It is 100 years ago today that the Wright brothers made history at Kitty Hawk. However, some people have claimed that this is just another example of Yankee imperialism and that the first person to fly machine through the air by its own means of propulsion was Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian who made this record breaking flight in Paris. It is claimed that he committed suicide in 1932 because he was wracked with guilt by being involved in creating a machine for military purposes.
http://www.rudnei.cunha.nom.br/FAB/eng/santos-dumont.html
Full Version: Nationalism and History Teaching
We all like to think we, or our country, is the best, that is why the recent upsurge in interest about the British Empire is so interesting. Actually, I think the British have a penchant for reviving the past when they think they are in decline - is it a common trait that past glories become more important when present becomes uncertain?
It might be an interesting experiment for people from different nationalities to make their claims for playing an important role in aviation.
For example, the British could claim that it was an Englishman who made the first successful flight in 1853. He has not received the recognition he deserved because he was a humble servant living in England. The man worked for Sir George Cayley, who lived in Scarborough. By 1853 Cayley had managed to build a triplane that could carry the weight of a man. He was unwilling to take the risk of it crashing and instead ordered his coachman to be the pilot. On its first flight the plane flew 900 feet (275 m) across a small valley. This was the first recorded flight by a person in an aircraft and Cayley has been described as the "true inventor of the aeroplane". However, Cayley never bothered to record the name of the pilot and he has therefore not become an important figure in history.
What about the achievements of Alphonse Pénaud, Otto Lilienthal and Alexander Mozhaiski. Have we any French, Germans or Russians willing to comment on their role in the history of aviation?
For example, the British could claim that it was an Englishman who made the first successful flight in 1853. He has not received the recognition he deserved because he was a humble servant living in England. The man worked for Sir George Cayley, who lived in Scarborough. By 1853 Cayley had managed to build a triplane that could carry the weight of a man. He was unwilling to take the risk of it crashing and instead ordered his coachman to be the pilot. On its first flight the plane flew 900 feet (275 m) across a small valley. This was the first recorded flight by a person in an aircraft and Cayley has been described as the "true inventor of the aeroplane". However, Cayley never bothered to record the name of the pilot and he has therefore not become an important figure in history.
What about the achievements of Alphonse Pénaud, Otto Lilienthal and Alexander Mozhaiski. Have we any French, Germans or Russians willing to comment on their role in the history of aviation?
In Sweden the first living creature in the air was a cat! At the 17th of September 1784 a baloon (run by hydrogen gas) lifted from the "Observatory Hill" - Observatoriekullen in Stockholm. The baloon was found three weeks later on the ground outside Stockholm, without the cat. Not exactly a claim of fame - is it... 
When it comes to the construction of airplanes the Swedish scientist (philosopher and theologian) Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was very interested in this topic. In 1714, at the age of 26, Emanuel Swedenborg developed an interest in building a flying machine, which was documented in an article, "Sketch of a Machine for Flying in the Air," published two years later. Swedenborg's design looked like a classical flying saucer with flapping wings. It was never built...
In the beginning of the 20th century Carl Rickard Nyberg experimented with a steam-engine driven aircraft, but none of his designs proved flight-worthy. Other Swedish pioneers included Bror Berger, Oscar Gustavsson, and Tor Ångström. The experimental aircraft produced by these men during the early 20th century also were unsuccessful. The first successful flight in Sweden didn't occur until 19 July 1909, and it was achieved by a French aviator. Then, in 1910, Carl Cederström became the first licensed pilot in Sweden (and the 74th in the world) when he completed training at the Blériot flying school in France. Also in 1910, the first Swedish-built aircraft, the Grasshopper, took flight. The plane was a modified Blériot XI built in Landskrona in southern Sweden by Hjalmar Nyrop and Oscar Ask. That's how the Swedish exploitation of the air started...
When it comes to the construction of airplanes the Swedish scientist (philosopher and theologian) Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was very interested in this topic. In 1714, at the age of 26, Emanuel Swedenborg developed an interest in building a flying machine, which was documented in an article, "Sketch of a Machine for Flying in the Air," published two years later. Swedenborg's design looked like a classical flying saucer with flapping wings. It was never built...
In the beginning of the 20th century Carl Rickard Nyberg experimented with a steam-engine driven aircraft, but none of his designs proved flight-worthy. Other Swedish pioneers included Bror Berger, Oscar Gustavsson, and Tor Ångström. The experimental aircraft produced by these men during the early 20th century also were unsuccessful. The first successful flight in Sweden didn't occur until 19 July 1909, and it was achieved by a French aviator. Then, in 1910, Carl Cederström became the first licensed pilot in Sweden (and the 74th in the world) when he completed training at the Blériot flying school in France. Also in 1910, the first Swedish-built aircraft, the Grasshopper, took flight. The plane was a modified Blériot XI built in Landskrona in southern Sweden by Hjalmar Nyrop and Oscar Ask. That's how the Swedish exploitation of the air started...
In response to Alf's point, the French Historian Theodore Zeldin talked of Britain's tendency to nostalgia:
'Imagining a Britain which was a green and pleasant land is one of those cliches which holds everything together and makes it seem as though it makes sense. In private, no-one believes in these cliches, in public, one needs to in order to make sense.' (from 'An essential history of Europe', BBC2 21 January 1993).
There are still some powerful forces of conservatism who want to make history all about national identity and pride. One example of this is John Stokes' speech in the House of Commons: ‘Why cannot we go back to the good old days when we learnt by heart the names of the kings and queens of England, the feats of our warriors and our battles, and the glorious deeds of our past?’ (Stokes, J. (1990) Speech in the House of Commons, quoted in Sunday Telegraph, 1 April.
As well as giving pupils knowledge and understanding of the substantive past, history can be taught in such a way that it helps them to handle information intelligently and sceptically.
In 1973, John Rae argued the case against an education for citizenship founded on ‘The Great Tradition’ of history teaching:
It is not a school’s task to produce good citizens any more than it is to produce Christian gentlemen. The school does not give people their political ideals, or religious faith, but the means to discover both for themselves. Above all, it gives them the scepticism so that they will leave with the ability to doubt, rather than the inclination to believe. In this sense, a good school is subversive of current orthodoxy in politics, religion and learning. Of course, by placing the emphasis on radical independence of mind, we run the risk of producing, for example, an intelligent traitor rather than a stupid patriot. But the risk of failing is so much greater because the result may be a sham democracy in which citizens do not have the independence to participate.
Rae, J. (1973) ‘On teaching independence’, New Statesman, 21 September.
'Imagining a Britain which was a green and pleasant land is one of those cliches which holds everything together and makes it seem as though it makes sense. In private, no-one believes in these cliches, in public, one needs to in order to make sense.' (from 'An essential history of Europe', BBC2 21 January 1993).
There are still some powerful forces of conservatism who want to make history all about national identity and pride. One example of this is John Stokes' speech in the House of Commons: ‘Why cannot we go back to the good old days when we learnt by heart the names of the kings and queens of England, the feats of our warriors and our battles, and the glorious deeds of our past?’ (Stokes, J. (1990) Speech in the House of Commons, quoted in Sunday Telegraph, 1 April.
As well as giving pupils knowledge and understanding of the substantive past, history can be taught in such a way that it helps them to handle information intelligently and sceptically.
In 1973, John Rae argued the case against an education for citizenship founded on ‘The Great Tradition’ of history teaching:
It is not a school’s task to produce good citizens any more than it is to produce Christian gentlemen. The school does not give people their political ideals, or religious faith, but the means to discover both for themselves. Above all, it gives them the scepticism so that they will leave with the ability to doubt, rather than the inclination to believe. In this sense, a good school is subversive of current orthodoxy in politics, religion and learning. Of course, by placing the emphasis on radical independence of mind, we run the risk of producing, for example, an intelligent traitor rather than a stupid patriot. But the risk of failing is so much greater because the result may be a sham democracy in which citizens do not have the independence to participate.
Rae, J. (1973) ‘On teaching independence’, New Statesman, 21 September.
I wouldn't like to see History based on Nationalism, but I can see a problem when the nations history it's not dealt with very much. A few months ago I posted the following lines about Nationalism and History Teaching...
I can understand the problem with nationalistic history, but not with knowing more about your contries past. I have for several years felt that Sweden and Swedish schools is neglecting our own history. I wouldn´t like to bring in a nationalistic view, but I wish that the schools could focus a bit more on its own history. My experience when I do discuss these matters with other teachers of history is that in an 80 hour course maybe 15-20 hours is spent on Swedish history (Vikings, something about the establishment of the nation in the 16th century, the Great Nordic War... and maybe some short notices about the 19th/20th century). The short time spent on the development of modern Sweden gives the result that most students, even if they study history has very little historical comprehension on Sweden of today... That's also a problem!
I can understand the problem with nationalistic history, but not with knowing more about your contries past. I have for several years felt that Sweden and Swedish schools is neglecting our own history. I wouldn´t like to bring in a nationalistic view, but I wish that the schools could focus a bit more on its own history. My experience when I do discuss these matters with other teachers of history is that in an 80 hour course maybe 15-20 hours is spent on Swedish history (Vikings, something about the establishment of the nation in the 16th century, the Great Nordic War... and maybe some short notices about the 19th/20th century). The short time spent on the development of modern Sweden gives the result that most students, even if they study history has very little historical comprehension on Sweden of today... That's also a problem!
What about using history teaching as a powerful weapon to fight against nationalism?
As history teachers we know that nationalism has been, is, and, sadly, will be the main source of violence and misery in Europe and all over the world.
I try and try with my students to dismantle all the nationalistic cliches and stereotypes and I intend to show them how nationalist history is set up to deceive people into false images of themselves.
For instance, now in Spain politics turns around and around nationalist debates that bring people to think that in the 15th century there was a clear and distinct Spanish, Catalan or Basque awareness. Nationalist teachers invent a series of lies just to make their students hate their neighbours.
Catalonia, Ireland, Estonia, the Aland Islands or the British Empire... Please, let teach our students that states and nations are contingent products of history, nothing more. And that they have to be proud of what they have achieved in their life with their effort and wit. Nobody can be proud of being born in some place. A pure accident.
John Kenneth Galbraith observed in their childhood in Canada that the least brilliant members of his Scottish-origined community were the most keen on using kilts and playing pipes. There was a direct relation.
As history teachers we know that nationalism has been, is, and, sadly, will be the main source of violence and misery in Europe and all over the world.
I try and try with my students to dismantle all the nationalistic cliches and stereotypes and I intend to show them how nationalist history is set up to deceive people into false images of themselves.
For instance, now in Spain politics turns around and around nationalist debates that bring people to think that in the 15th century there was a clear and distinct Spanish, Catalan or Basque awareness. Nationalist teachers invent a series of lies just to make their students hate their neighbours.
Catalonia, Ireland, Estonia, the Aland Islands or the British Empire... Please, let teach our students that states and nations are contingent products of history, nothing more. And that they have to be proud of what they have achieved in their life with their effort and wit. Nobody can be proud of being born in some place. A pure accident.
John Kenneth Galbraith observed in their childhood in Canada that the least brilliant members of his Scottish-origined community were the most keen on using kilts and playing pipes. There was a direct relation.
I agree with the point Juan Carlos makes that History can en should be used as a weapon against nationalism. I do not know how it is in other countries, but I feel that nationalism is on the rise again. Why? Perhaps because people feel insecure in the big and unknown Europe??? Any thoughts on this?
Marco Koene wrote:
The economic recession in the 'western world' does not improve matters in other countries like The Netherlands.
QUOTE
Perhaps because people feel insecure in the big and unknown Europe
This might be true. I've just been to Dresden in Eastern Germany. Unemployment is high, young people move westwards looking for jobs. Living so near the Czech and Polish borders people feel that cheap labour, aids etc will flow the region. Economic insecurity feeds nationalism, even extreme forms there.The economic recession in the 'western world' does not improve matters in other countries like The Netherlands.
Going through the Elementary school and later on Upper Secondary School in Czechoslovakia I remember rather clearly how the history books ( and other schoolbooks too) told us that almost every achievement in human history was made by Russians (or Soviet people). True, there have been famous chemist Mendelejev, but I still remember that we learned that a steam engine was invented by Russian in 1600 century in a coal district of Ural. The same applied to flying and cars and motorcycles, you just name it!
This dogmatic teaching was due to devote cheering of The Great Russian revolution (and its superb humanistic achievement!) practised probably in every satellite country of Eastern Europe. To survive these continuous indoctrination we were telling jokes like: "Who do you think invented condoms? Of course the great Soviet comrade .....".
This is a slightly different focus at the subject discussed but I couldn't just let my memory stay silent.
This dogmatic teaching was due to devote cheering of The Great Russian revolution (and its superb humanistic achievement!) practised probably in every satellite country of Eastern Europe. To survive these continuous indoctrination we were telling jokes like: "Who do you think invented condoms? Of course the great Soviet comrade .....".
This is a slightly different focus at the subject discussed but I couldn't just let my memory stay silent.
QUOTE
I feel that nationalism is on the rise again. Why? Perhaps because people feel insecure in the big and unknown Europe??? Any thoughts on this?
QUOTE
Economic insecurity feeds nationalism, even extreme forms there.
I think that the fact that nationalism is again on the rise in Europe has different causes. I agree with Nico Zijlstra that economic insecurite feeds nationalism, but...what about Basque or Catalan nationalism? Both regions or nations are richer than the average of European regions, and, in despite of the disruption of terrorism in Basque country, both areas are doing quite well from an economic point of view.
Apart from historical reasons, probably the most important the extreme Spanish nationalist dictatorship of Franco (the guy died 29 years ago), one of the main causes of the new rise of Basque and Catalan nationalism is a simple fact: Catalonia and Basque country do not need Spain anymore.
This point needs to be explained to. Basque and Catalan business people lead a problematic but successful process of industrialisation thanks to their having a closed and restricted Spanish market. The European Union and the common market permit them to be "independent" and try to leave a neighbourhood where they don't feel at ease.
Because of this new situation and to prepare the new generations, nationalist governments in Vitoria and Barcelona have established an educational policy that do not hesitate in constructing a new false history. Only one example: they try to teach that the Spanish civil war was a war in which Basques and Catalans fought against Spaniards... and, sadly enough, a lot of youngsters believe it. Probably, they don't know that the first attack on Madrid was carried out by general Mola with a lot of soldiers coming from Basque country and Navarre or that a big deal of Catalan businessmen financed decisively Franco's army.
Do you know any other recent examples of falsification of history by an indoctrinating government?
I cannot answer Juan Carlos, but I think that nationalism unfortunately is on the rise and in a way the regional movements mentioned see themselves as nationalist movement and the people they want to speak for as nations.
Before the end of the Cold War and the ensuing breakdown of the Communist block most of us believed that nationalism in Europe was something of the past, that we were on our way to a new form of internationalism. I remember one article written by Peter Glotz a well-known member of the German Socialdemocrats (he used to be part of the party's thinktank) in which he expressed his belief that nations were a phenomenon of the 19th and early 20th century, that nationalism as a political movement had discredited itself. All this was before Jugoslavia errupted and the images of a besieged Sarajevon appeared on our TVs.
I think that nationalism once again is on the rise - as a feeling and as a political movement, if I like it or not.
I think nationalism can appear in two forms: one which says that your nation is a individual entity with typical features, culture, language, folklore etc and that your neighbour country is different from you in its language, culture etc., but that all nations are equal; none is better than the other only different.
The second form is the one which we have to overcome, it is the one which postulates that one's own nation is better than the neighbour and that nations cannot live next to each other peacefully and form political unions based on the principle of unity.
I think in our history lessons we should point out the different histories we share in Europe, we should point out, when and how nations started to develop their typical national characteristics and misconceptions, but at the same time we should point out how much the European nations have in common; think of the Middel Ages and the similarities you find when you look at the political systems, the social structure, the tensions betwen the Church and the worldly powers;tink of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment. Even though the times after World War II was characterized by the division of Europe and the world into two blocks we have exactly this in common. I think it is an important and rewarding task to find out how the experience of dividion has influenced our culture values, ethics, political theory etc.
European unity and real understanding can be built when it is built on accepting diversity and national diversity might be one element of it.
Before the end of the Cold War and the ensuing breakdown of the Communist block most of us believed that nationalism in Europe was something of the past, that we were on our way to a new form of internationalism. I remember one article written by Peter Glotz a well-known member of the German Socialdemocrats (he used to be part of the party's thinktank) in which he expressed his belief that nations were a phenomenon of the 19th and early 20th century, that nationalism as a political movement had discredited itself. All this was before Jugoslavia errupted and the images of a besieged Sarajevon appeared on our TVs.
I think that nationalism once again is on the rise - as a feeling and as a political movement, if I like it or not.
I think nationalism can appear in two forms: one which says that your nation is a individual entity with typical features, culture, language, folklore etc and that your neighbour country is different from you in its language, culture etc., but that all nations are equal; none is better than the other only different.
The second form is the one which we have to overcome, it is the one which postulates that one's own nation is better than the neighbour and that nations cannot live next to each other peacefully and form political unions based on the principle of unity.
I think in our history lessons we should point out the different histories we share in Europe, we should point out, when and how nations started to develop their typical national characteristics and misconceptions, but at the same time we should point out how much the European nations have in common; think of the Middel Ages and the similarities you find when you look at the political systems, the social structure, the tensions betwen the Church and the worldly powers;tink of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment. Even though the times after World War II was characterized by the division of Europe and the world into two blocks we have exactly this in common. I think it is an important and rewarding task to find out how the experience of dividion has influenced our culture values, ethics, political theory etc.
European unity and real understanding can be built when it is built on accepting diversity and national diversity might be one element of it.
QUOTE (UlrikeSchuhFricke @ Jan 11 2004, 09:18 PM)
Before the end of the Cold War and the ensuing breakdown of the Communist block most of us believed that nationalism in Europe was something of the past, that we were on our way to a new form of internationalism.
I was never convinced that the formation of the EU was a sign of a move towards internationalism. In fact, I believe it made the situation worse. The EU was for many years no more than an economic extension of Nato. It divided Europe rather than uniting it. Since the collapse of communism the EU could well be used as a vehicle to unite Europe. However, what impact will this have on nations outside Europe. Also, there are signs that it is the very attempt to create a united Europe that is encouraging a revival of nationalism. That is very much the case in Britain. Although there is some confusion about who the enemy is: Europe or the United States. The right-wing tend to think it is Europe, the left-wing, the United States.
It is always seemed to me that the best vehicle for internationalism is the United Nations. This was one of the reasons why I was so opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Like many people I was very worried by what impact the war would have on the United Nations. The Iraq War also highlights the role played by dominant nations in encouraging nationalism for its own benefits. The United Nations is indeed a flawed organization but it is all we have.
"It is always seemed to me that the best vehicle for internationalism is the United Nations" wrote John Simkinin in the previous contribution
It is always seemed to me that the best vehicle for internationalism is us, individual human being.
I do have distrust of institutions which, as we have seen in the past, are almost always misused by different outside interest in the way we actually did not agreed upon. The United Nations are not any exception.
It is only when every one accept a profound international view based on humanity that we will achieve a better world. Therefore is education the first and most important step on the way away from nationalism and towards internationalism.
It is always seemed to me that the best vehicle for internationalism is us, individual human being.
I do have distrust of institutions which, as we have seen in the past, are almost always misused by different outside interest in the way we actually did not agreed upon. The United Nations are not any exception.
It is only when every one accept a profound international view based on humanity that we will achieve a better world. Therefore is education the first and most important step on the way away from nationalism and towards internationalism.
"I was never convinced that the formation of the EU was a sign of a move towards internationalism." (John Simkin)
Nor am I or was I; what I wanted to express was the feeling a large part of my generation had. We believed that the ideas and ideals of nations, nation states and nationlism had been discredited by especially German history and so we saw ourselves as part of something new, something international. In the course of time I have lost this belief and I agree to your statement
"Also, there are signs that it is the very attempt to create a united Europe that is encouraging a revival of nationalism. "
Especially as the EU is perceived as a form of far away and incomprehensible mega-state or mega-adminstration which cannot really be influenced by the citizens of the different member states.
" It is always seemed to me that the best vehicle for internationalism is the United Nations. "
I agree but I think it is even more important to outline and stress the principles which led to the creation of the UNO and to show our pupils how important Human Rights are - on a national, European and international level.
Nor am I or was I; what I wanted to express was the feeling a large part of my generation had. We believed that the ideas and ideals of nations, nation states and nationlism had been discredited by especially German history and so we saw ourselves as part of something new, something international. In the course of time I have lost this belief and I agree to your statement
"Also, there are signs that it is the very attempt to create a united Europe that is encouraging a revival of nationalism. "
Especially as the EU is perceived as a form of far away and incomprehensible mega-state or mega-adminstration which cannot really be influenced by the citizens of the different member states.
" It is always seemed to me that the best vehicle for internationalism is the United Nations. "
I agree but I think it is even more important to outline and stress the principles which led to the creation of the UNO and to show our pupils how important Human Rights are - on a national, European and international level.
QUOTE
I was never convinced that the formation of the EU was a sign of a move towards internationalism. In fact, I believe it made the situation worse. The EU was for many years no more than an economic extension of Nato. It divided Europe rather than uniting it.
I agree with John that the EU was a sort of economic branch of NATO. In this sense there is an interesting article "La CIA finance la construction européenne" in French that highlights the importance of the American influence in the birth of the EEC.
But I cannot agree with him in claiming that EEC divided Europe. It could not do anything to join it during the Cold War and, after the fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the EU has launched a very complicated and risky process of enlargement that will bring in a lot of old European nations.
I am not gullible about the reasons of this enlargement. I perfectly know that behind this process there are not only open-handed purposes, I know that the EU was perfectly unable to stop the Balkans tragedy in the nineties, but, as a whole, the Union is and, I hope, will be in the future a positive factor against nationalism.
I am an optimistic by nature and I think that if we compare Neville Chamberlain's position about Czech people in the thirties and the current EU policy regarding Eastern Europe, we all have reasons to be a bit, just a bit, confident about EU role in the future.
As I am writing that, a lot of contradictory statements come to my mind. But, well, let be optimistic tonight.
QUOTE (Juan Carlos @ Jan 13 2004, 09:44 PM)
I agree with John that the EU was a sort of economic branch of NATO. In this sense there is an interesting article "La CIA finance la construction européenne" in French that highlights the importance of the American influence in the birth of the EEC.
But I cannot agree with him in claiming that EEC divided Europe. It could not do anything to join it during the Cold War and, after the fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the EU has launched a very complicated and risky process of enlargement that will bring in a lot of old European nations.
But I cannot agree with him in claiming that EEC divided Europe. It could not do anything to join it during the Cold War and, after the fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the EU has launched a very complicated and risky process of enlargement that will bring in a lot of old European nations.
We are not disagreeing. I was trying to make the same point myself. Like you, I am slightly optimistic about the EU uniting the whole of Europe. My fear is that the Growth of the EU is unpopular in certain quarters and is stimulating a growth in nationalism. To improve this situation we need to clarify the decision making process. Some things, such as foreign policy, is best done as a group. Other areas, such as economic decisions, need to be taken by the individual countries.
"My fear is that the Growth of the EU is unpopular in certain quarters and is stimulating a growth in nationalism. "
I agree with you but Juan Carlos mentioned another aspect which I think is interesting: the growth of regionalism. The EU with all its shortcomings seems to enhance this process: older; pre-nation-state ties such as language, history, identiy seem to be growing stronger. Juan Carlos mentioned Catalonia and the Basque Country and in Germany you can notice these ties being revived in the South West of Germany (the Rhine area, Alsace and even parts of the German speaking Swiss), in the north (Germany and Denmark)
I agree with you but Juan Carlos mentioned another aspect which I think is interesting: the growth of regionalism. The EU with all its shortcomings seems to enhance this process: older; pre-nation-state ties such as language, history, identiy seem to be growing stronger. Juan Carlos mentioned Catalonia and the Basque Country and in Germany you can notice these ties being revived in the South West of Germany (the Rhine area, Alsace and even parts of the German speaking Swiss), in the north (Germany and Denmark)
As a Black Briton, I was always a little wary of explicit demonstrations of nationalism whilst growing up. As mentioned by some of the contributors earlier, nationalism can and does breed violence against the perceived 'other'. However, now I am older, I accept that with the establishment of nations, the doctrine of nationalism is important for helping to foster a sense of unity within state boundaries. After all, whether we like it or not, countries are here to stay and the citizens of each country do need to be taught to at least work together with the people who are around them. This teaching of nationalism however, does need to concentrate on celebrating the diversity within a country and the contributions that have and are made to the country's culture, economy etc from all the different groups over time. As shown by the example of Spain, Yugoslavia, USSR, African countries etc, in a lot of cases nations are very fragile coalitions of different peoples that may only really have their 'nation' in common with each other. Any weak and fragmented organisation will drastically reduce its effectiveness to serve its people and contribute positively to the international scene. Bearing this in mind, I am of the view that nationalism in itsef is not a bad thing and can be used to help create social harmony.
On another note, as no-one seems to have mentioned it, I would like to comment on the type of 'History' that Black people are taught in Britain. Slavery and perhaps civil rights USA seem to be the only History Black people have. Of course these topics are perhaps the most relevant for Black people in the'West' but I do not think it allows a sense of pride to be felt. All people should be taught some aspects of History that help them to have pride in who they are and where they have come from. Hence some focus should be given to Pre-European African history. Not only would a focus on the ancient empires of Africa create a greaterr sense of self-worth for young Blacks, it would also allow European children to have a more balanced view of Black people. The current social and economic status of Africa in the media only creates sympathy and unfortunately, ridicule of the role Black people have played in world history.
On this note i would like to ask the European contributors whether their countries consider the role of Black people in their History curriculum?? For example, in Spain particularly, are the Moorish invasions of the middle Ages considered?
On another note, as no-one seems to have mentioned it, I would like to comment on the type of 'History' that Black people are taught in Britain. Slavery and perhaps civil rights USA seem to be the only History Black people have. Of course these topics are perhaps the most relevant for Black people in the'West' but I do not think it allows a sense of pride to be felt. All people should be taught some aspects of History that help them to have pride in who they are and where they have come from. Hence some focus should be given to Pre-European African history. Not only would a focus on the ancient empires of Africa create a greaterr sense of self-worth for young Blacks, it would also allow European children to have a more balanced view of Black people. The current social and economic status of Africa in the media only creates sympathy and unfortunately, ridicule of the role Black people have played in world history.
On this note i would like to ask the European contributors whether their countries consider the role of Black people in their History curriculum?? For example, in Spain particularly, are the Moorish invasions of the middle Ages considered?
sorry to go back to the Wright Brothers and Kitty Hawk again but Australia, had an inventor involved with early flight too Lawrence Hargraves whose research into convex and concave surfaces giving greater lifting power allowed him to launch his flight on November 15 1894 which took him 16 feet above the ground. He had earlier flown an aircraft with flapping wings 35 yards in 1885. he died in 1915
QUOTE (Matthew Clarke @ Jan 14 2004, 11:51 PM)
As a Black Briton, I was always a little wary of explicit demonstrations of nationalism whilst growing up. As mentioned by some of the contributors earlier, nationalism can and does breed violence against the perceived 'other'.
You are right to stress that nationalism does unify a country. This is especially true when you are in conflict with another country. I have spent a lot of time interviewing senior citizens about their experiences of the Second World War. I always ask them if there was anything good about the war. They always give a similar answer. This involves the belief that the war united the country. That they felt that most people were working together for the good of the country. There is that marvellous David Low cartoon that reflects this sentiment.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtaxation.htm
This emotional need for unity is illustrated by international sporting events. While England is in with a chance of winning the competition (which is not very often) we experience a great sense of unity. At the same time, it also leads to conflict within, especially when it becomes clear that friends and colleagues who were born in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are supporting whichever team plays England.
Competition in sport is usually fairly harmless. However, nationalism that leads to war is a serious matter. One political commentator once pointed out that the only way we will get international unity is if the world was attacked by creatures from another planet. As we cannot afford to wait until then, we have to find a way of creating a system which reduces nationalism. I suspect this also involves creating a system that reduces the inequality within and between nations.
QUOTE
On this note i would like to ask the European contributors whether their countries consider the role of Black people in their History curriculum??
I once started one of my History courses in Sixth Form (the main topic was imperialism) by looking at the political, ethnic, social and economic structures of Africa before the Europeans arrived thus creating a basis which helped us to see and evaluate what was destroyed and how much the continent was changed by the interference of the imperialist powers. It was very interesting for me and my students because we do not know much (actually nearly nothing) about Africa before the 19th century. The problem was that many African cultures were not based on written resources but traditions were handed down the generations by talking about them.
Another more general aspect of nationalism is how "nation" is defined or better defines itself. In the course of former Jugoslavia breaking up states, nations reappeared on the geographical and political map of Europe which defined and still define themselves mainly along ethnical lines. This is I think a form of nationalism which leads to intolerance and discrimination against ethnic minorities within the nation itself and to war with nations which are believed to be inferior.
A different definition sees a nation as a community of human beings, equal and free, who share or are similar in their understanding of basic ideas and principles like the rule of law, democracy, tolerance, language.... This is a definition which allows diversity and peaceful coexistence, which eventually promote international unity and internationalism.
QUOTE (Matthew Clarke @ Jan 14 2004, 11:51 PM)
On another note, as no-one seems to have mentioned it, I would like to comment on the type of 'History' that Black people are taught in Britain. Slavery and perhaps civil rights USA seem to be the only History Black people have. Of course these topics are perhaps the most relevant for Black people in the'West' but I do not think it allows a sense of pride to be felt. .... Hence some focus should be given to Pre-European African history.
I read your posting with interest Matthew. I studied African history at the University of Sussex (mainly South Africa and Kenya) and this has had a significant impact on my History teaching. I have tried to address the issues that you have raised about Black history in my school (multicultural inner city boys in Fulham, London) with a focus on the contributions that Black Britons have made over the last 500 years. I have tried to ensure that the majority of my students are aware that Black British history does not solely focus on the Slave Trade, although that is obviously so important in terms of contemporary race relations, and that there has been a black presence in Britain since Roman times. I have integrated this into the History curriculum as far as possible, for example looking Elizabeth I's attempt to repatriate the 'Blackamoors' when we study poverty in Tudor times. We also have many activities to celebrate Black History Month and it is often at this time of the year that many students comment on how they really enjoy the opportunity to take pride in their heritage.
QUOTE
This teaching of nationalism however, does need to concentrate on celebrating the diversity within a country and the contributions that have and are made to the country's culture, economy etc from all the different groups over time.
I am not sure if this is possible. It seems to me that Nationalist groups tend to support a narrow definition of 'nation', they are by definition 'exclusive'.
QUOTE
The EU with all its shortcomings seems to enhance this process: older; pre-nation-state ties such as language, history, identiy seem to be growing stronger.
Ulrike, this an interesting process that we can observe all over Europe: Scotland, Wales, Catalonia, Flanders, Basque Country... These nations or regions have a "historical background", at least, they have a different language, even if it is spoke by quite a few of these citizens. But, what about Padania? What about Humberto Bossi?
I think that disguised under "historical reasons", in a lot of cases (Catalonia, Basque Country, Flanders...) there is very clear attitude: the rich neighbour don't want to contribute money for the poor one. They don't need to live in the block of apartments anymore.
QUOTE
You are right to stress that nationalism does unify a country. This is especially true when you are in conflict with another country. I have spent a lot of time interviewing senior citizens about their experiences of the Second World War. I always ask them if there was anything good about the war. They always give a similar answer. This involves the belief that the war united the country.
John, from the British point of view in WWII, from the "right side" point of view, this unification is evidently something positive. All Europe benefitted from that British people unity and fight. But, you can say the same for the Germans during the WWII. Did this sort of unity by fighting a war occurred? I am afraid that probably the answer is yes. Undoubtedly, Bismarck's victorious wars forged and enhanced German sense of unity.
A recent case is American wars on Afghanistan and Irak. Patriotism is on the rise in the USA.
I can understand this feeling, but I don't dare to say that is positive.
Picking up Juan Carlos' idea I think it might be an interesting aspect to differentiate between nationalism and patriotism.
QUOTE (UlrikeSchuhFricke @ Jan 16 2004, 06:33 AM)
Picking up Juan Carlos' idea I think it might be an interesting aspect to differentiate between nationalism and patriotism.
The difference 'Nationalism' Patriotism' in the history of the twentieth century could be easy.
If we have a look at the beginnig of the first world war. The vast majority of the population was patriotic. Soldiers and the others had a duty and they did it even if they didn't agree with the war. They just wanted to defend their country.
Nationalists were just a minority. They wanted the war and they were enthousiastics about it. In France it is obvious that Nationalist such as Peguy or Barres were happy with that. The first died in 1914 in one of the first battle of the Great War.
For today or in the nineteenth century it is more difficult in my opinion to have a perfect definition of both words because they are closely linked together. What happened in ex-yougoslavia in the 90's and today is a perfect example of that problem.
QUOTE (JP Raud Dugal @ Jan 16 2004, 08:29 AM)
The difference 'Nationalism' Patriotism' in the history of the twentieth century could be easy.
If we have a look at the beginnig of the first world war. The vast majority of the population was patriotic. Soldiers and the others had a duty and they did it even if they didn't agree with the war. They just wanted to defend their country.
Nationalists were just a minority. They wanted the war and they were enthousiastics about it. In France it is obvious that Nationalist such as Peguy or Barres were happy with that. The first died in 1914 in one of the first battle of the Great War.
For today or in the nineteenth century it is more difficult in my opinion to have a perfect definition of both words because they are closely linked together. What happened in ex-yougoslavia in the 90's and today is a perfect example of that problem.
If we have a look at the beginnig of the first world war. The vast majority of the population was patriotic. Soldiers and the others had a duty and they did it even if they didn't agree with the war. They just wanted to defend their country.
Nationalists were just a minority. They wanted the war and they were enthousiastics about it. In France it is obvious that Nationalist such as Peguy or Barres were happy with that. The first died in 1914 in one of the first battle of the Great War.
For today or in the nineteenth century it is more difficult in my opinion to have a perfect definition of both words because they are closely linked together. What happened in ex-yougoslavia in the 90's and today is a perfect example of that problem.
You make the point that there was a distinct difference between patriotism and nationalism in France in 1914. However, you admit that separating patriotism and nationalism is more difficult when you consider recent conflicts in Europe.
My dictionary defines a patriot as someone “who loves and zealously supports his/her country.” Whereas a nationalist is someone who shows “loyalty and devotion to a nation”. When it comes down to it I am not sure there is much difference between these two concepts.
I am an internationalist who believes that nationalism and patriotism poses a threat to world peace. For example, people in Britain tend to believe they are superior to French people. Politicians are aware of this feeling and if they are keen to get support from the general public they go in for some French bashing. Tony Blair and his government resorted to this tactic during the build up to the Iraq War. It was a successful strategy and helped to sway public opinion towards war.
Individual people will often quote events from history in order to show that the British are superior to the French. A common reference is to the French surrendering in the summer of 1940. This is compared to the unwillingness of the British people to give in to Hitler. In reality, the situation was far more complex. There is considerable evidence that the British people also wanted to surrender in 1940. The fact that this did not happen was more to do with geography than some sort of national moral character. Where, for example, was this superior moral character in 1938?
It is of course a ridiculous idea that one country is anyway superior to any other. It is true that at different times individuals have made a significant impact on the economic, social or cultural development of the world. Britain has played its role in this. However, I would be a fool to believe that I have any right to take a nationalist pride in the achievements of Tom Paine, Robert Owen, Charles Dickens or George Stephenson.
QUOTE (Juan Carlos @ Jan 7 2004, 07:58 PM)
What about using history teaching as a powerful weapon to fight against nationalism?
As history teachers we know that nationalism has been, is, and, sadly, will be the main source of violence and misery in Europe and all over the world.
I try and try with my students to dismantle all the nationalistic clichés and stereotypes and I intend to show them how nationalist history is set up to deceive people into false images of themselves.
Please, let teach our students that states and nations are contingent products of history, nothing more. And that they have to be proud of what they have achieved in their life with their effort and wit. Nobody can be proud of being born in some place. A pure accident.
As history teachers we know that nationalism has been, is, and, sadly, will be the main source of violence and misery in Europe and all over the world.
I try and try with my students to dismantle all the nationalistic clichés and stereotypes and I intend to show them how nationalist history is set up to deceive people into false images of themselves.
Please, let teach our students that states and nations are contingent products of history, nothing more. And that they have to be proud of what they have achieved in their life with their effort and wit. Nobody can be proud of being born in some place. A pure accident.
I agree with Juan Carlos that as history teachers with have a responsibility to try and tackle this problem of nationalism. It is a difficult task as people have a deep desire to feel patriotic. This feeling will at different times in history be exploited by politicians. History teachers will always come under pressure from these politicians to teach a nationalistic history. We should resist this pressure and teach instead, internationalism. According to my dictionary, this is “an attitude that favours cooperation among nations”. This forum is in its small way trying to do this.
I think it will be interesting for us to consider what an internationalist history curriculum would look like.
QUOTE
It is a difficult task as people have a deep desire to feel patriotic
And this includes our students as well. I, too, see myself as an internationlist but very often I notice that my students are looking for identity and social harmony.
As John pointed out correctly this feeling can easily be exploited by politicians in Germany especially by politicians of the right and far-right, who use the idea of "nation" as a means discriminate against and exclude minorities, limit immigration and send asylum seekers back.
I think it is important to show the students that we accept their wish to define themselves as part of a political and social unity but that we show them the dangers and pitfalls of nationalism. At the same time we should be able to show them the advantages of an open, tolerant and international attitude.
QUOTE
"...internationalism. According to my dictionary, this is “an attitude that favours cooperation among nations”.
This is a rather abstract concept; an important point is how to define "internationalism" on an individual level
The idea of an international curriculum is really very fascinating but also very difficult.
patriotism/nationalism/chauvinism
3 remarks :
-Difficult subject. We can rely on the 1871 War between France and Germany, and the debate among historians about Alsace-Lorraine.
We may oppose 2 visions :
. one which makes the link between a land, a people and democracy. "La nation est un plébiscite de tous les jours( Ernest Renan)."
http://www.bmlisieux.com/archives/nation04.htm
. another one which fought against democracy.
Charles Maurras and l'Action française were royalists, anti-republicans, xenophobics, antisemits. In 1940, he saw the French defeat as a "divine surprise" for the nationalists who celebrated "la patrie" in a country occupied by the german and nazie army.
in 1913, France had a government led by René Viviani, an independant socialist.
After 5 years of war, there was a right coalition in power.
- in 1962, about Europe, de Gaulle writes :
"Dante, Goethe, Chateaubriand appartiennent à toute l'Europe dans la mesure même où ils étaient respectivement et éminemment italien, allemand et français".
- Teaching geography gives a multi-scale view :
we may choose a local identity, a national one, a continental or world one.
Suppose you are born of Chinese parents, you have been educated in Europe, and that you migrate to Quebec...
3 remarks :
-Difficult subject. We can rely on the 1871 War between France and Germany, and the debate among historians about Alsace-Lorraine.
We may oppose 2 visions :
. one which makes the link between a land, a people and democracy. "La nation est un plébiscite de tous les jours( Ernest Renan)."
http://www.bmlisieux.com/archives/nation04.htm
. another one which fought against democracy.
Charles Maurras and l'Action française were royalists, anti-republicans, xenophobics, antisemits. In 1940, he saw the French defeat as a "divine surprise" for the nationalists who celebrated "la patrie" in a country occupied by the german and nazie army.
in 1913, France had a government led by René Viviani, an independant socialist.
After 5 years of war, there was a right coalition in power.
- in 1962, about Europe, de Gaulle writes :
"Dante, Goethe, Chateaubriand appartiennent à toute l'Europe dans la mesure même où ils étaient respectivement et éminemment italien, allemand et français".
- Teaching geography gives a multi-scale view :
we may choose a local identity, a national one, a continental or world one.
Suppose you are born of Chinese parents, you have been educated in Europe, and that you migrate to Quebec...
I argued yesterday that history teaching in schools plays an important role in developing nationalistic attitudes. If that is the case, then it is possible to change the way we teach history in order to promote internationalist values.
This would involve both changing what we teach and how we teach it. One obvious example of how we develop nationalistic views is the way we teach about wars. In Britain, the study of the First and Second World Wars plays a prominent role in convincing people they are superior to other nations. The military battles that enabled the growth of the British Empire also play an important role in this.
A few years ago the British government decided to impose a national curriculum on schools. Much of the debate that took place at this time concerned the teaching of history. Politicians accused history teachers of not spending enough time teaching about our “great achievements” of the past. Last year a national conference was held on teaching history in schools and Prince Charles got the headlines about his comments that we should spend more time teaching about the British Empire. This pressure mainly comes from right wing politicians. Liberal and left-wing politicians rarely get involved in this debate. This is partly because they agree with those on the right. If they don’t, they realise there is not many votes won by arguing against this approach to history teaching.
Personally, I am not against teaching about the wars of the British Empire. My concern is about how we study them. I think it is important that we concentrate on why we fought them and why we won them. That the students discover that these military victories was not the result of being inherently superior to other nations. That victory depended on economic, geographical, scientific and political factors.
If we take the example of the Second World War. There is no doubt that the teaching of this subject creates problems for the way most British people see the world. It is a subject that is always referred to in any outburst of British nationalism. It also shapes our current political attitudes. This is true of our views on Europe and the United States. It is no surprise that Winston Churchill was recently voted Britain’s greatest figure in history. (There is a theory that the main reason why Tony Blair was in favour of the Iraq War was that it offered the best hope of him being seen by the historians in the future as a great leader).
The way Winston Churchill is seen today is the result of nationalistic history teaching. He is seen as the man who led us to a courageous victory. That without him, the British people would have defeated and occupied by the German army. This is of course a complete distortion of the past. The people who hold this view tend to forget that Churchill was heavily defeated in the 1945 General Election. In fact, Clement Attlee, won a landslide victory and went on to introduce important reforms that are now still popular with the British people. However, Attlee never featured in the poll of greatest Britons. The reason for this has a lot to do with the way we teach history. It is not pointed out that the major reason why Churchill was defeated in 1945 was that he was seen as a war monger (one of the reasons why he was so unpopular in the 1930s) and that if he had won the election Britain might well have been led into a war with the Soviet Union. He would also have probably also got us involved in wars attempting to maintain the British Empire. (It is often forgotten that Churchill was wrong about almost every major political issue of the 20th century).
Ulrike rightly pointed out that students want to feel good about their own country and want to study the nation’s heroes and heroines. I have no problem with that. However, I do think we have to think very seriously about who we portray as our heroes and heroines. I do not think we should portray our war leaders in this way. There is a large number of people from our past that make ideal role models for our young people. Unfortunately, they rarely appear in our school textbooks.
One of the attractions of producing a website for use in schools, is that you can help influence the people we study in the classroom. If one types in “Winston Churchill” into the Google search-engine my page on him comes out 4th out of 614,000 pages. The first three provide the traditional view of Winston Churchill. However, my page provides a very different interpretation that in the past would never have found its way into the British classroom. It is an example of how the web opens up the possibility of challenging the way history is taught in schools.
This would involve both changing what we teach and how we teach it. One obvious example of how we develop nationalistic views is the way we teach about wars. In Britain, the study of the First and Second World Wars plays a prominent role in convincing people they are superior to other nations. The military battles that enabled the growth of the British Empire also play an important role in this.
A few years ago the British government decided to impose a national curriculum on schools. Much of the debate that took place at this time concerned the teaching of history. Politicians accused history teachers of not spending enough time teaching about our “great achievements” of the past. Last year a national conference was held on teaching history in schools and Prince Charles got the headlines about his comments that we should spend more time teaching about the British Empire. This pressure mainly comes from right wing politicians. Liberal and left-wing politicians rarely get involved in this debate. This is partly because they agree with those on the right. If they don’t, they realise there is not many votes won by arguing against this approach to history teaching.
Personally, I am not against teaching about the wars of the British Empire. My concern is about how we study them. I think it is important that we concentrate on why we fought them and why we won them. That the students discover that these military victories was not the result of being inherently superior to other nations. That victory depended on economic, geographical, scientific and political factors.
If we take the example of the Second World War. There is no doubt that the teaching of this subject creates problems for the way most British people see the world. It is a subject that is always referred to in any outburst of British nationalism. It also shapes our current political attitudes. This is true of our views on Europe and the United States. It is no surprise that Winston Churchill was recently voted Britain’s greatest figure in history. (There is a theory that the main reason why Tony Blair was in favour of the Iraq War was that it offered the best hope of him being seen by the historians in the future as a great leader).
The way Winston Churchill is seen today is the result of nationalistic history teaching. He is seen as the man who led us to a courageous victory. That without him, the British people would have defeated and occupied by the German army. This is of course a complete distortion of the past. The people who hold this view tend to forget that Churchill was heavily defeated in the 1945 General Election. In fact, Clement Attlee, won a landslide victory and went on to introduce important reforms that are now still popular with the British people. However, Attlee never featured in the poll of greatest Britons. The reason for this has a lot to do with the way we teach history. It is not pointed out that the major reason why Churchill was defeated in 1945 was that he was seen as a war monger (one of the reasons why he was so unpopular in the 1930s) and that if he had won the election Britain might well have been led into a war with the Soviet Union. He would also have probably also got us involved in wars attempting to maintain the British Empire. (It is often forgotten that Churchill was wrong about almost every major political issue of the 20th century).
Ulrike rightly pointed out that students want to feel good about their own country and want to study the nation’s heroes and heroines. I have no problem with that. However, I do think we have to think very seriously about who we portray as our heroes and heroines. I do not think we should portray our war leaders in this way. There is a large number of people from our past that make ideal role models for our young people. Unfortunately, they rarely appear in our school textbooks.
One of the attractions of producing a website for use in schools, is that you can help influence the people we study in the classroom. If one types in “Winston Churchill” into the Google search-engine my page on him comes out 4th out of 614,000 pages. The first three provide the traditional view of Winston Churchill. However, my page provides a very different interpretation that in the past would never have found its way into the British classroom. It is an example of how the web opens up the possibility of challenging the way history is taught in schools.
I agree that one major task of school and maybe especiall of the subject History is to offer students psoitive role models and as I personally do not like spending too many lessons on wars ( even though to show the horros of all wars and especially of modern wars and modern warfare) I mostly concentrate on people who fought for liberty, equality, peace and the dignity of all human beings.
I would like to come back to the idea of an internationalist history curriculum. If not national pride, glory and wars won and/or lost what then must be included.
Confronted by the ever growing topics and sources history has to deal with German curriculums have begun to outline general principles which on the one hand help teachers to decide what is really important and on the other hand help students to structure the things they have to learn and to understand how history has shaped our present.
This major principles are:
- freedom and power: how as a specific form of government justified and how was freedom understood etc.
- social structure, ineqity, classes: which attempts were made to make the world fairer and people more equal;
- individual and society: what was the individual expected to do and what was expected from the state;
- what and who was seen as a foreigner; how was he/she treated; how were other states perceived; war and peace
- attitude towards our natural environment;
and on a more philosophical tone:
- who are we, how do we see ourselves, what makes a human being.
I think this also could be criteria to find the epochs, events etc. an interantionalist curriculum should focus on.
I would like to come back to the idea of an internationalist history curriculum. If not national pride, glory and wars won and/or lost what then must be included.
Confronted by the ever growing topics and sources history has to deal with German curriculums have begun to outline general principles which on the one hand help teachers to decide what is really important and on the other hand help students to structure the things they have to learn and to understand how history has shaped our present.
This major principles are:
- freedom and power: how as a specific form of government justified and how was freedom understood etc.
- social structure, ineqity, classes: which attempts were made to make the world fairer and people more equal;
- individual and society: what was the individual expected to do and what was expected from the state;
- what and who was seen as a foreigner; how was he/she treated; how were other states perceived; war and peace
- attitude towards our natural environment;
and on a more philosophical tone:
- who are we, how do we see ourselves, what makes a human being.
I think this also could be criteria to find the epochs, events etc. an interantionalist curriculum should focus on.
QUOTE
The way Winston Churchill is seen today is the result of nationalistic history teaching. He is seen as the man who led us to a courageous victory. That without him, the British people would have defeated and occupied by the German army. This is of course a complete distortion of the past. (...) In fact, Clement Attlee, won a landslide victory and went on to introduce important reforms that are now still popular with the British people. However, Attlee never featured in the poll of greatest Britons. The reason for this has a lot to do with the way we teach history.
John shows us an excellent example about nationalistic history. I suppose that if I my students are asked to write a famous Briton in 20th century (apart from David Beckham
) , they will reply: Winston Churchill. Only the best students will have any idea about Atlee and the welfare state in Britain.QUOTE
The idea of an international curriculum is really very fascinating but also very difficult.
Ulrike, probably the best would be start spottin "Winston Churchills" in our national histories and teach our students about events and personalities that don't fit any national official history.
QUOTE
patriotism/nationalism/chauvinism
Honestly, I cannot make out the frontiers between these concepts.
QUOTE
QUOTE
patriotism/nationalism/chauvinism
Honestly, I cannot make out the frontiers between these concepts.
patriotism/nationalism/chauvinism
Honestly, I cannot make out the frontiers between these concepts.
Patriotism: love of your country
Nationalism: big love of your country
Chauvinism: love makes blind!
The debate about nationalism and history teaching has presented many different points of views together with discussions on related topics such as regionalism or black people’s history though it actually started with a debate on aviation history.
During a last couple of days I was thinking about a new debate topics like this one:
“Presentations and teaching of other countries history inside a national curriculum”. Than suddenly I did change my mind and decided to bring this matter to debate at this debate forum.
When my students open the history book what kind of history knowledge of other nations do they meet?
Germany is represented when they learn about Nationalism (1860-1871) and then of course throughout First and Second World War.
Great Britain is represented when they learn about Imperialism in the late 1900 century and then by Churchill and The War.
France is represented by French Revolution, Robespierre, Napoleon and the colonial thrust into Africa and Asia with subsequent colonial wars.
And about Spain my students learn the period of conquests in America and there is also about half a page about Francisco Franco and Spanish Civil War.
How is Swedish history presented in your history schoolbooks? By which topics? Vikings? Thirty Years War? Most probably you do not even have any presentation of Swedish history in your schoolbooks. This is the fate of small European countries.
What I´m trying to debate is the presentation of other countries history in our history schoolbooks? Are these presentations fair and just? Aren’t they too much concentrating on heroes and wars instead on something (what should you propose you from France and Spain? etc.) which is much more essential for understanding our common and at the same time our disparate European history?
During a last couple of days I was thinking about a new debate topics like this one:
“Presentations and teaching of other countries history inside a national curriculum”. Than suddenly I did change my mind and decided to bring this matter to debate at this debate forum.
When my students open the history book what kind of history knowledge of other nations do they meet?
Germany is represented when they learn about Nationalism (1860-1871) and then of course throughout First and Second World War.
Great Britain is represented when they learn about Imperialism in the late 1900 century and then by Churchill and The War.
France is represented by French Revolution, Robespierre, Napoleon and the colonial thrust into Africa and Asia with subsequent colonial wars.
And about Spain my students learn the period of conquests in America and there is also about half a page about Francisco Franco and Spanish Civil War.
How is Swedish history presented in your history schoolbooks? By which topics? Vikings? Thirty Years War? Most probably you do not even have any presentation of Swedish history in your schoolbooks. This is the fate of small European countries.
What I´m trying to debate is the presentation of other countries history in our history schoolbooks? Are these presentations fair and just? Aren’t they too much concentrating on heroes and wars instead on something (what should you propose you from France and Spain? etc.) which is much more essential for understanding our common and at the same time our disparate European history?
I have had the same experiences as Dalibor. What we need are schoolbooks which not only portrait our history and chosen snippets of the history of our neighbours but concentrate more on comparable and maybe even similar developments/histories in our countries and on the relationships between countries - be they small or large.
I think that Dalibor has put forward a very interesting point. Which is the idea of Europeans nations that a regular student gets from his history textbook? Which is the "role" that each country plays in this historical theatre?
It is evident that each country has played a role and that, for example, Spain dissapears from a main role in history after, let's say, Westfalia Peace, and only reappears sadly in the Spanish Civil War?
Sadly enough, Sweden has no role in a Spanish history book. I wonder if it is more important to learn about the phases of Italian unification (I hope there is no Italian teacher on line
) or study the construction of the Swedish welfare state. I am sure that the second would be quite more interesting for every European student nowadays. They might link the knowledge they would get in that lesson with the current problems of their societies.
Probaly, it would be very interesting to try to build up a new European curriculum.
It is evident that each country has played a role and that, for example, Spain dissapears from a main role in history after, let's say, Westfalia Peace, and only reappears sadly in the Spanish Civil War?
Sadly enough, Sweden has no role in a Spanish history book. I wonder if it is more important to learn about the phases of Italian unification (I hope there is no Italian teacher on line
) or study the construction of the Swedish welfare state. I am sure that the second would be quite more interesting for every European student nowadays. They might link the knowledge they would get in that lesson with the current problems of their societies.Probaly, it would be very interesting to try to build up a new European curriculum.
QUOTE
Probaly, it would be very interesting to try to build up a new European curriculum.
Some attempts to come to one European history textbook have been made. They did not succeed, it was just to big!
QUOTE
Some attempts to come to one European history textbook have been made. They did not succeed, it was just to big!
I think this is one of the main reasons why we do not yet have one.
Personally I think the first step must be to decide and select which periods, which aspects of the different periods etc. we want to find in the book.
For this we need criteria which help us to decide how much European or national history we want our students to learn: do we stress international relations more than domestic affairs; what about similarities and differences in our histories; etc.
On attempt you can find elsewhere on this forum. In the textbook section.
Wars and heroes make citizens proud. Especially if the wars leads to victories. People of Great Britain are surely proud of defeating Nazi Germany. It was their time of glory.
But nation’s times of glory could for other people be times of sadness. Just think about Munich agreement! Bombing of Dresden! Not bombing Auschwitz or any other extermination camps despite the knowledge of their existence.
Swedish history depicts king Gustavus II Adolfus and subsequent Swedish participation in Thirty years wars (1618-1648) in bright colours. During this war the German areas stretching from the Baltic Sea to Central Europe were completely devastated.
We do have conflicts of interest here. And these conflicts probably never permit us to abandon a nationalistic viewing of our own great historical deeds and at the same time feel resentment for unjust behaviour against our land from others countries.
Is there any way out of this problem?
But nation’s times of glory could for other people be times of sadness. Just think about Munich agreement! Bombing of Dresden! Not bombing Auschwitz or any other extermination camps despite the knowledge of their existence.
Swedish history depicts king Gustavus II Adolfus and subsequent Swedish participation in Thirty years wars (1618-1648) in bright colours. During this war the German areas stretching from the Baltic Sea to Central Europe were completely devastated.
We do have conflicts of interest here. And these conflicts probably never permit us to abandon a nationalistic viewing of our own great historical deeds and at the same time feel resentment for unjust behaviour against our land from others countries.
Is there any way out of this problem?
I would like to pick up your example of the Swedish king and the 30 Years War.
First another fact which even stresses your point that it is very difficult and nearly impossible to come to a non-nationalist understanding of history: despite the devastation of Germany in those 30 years German Protestants still see the Swedish king as a "hero", a defender of their faith against the Catholic Emperor; there are novels about him and a Protestant institution even carries his name.
But in Germany we have no separate schoolbooks for Catholics and/ or Protestants and the Swedish king shares his place in German history with Wallenstein (from Bohemia if I am not mistaken) and Richelieu, the French cardinal joining the war on the Protestant side.
In one of the many postings the Georg-Eckert Institute is mentioned; the main aim of this institute is to collect and compare schoolbooks to find out how the European states are presented in different schoolbooks, to discover cliches and long-entrenched prejudices. The Institute invites historians from different countries in our case that would be from Sweden, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and France to see how the 30 Years War is seen and interpreted in the respective national histories and how the different countries want to be represented. Finally the historians try to work out recommendations how this war should be seen and taught to give a balanced and non-national view. The results of those conferences then are published as recommendations for schoolbook editors, boards of education etc.
Acually, I do not know if there are recommendations concerning the 30 Years War but I know that the first recommendation referred to Poland and Germany. As you know Poland was didvided by Austria, Prussia and Russia and eventually vanished from the map of Europe till 1918 and then again became a victim of Germany and Russia in 1939. These recommendations were published before Willy Brandt's new East policy and before the Federal Republic signed a treaty guaranteeing the Polish borders. In a way one could say that the recommendations by the German and Polish historians paved the way - at least on the level of our history books - for a better understanding of Polish history of how the Polish people feel about Germans and how closely linked the history of both nations has been.
If something like this can happen on a bilateral level why not on a multi-lateral one?
First another fact which even stresses your point that it is very difficult and nearly impossible to come to a non-nationalist understanding of history: despite the devastation of Germany in those 30 years German Protestants still see the Swedish king as a "hero", a defender of their faith against the Catholic Emperor; there are novels about him and a Protestant institution even carries his name.
But in Germany we have no separate schoolbooks for Catholics and/ or Protestants and the Swedish king shares his place in German history with Wallenstein (from Bohemia if I am not mistaken) and Richelieu, the French cardinal joining the war on the Protestant side.
In one of the many postings the Georg-Eckert Institute is mentioned; the main aim of this institute is to collect and compare schoolbooks to find out how the European states are presented in different schoolbooks, to discover cliches and long-entrenched prejudices. The Institute invites historians from different countries in our case that would be from Sweden, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and France to see how the 30 Years War is seen and interpreted in the respective national histories and how the different countries want to be represented. Finally the historians try to work out recommendations how this war should be seen and taught to give a balanced and non-national view. The results of those conferences then are published as recommendations for schoolbook editors, boards of education etc.
Acually, I do not know if there are recommendations concerning the 30 Years War but I know that the first recommendation referred to Poland and Germany. As you know Poland was didvided by Austria, Prussia and Russia and eventually vanished from the map of Europe till 1918 and then again became a victim of Germany and Russia in 1939. These recommendations were published before Willy Brandt's new East policy and before the Federal Republic signed a treaty guaranteeing the Polish borders. In a way one could say that the recommendations by the German and Polish historians paved the way - at least on the level of our history books - for a better understanding of Polish history of how the Polish people feel about Germans and how closely linked the history of both nations has been.
If something like this can happen on a bilateral level why not on a multi-lateral one?
"The results of those conferences then are published as recommendations for schoolbook editors, boards of education etc."
Are these recommendations national (for example only concerning Germany) or are they more European and accepted by other participating countries.
What is the www-address of the Georg-Eckert Institute?
Are these recommendations national (for example only concerning Germany) or are they more European and accepted by other participating countries.
What is the www-address of the Georg-Eckert Institute?
“In a way one could say that the recommendations by the German and Polish historians paved the way - at least on the level of our history books - for a better understanding of Polish history of how the Polish people feel about Germans and how closely linked the history of both nations has been.
If something like this can happen on a bilateral level why not on a multi-lateral one?”
Is it a realistic approach or just a dream? A never ending conference with the goal to write and rewrite recommendations to historians and publishing houses in countries around the world?
If something like this can happen on a bilateral level why not on a multi-lateral one?”
Is it a realistic approach or just a dream? A never ending conference with the goal to write and rewrite recommendations to historians and publishing houses in countries around the world?
This is the Georg Eckert Institute URL http://www.gei.de/english/index1.shtml
It is an excellent site and shows the way that German historians are trying to deal with a conflictive and bloody past in Europe.
It would be an excellent idea if somebody of the Institut could contribute to this forum and tell us about their work.
Ulrike, could you get in touch with them?
It is an excellent site and shows the way that German historians are trying to deal with a conflictive and bloody past in Europe.
It would be an excellent idea if somebody of the Institut could contribute to this forum and tell us about their work.
Ulrike, could you get in touch with them?
QUOTE (Juan Carlos @ Feb 1 2004, 10:05 AM)
This is the Georg Eckert Institute URL http://www.gei.de/english/index1.shtml
It is an excellent site and shows the way that German historians are trying to deal with a conflictive and bloody past in Europe.
It would be an excellent idea if somebody of the Institut could contribute to this forum and tell us about their work.
Ulrike, could you get in touch with them?
It is an excellent site and shows the way that German historians are trying to deal with a conflictive and bloody past in Europe.
It would be an excellent idea if somebody of the Institut could contribute to this forum and tell us about their work.
Ulrike, could you get in touch with them?
I agree. I will give them a plug in today's Teaching History Online. I will also contact them about joining the Education Forum (I always do when websites are featured in my two email newsletters).
QUOTE
Is it a realistic approach or just a dream? A never ending conference with the goal to write and rewrite recommendations to historians and publishing houses in countries around the world?
Both, I think. And yes, trying to write a European and/or international textbook means monitoring and if neecessary rewriting it.
I will try to contact the Eckert Institute; a friend of mine works there.
QUOTE (UlrikeSchuhFricke @ Feb 1 2004, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE
Is it a realistic approach or just a dream? A never ending conference with the goal to write and rewrite recommendations to historians and publishing houses in countries around the world?
Both, I think. And yes, trying to write a European and/or international textbook means monitoring and if neecessary rewriting it.
I believe that you disregard from one important fact. Writing and rewriting history could of course be used for good purposes like enhancing the truth content or showing better understanding of the events thus showing tolerance towards involved participants.
But writing and rewriting could be misused for political or ideological reasons. Until now this happened so many times in history of mankind that it easily up to this day outnumber any good intentions like the one you proposed.
I think that we should not cheers good intentions without considering what kind of bad consequences these same intentions may at the same time contain.
For those who read French, I have published, on the web, abstracts from a conference on 14-18 : Armées, Combats, Sociétés (France, Grande-Bretagne, Allemagne), by Antoine Prost , a well-known French historian :
http://aphgcaen.free.fr/conferences/prost.htm
To become a teacher, students have to work on "Les sociétés, la guerre et la paix (1911-1946)". The dominant historical view is that 14-18 was the mould of WW2 atrocities.
2 side questions :
- What role has George L Mosse's books in history teaching in your country ?
- Can we teach that violence has a different status in Germany between 1914 and 1924, and in France or England at the same dates ?
3 comments on this debate :
- Recommendations may be useful in some cases.
But it may be difficult to avoid bureaucracy or political issues.
- in fact, we may differentiate 2 cases :
. past wars, which may no longer affect education - France-Germany, Napoleon vs England
. present conflicts : it is nearly impossible to set a quiet discussion on Middle East issues on this forum ; I have seen another quarrel between Turks and Armenians.
In such a case, a very strong political will is necessary. Adenauer and Schumann, Adenauer and de Gaulle are good examples.
Daniel
http://aphgcaen.free.fr/conferences/prost.htm
To become a teacher, students have to work on "Les sociétés, la guerre et la paix (1911-1946)". The dominant historical view is that 14-18 was the mould of WW2 atrocities.
2 side questions :
- What role has George L Mosse's books in history teaching in your country ?
- Can we teach that violence has a different status in Germany between 1914 and 1924, and in France or England at the same dates ?
QUOTE
write and rewrite recommendations to historians and publishing houses
3 comments on this debate :
- Recommendations may be useful in some cases.
But it may be difficult to avoid bureaucracy or political issues.
- in fact, we may differentiate 2 cases :
. past wars, which may no longer affect education - France-Germany, Napoleon vs England
. present conflicts : it is nearly impossible to set a quiet discussion on Middle East issues on this forum ; I have seen another quarrel between Turks and Armenians.
In such a case, a very strong political will is necessary. Adenauer and Schumann, Adenauer and de Gaulle are good examples.
Daniel
QUOTE
present conflicts : it is nearly impossible to set a quiet discussion on Middle East issues on this forum (...) In such a case, a very strong political will is necessary. Adenauer and Schumann, Adenauer and de Gaulle are good examples.
Daniel,
This is the sort of situation where history teachers are more necessary.
I think that after, let's say a generation, teaching a type of nationalistic history a whole generation is seriously influenced by these ideas.
I know that probably this task will be impossible to implement in a Gaza or Tel Aviv school. I am thinking about Western Europe and Catalonia, Ireland, Corse, Flanders, Germany, Spain and so on.
I consider that the idea of writing a European text book which tried to uncover and denounce the most important lies of nationalistic histories would be one of the most interesting outcomes of international cooperation between history teachers.
I upset many a Professor, and many a class, with my views on this in the earlt '90's, when "agent of change" was au courant. My view, considered heresy by most, was that we, as prospective teachers, were not "agents pf change"; rather we were keepers of the sociocultural Flame.
It is our responsibility to take society's body of knowledge, and pass it on to the next generation. There are two important reasons why this must be so.
First, societies, like individuals, must value themselves - their knowledge, their traditions and their values. To study one's own society as if it "just like all the rest," or worse, "not as good as others," is to propagate a sort of cultural "learned helplessness," a notion that there isn't much purpose in going on, and improving one's own land.
Second, adolescents (13 - 20 years of age) are notoriously rebellious and thoroughly convinced that they have fresh new approaches to situations and events that they are encountering for the first time. It would be inaccurate, if not harmful, to teach them that their powers of analysis, unleavened by experience, are the equal of adults. I think we are still paying the price for that misunderstanding with regard to the PostWar 'babyboomers' even now.
We should not confuse "critical thinking" with revisionism, or worse, cynicism or pessimism.
As an American, nothing has disturbed me more since the early '70's than to hear educated people amend the statement "America is a great country", by inserting "with all its faults" after the name "America."
It is our responsibility to take society's body of knowledge, and pass it on to the next generation. There are two important reasons why this must be so.
First, societies, like individuals, must value themselves - their knowledge, their traditions and their values. To study one's own society as if it "just like all the rest," or worse, "not as good as others," is to propagate a sort of cultural "learned helplessness," a notion that there isn't much purpose in going on, and improving one's own land.
Second, adolescents (13 - 20 years of age) are notoriously rebellious and thoroughly convinced that they have fresh new approaches to situations and events that they are encountering for the first time. It would be inaccurate, if not harmful, to teach them that their powers of analysis, unleavened by experience, are the equal of adults. I think we are still paying the price for that misunderstanding with regard to the PostWar 'babyboomers' even now.
We should not confuse "critical thinking" with revisionism, or worse, cynicism or pessimism.
As an American, nothing has disturbed me more since the early '70's than to hear educated people amend the statement "America is a great country", by inserting "with all its faults" after the name "America."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.