The 1945 defeat of the Axis powers, the 2012 Olympic Games and the recent Platinum Jubilee are three events considered to have contributed to national pride in Britain. Given the incessant flag-waving and anthem-singing at all three of these events, the idea that the events alone are the most significant in inducing national pride is understandable. However, the cited reasons for national pride and the approach of governments to history education demonstrate that the historian has the greatest role of all in influencing the level of patriotism in a country. In forming narratives of the past, the historian is more influential in adding to or detracting from national pride than any sportsman, statesman or soldier.
The most apparent demonstrators that historians (and their narratives) are relevant in impacting patriotism are the most oft-cited reasons for national pride. Even beyond explicit statements like "I love my nation because of its history", we find that other professed factors for national pride only contribute to national pride because of the accounts surrounding them. Consider the English language. A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found that Britons mentioned the widespread usage of the English language as a factor for national pride. Despite its famed inconsistencies in spelling and pronunciation, English is the international language of science, trade and entertainment. However, the rise of the English language is linked more closely to American hegemony than it is to any success on the part of Britain. The popularity of the American English vocabulary in non-Anglophone countries reflects this. Why, then, are Britons so proud of a language that now barely resembles their own?
If it were simply because something of great use was born in Britain, why is no similarly great pride felt about the invention of the bicycle (which is even more popular than English) by Scotsman Kirkpatrick Macmillan? Britons remain proud of the English language because the English language reflects Britain's national story in a way that is impossible for a medium of transport. English's contradicting conventions for spelling and pronunciation are the product of a commonly taught and well-known (within the UK) story that sees an island settled and occupied by Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. For this reason, when Britons declare the widespread use of the English language to be a source of pride, they declare pride that the fruits of British history are experienced on every computer screen between Auckland and Anchorage. If no explanatory mythology surrounded the English language, its widespread use would simply be a widespread inconvenience. Instead, the affinity for the English language demonstrates that expressions of history are a source of patriotism.
Moreover, the approach of government officials in devising history curricula demonstrates the importance of historical narratives in influencing patriotism. In 2013, the Associated Press found that politician Mitch Daniels, while serving as Governor of Indiana, had endeavoured to ban the use of Howard Zinn's 1980 A People's History of the United States. What threat did Zinn's magnum opus pose to Daniels' agenda? Daniels' description of Zinn at his death - "anti-American" - details all. A People's History attempted to present an account of American history from the perspective of oppressed peoples. For instance, Zinn entitles one chapter of the book describing the American Revolution as "A Kind of Revolution", alluding to the fact that Native Americans and black slaves did not experience an upheaval of the societal order. Daniels understood that Zinn's work ran contrary to the unfailing American nationalism he hoped to promote. Understanding the impact of historians and their narratives, Daniels was determined to have a historian like Zinn censored.
"Doing history" is not merely the retelling of the past, but the conscious choice to omit some items of information and include others in the construction of a historical narrative. Regurgitating the minutiae of all that has happened results in long-winding, incomprehensible accounts. Given this, it follows that "doing history" in the context of a school environment demands even more omission than it does at the academic level; children typically devote just a few hours a week to studying history. In this way, even when governments do not aim to censor information, governments cannot approach all history as equal. Omission typically means that schoolchildren learn more of the history of their nation than the history of others. It is impossible for a child to consume significantly more information about one country than any another and to not develop any country-based biases.
Athletes, politicians and members of the armed forces all explicitly represent their countries and yet it is the historian who impacts patriotism to the greatest degree. While sportsmen win medals, soldiers take territory and statesmen sign treaties, the historian decides which medals, battles and treaties are remembered and so, the historian is more essential than any other man in influencing patriotism.
 |
| Macaulay wrote his "The History of England" to "excite...hope in the breasts of all patriots" Image rights: Photos.com/thinkstock |
Comments
Post a Comment