was directly a part of, but rather to a group to which the individual is an heir. Why does the individual believe himself to be an heir to the group? In part, it is because of the founding myth. Stories of settling and forging inspire the natural spirit and create the belief that one's status was an improbable event. If not for the bravery and skill of his forefathers, his human experience might be entirely different. Therefore, he accepts the challenges his forefathers faced as if they were his own. Just as he inherited the position his forefathers placed him in, he inherits their deeds.
Moreover, founding myths act as moral and ideological guides. This idea is recurrent in the rhetoric of American constitutionalists. Following the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009, many in the Republican Party argued that the size of the federal government was far too large. They opted to name their movement the "Tea Party" movement, in reference to the Boston Tea Party of the American Revolution. Their justification for the movement was not a peer-reviewed study on government spending, nor a philosophical treatise, but rather the founding myth of the American nation: America was founded in rejection of government tyranny and thus Americans have a moral duty to return to that state.
Anyone interested in preserving their nation-state must accept the necessity of a romantic origin story. Founding myths are not meant for academic study but rather for cultural survival. If nations wish to propagate themselves, people who live five hundred years after the founding must have as much patriotic fervour as those who were there on the first day.
Comments
Post a Comment