Norman Pratt

Myanmar I voted ‘no’. One problem is - who is to carry out the military intervention? To have any hope of doing good the force would need to be overwhelming (5 airborne divisions of ‘blue berets’ perhaps?) China and Russia would veto any serious attempt to topple the Burmese military junta. I’m not against military intervention on principle: UN intervention in the Congo in the 1960’s, and UN/NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in the 1990’s probably prevented far worse disaster, although even in these cases there remains a reasonable doubt: the fog of war always seems to become a veritable pea-souper when predicting what will happen after a military intervention, and even in working out whether there has been an improvement when it’s all over. Myanmar is one of the poorest nations in the world, and consists of 8 very distinct ethnic groups. The army held Burma together at Independence in 1948. The army commander was Aung San, which is one of the reasons why his daughter Aung San Suu Kyi is highly revered. During the early years of independence the only modern organisation in the country was the army. The army may still be all that holds it together: in the elections that Aung San Suu Kyi won, 20 political parties contested the election on platforms of ethnicity, hardly a sign of the development of a healthy democracy. I think perhaps it’s time the Anglo-Saxon ‘club bouncers’ of the global community – I am referring to nation-states here - accepted that the tough act, even when it’s carried through, really doesn’t work anymore in the way it did in the 1940’s (in Burma amongst other places). Like club bouncers everywhere these days - they need sensitivity training. This sensitivity training has always been available from Scandinavian peace institutes. In the 1970’s Johan Galtung of the International Peace Research Institute at Oslo came up with the idea of having organisations that would ‘manage’ regional conflicts. The idea would have been, for example, that a Middle Eastern organisation would have included all the Middle Eastern states including Israel, and the African one would have included South Africa. The rules would have been that your country could belong to only one of these regional institutions. In a less planned way than he envisaged, I think this kind of thing has happened, and has helped make the world a slightly less violent place. Although Myanmar must be one of the most brutal regimes in the world, its neighbours unfortunately don’t see it that way. If China and Thailand imposed tough sanctions alongside other nations, we would, I think, see a fairly instant mellowing of the military regime and a willingness to engage with Myanmar’s politicians. However, on another front, for a few dollars more we could probably get a really powerful regional intervention force in Darfur, where the African troops are prepared to do the fighting, and where the government of Sudan itself recognises, at last, that it could do better and wants their help.

Not only was Jesus a pacifist, but most early Christians were pacifists, until the 4th Century. During this period bishops throughout the Roman Empire urged soldiers who became Christians to give up soldiering (which also shows that they did not always do so.) There is evidence that some Christian soldiers thought it was O.K. to play the role of peacekeepers within the Empire but not to fight wars! Many early Christian martyrs were soldiers who found obeying both God and the authorities impossible, for example St Alban (the first British martyr). These early Christian attitudes grew out of a version of pacifism which was deeply rooted in the Christian world-view, which included the Christian belief in the ‘Lordship’ of Christ: the earliest Christian creed was simply ‘Jesus is Lord’ –i.e. he demanded total allegiance. For a Roman soldier this conflicted with the sacrifices to the Roman gods he was supposed to take part in. The process of training soldiers to obey orders without question would also have been repugnant to Christians at that time. In the 4th Century the Emperor Constantine took over the Church (and the Church took over the Roman Empire). The result was that the Church became part of the power structure, whereas previously its membership had been associated with (and very often were) the poor and underprivileged. Because our Western Civilization (and hence our Global Civilization) evolved out of the Constantinian settlement it is difficult to imagine any other way than relying on brute force for our security. However, there is no doubt that renunciation of violence – a revolutionary idea indeed - was part of the Christian message for the first three centuries after Christ. Ludicrously impractical though it may seem.

Black: D-15

Here's a 'Go' move (for September, anyway!) - can you place a black on the intersection one up and one to the right of your yellow? I think that's E-13. (Either I'm not understanding your notation, John, or it's incorrect. Wasn't your move d-14?)

Spartacus was a hero, in the classic sense, and he is, I agree, forever associated with the idea that only the oppressed can do anything about their own oppression. However, he didn’t get rid of slavery in the Roman Empire. My point is that slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries was similar in its complexity to the problem of absolute poverty today. Abolition was accomplished by a grand coalition of people, including many who cannot be described as proletariat, working class, oppressed, or poor. And it was eventually accomplished. Wilberforce himself had, in a sense, a 'vested interest' in destroying slavery (and not just the slave trade) because it was intolerable to him morally each day it existed. And there are people today who have a similar interest in ending world poverty – some of them might even have shown their feelings recently by wearing wristbands. However, since this is a political thread, and you are attempting to consign poverty to History, it’s time I allowed you to get on and flesh out your theory.

You are being kind, Derek. The Church of England had an appalling record on the slave trade. Bishops not only often supported it, but one or two had their own logos branded on Africans arriving at their own West Indies plantations. Their ambiguity on the subject was part of the problem - to say the least. The Established Church was very much a branch of the state in the 18th Century and shared the corruption and cynicism of its (usually) Whig rulers. The staggering thing is that the vast majority of people in Britain in the 18th Century didn't see anything wrong with slavery or the slave trade - mainly of course because they didn't actually see it. However, Wilberforce and others in the Clapham Circle managed to bring it to people's attention with such devices as the famous poster showing a slave ship's 'cargo' arrangements, and changed the mind-set of an entire nation. They did this by adopting the ethical insights of Methodism, while carefully disguising where their ideas were coming from - because Methodists were regarded as enthusiasts and generally not respectable. Wilberforce was at the heart of the British Establishment, and comes over, as has been suggested elsewhere in this Forum, as a typical tory. That was precisely why his campaign was so important, and why it made a big difference. The slave trade was abolished by people acting out of moral outrage, and seemingly at the time against their own economic interest. Although the British working class played a part in ending the slave trade, for example the British sailors who provided evidence of the appalling conditions, the campaign was led by rich people who very consciously used their riches for the benefit of others. For anyone with the slightest left wing sympathies this is, I know, annoying. With regard to 21st Century world poverty, however, it seems to me too important a matter to insist that the working class has to solve it. Though having heard President Chavez interviewed by John Pilger the other night during his documentary on Venuzela I admit that for an instant I did think it a possibility.

With regard to world poverty, nationalism might be a better target than capitalism. The abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in the 19th Century is a useful example. Governments, politicians, activists, ordinary people, slave traders and sailors, and, crucially, the slaves themselves all played a part in its destruction. The abolition story also illustrates the biggest obstacle to changing the world for the better: the last refuge of the British supporters of the slave trade in the early 19th Century was that if Britain abandoned the slave trade the French would take it over. However, change did come about, despite the obstacles. In Britain William Pitt the Younger, impressed by the damning evidence collected by the Abolitionists, came to believe that the slave trade should be abolished irrespective of possible strategic and economic consequences. And it was the Unreformed Houses of Parliament that voted for abolition in 1807. (So if there was such a thing as ‘The Right’ in early 19th Century politics its change of mind was one of the keys.) The change of mind came, at that time, from Christian conviction, and may be illustrated by an extract from possibly the last letter that John Wesley ever wrote, in 1791, to William Wilberforce: ‘Reading this morning a tract wrote by a poor African, I was particularly struck by that circumstance that a man who has a black skin, being wrong or outraged by a white man, can have no redress; it being a “law” in our colonies that the oath of a black against a white goes for nothing. What villainy is this?’

In a paper that can be found at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ 'Changes in Examination Grades over Time: Is the same worth less?' (1999) Dr Coe also admits 'it is not possible to say definitively either that standards have slipped or that they have not.' He then adds: 'An ‘A’ grade in mathematics, for example, is not significant for its demonstration that a person, on a certain day in June, solved a particular equation in a matter of a few minutes, but because it provides evidence of qualities such as a general numerical ability, the potential to learn and the capacity to apply oneself to an extended and difficult project.' My point precisely. Why don't we mentor students in 'extended and difficult projects' rather than playing it at by having Examination Olympics once a year?

Personally I've gone off the whole idea of summative examinations this year, particularly GCSE's, and have just laid down my red pen for the last time. I am impressed by the pains my exam board takes to be fair, or at any rate to appear to be fair, but I'm inclined to think the NSPCC should prosecute those concerned for the annual torture we put 16 year olds through. I am somewhat heartened by the appearance of a History GCSE pilot course that is 75% coursework. At least this is going in the right direction.

At least the examination boards know they're at the heart of a conspiracy, and are remarkably open on their websites about how the scam works. Both teachers and examiners have sometimes been shocked when they realise how much of the system is public knowledge. The Observer says you can’t compare: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/sto...2147098,00.html. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that standards are slipping it seems there's no way of proving it. Rather like modern economics it is difficult to understand what exactly the system rests on. However, one thing is for sure - there is no 'Gold Standard'. There are too many variables involved to make accurate comparisons between two years - though that still leaves room for endless speculation. I learned to drive on what were then the quiet streets of Paddington in the late 60's, and was brilliant at hand signals, but I'm inclined to think the modern driving test is more difficult than the old one. And was going through the Matriculation process my father went through more difficult than doing 12 GCSE's today? Having spent a couple of months threatening my own daughter’s college because they hadn’t awarded her a much deserved diploma I do wonder about how we all invest so much in these bits of paper. But we do.

Sorry, Sean. I entered my details on the petition, but then couldn’t bring myself to left-click, even as a tactical vote. I think it was the phrase ‘a strong core of narrative British History’ that suddenly made my heart sink: in the 21st Century this phrase sounds tribal. A ‘core’ of British History I could cope with. The ‘strong’ core as outlined in the Report http://www.historypractitioners.org/reports.htm appears to exclude World History from KS3, something even the National Curriculum hasn’t done, not officially anyway. A strong core of British and Imperial History did indeed make sense as the focus of History lessons in the 1870’s, something I have heard you speak about very eloquently at the Cambridge History Forum. In the 21st Century, however, I believe the need is to promote a common humanity as much as a common sense of Britishness. Having read the Report more carefully, I see that you did in fact address my concerns about the difference between History and Citizenship. (I have been perhaps prejudiced by seeing a PSHE team teaching Citizenship well!) However, on closer inspection, I see you criticise the Schools History Project approach to assessment, partly on the grounds that it is old. This seems a little unfair, especially when you consider the kind of assessment that preceded it, where the ability to clone a teacher narrative in four paragraphs and a conclusion got you an ‘A’. By contrast, I have recently completed marking an SHP GCSE paper (with a very tightly-defined SHP-inspired mark scheme) where the students’ answers were varied, creative, and displayed a basic understanding (pace Professor Elton) of the skills of a historian. My only regret is that the paper concerned, is no longer - as it was before the relentless chant of ‘more British History’ got going - an Unseen paper on any aspect of World History.

Sorry - distracted by History GCSE marking. A few further thoughts. The problem, raised in various forms elsewhere in this Forum, is what the basic narrative of history should be (or even ‘is’). In Britain there are probably two main versions of the narrative, one focussing on princes and the other on peasants. Then there are as many variations on that as there are History teachers. And the National Curriculum reminds us, lest we forget, that there’s more to History than just the political narrative. We should certainly do what other countries do and make History compulsory. But my plea to politicians would be to also deregulate History, and allow it to revert to the free market that existed in the late 1970’s, before intellectual autarky set in. Yes, you would have to put up with the fact that some students would leave school knowing about, say, the Civil Rights Movement in the USA in the 1960’s and nothing about The Glorious Revolution in Britain in the 1680’s. But children know they live in a global village, and know what’s relevant to them, and will vote with their attention span. Finally, I’m not happy with the smallprint of the petition – a proposed marriage of History and Citizenship. History is essentially about truth, citizenship about community. We know that the idea of community in the UK is in trouble, and sense that History might be able to help. If so, it will be by allowing the subject of History to be itself.

The pressure that school History is under was neatly summed up in a 'media moment' on a television News a couple of mornings ago. A lady reported that a couple of years ago she had been told off for teaching 'Islamic Realms' in her KS3 HIstory course: apparently, despite its being on the QCA list of subjects, it was 'irrelevant'!!!!! The problem with this particular political football is that it has been kicked around so much - at least for the last 30 years - that the ball actually needs patching up and pumping up again. Perhaps the petition can do this.

Thanks, Derek. I'm sure I recognise the school, and indeed the Head.

I tend to find virtual history more believable than the real thing. However, the idea of a Uganda homeland for the Jews is complicated by the fact that it was not Uganda as we know it. The 15,500 square kilometres that Britain offered in 1903 - as a temporary place of settlement for Russian Jews who were in imminent danger - was in a part of Eastern Uganda that was in the process of being transferred to British East Africa, modern Kenya. People apparently found the geography difficult at the time: http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/writers_d...nism-uganda.htm Had the settlement plan gone ahead it would have added another settler layer in western Kenya to the so-called White Highlands in central Kenya. This could well have strengthened moves to create an East African Federation (Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar) under settler control, which in turn could have bolstered the idea of a Central African Federation. South Africa and Portugal would have had powerful allies ... I think I'll stop there - I don't like the way this is developing. In reality a key issue for a Jewish homeland would have been the opposition of the Kingdom of Buganda itself, 'the Japanese of East Africa'. I suspect this considereation might have played a part in the transfer of Eastern Uganda to Kenya. Incidentally, Amin later threatened at one point to declare war on Kenya and get Uganda's territory back. A footnote I can't resist: Kakungulu, a Baganda general, was much used by the British at the time to extend their control over Uganda. He later fell out with the British, retired, converted to Judaism, and founded a Ugandan Jewish community in Eastern Uganda: http://mzansiafrika.typepad.com/mzansi_afr...h_communit.html

I thought this might be of interest, from the Met Office: "I had a look at the plotted charts for 25th Aug. 1942 and conclude the following for Scotland: A cloudy day with rain at times, except in the far north. Fog along the southeast coast. A moderate to fresh East wind, cool in the east but warmer in the west. If you require more detailed information about specific stations, the original paper records for Scottish stations are held at our Archive in Edinburgh."

I regard Cromwell’s own account of his capture of Drogheda as the most important evidence. Cromwell’s letter to Parliament suggests that whatever he did at the storming of Drogheda was deliberate, and with the purpose of giving a warning to the rest of Ireland - so perhaps the comparison should be made with General Dyer at Amritsar rather than Wellington in Spain. However, the idea that there wasn’t a massacre is intriguing, as is the idea that the moral argument might be transformed by the fact that the victims of Drogheda were mainly English! The historians of Cromwell are taken to task for getting their facts wrong. I don’t believe that’s the case, or the issue. Their problem has always been that of interpretation. Clarendon, the first great writer on the Civil Wars, and a Royalist, described Cromwell as ‘a brave, bad man’. Many later commentators pointed to the many inconsistencies in Cromwell’s behaviour, and concluded that he was driven by ambition. A different view is that he was a man of principle who was nevertheless ruthless in the pursuit of his aims. The persistence of our confusion over Cromwell can be seen in our determination to honour him (as a great Parliamentarian?) with a statue outside the Houses Parliament – a Parliament he intimidated, purged and dismissed by use of the Army! What complicates judgements about Cromwell is that he played his part on a particularly dramatic stage, where ideas such as liberty, religious toleration and democracy were being discussed in an apparently modern way, and where there was a seismic shift in society which (even to a non-marxist) neatly fits a marxist interpretation of events. Where we perhaps go wrong is to take the 17th Century discussion about a free and open society in 21st Century terms. This is, of course, the problem about discussing any historical period, but it is particularly a problem with the 17th Century because it seems so modern that we tend to miss the medieval undercurrents. Take John Pym. Often regarded as the Parliamentary leader, he was leader of the House of Commons. But he took his orders (fairly literally) not from the Commons but from lords such as the Earl of Essex who were on the Parliamentary side at the beginning of the Civil Wars. The war on the Parliamentary side was lead by nobles, using their prestige, their feudal following, and their money. During the early stages of the Civil Wars, as the armies of both sides squared up to each other, they were led by nobles, much as they had been 200 years before in the Wars of the Roses. They even used bows and arrows during the Civil Wars, alongside the more up-to-date weapons. However, the medieval aspects of the Civil Wars go deeper than that. During the 1630’s in England there was something like a Gothic Revival. The politicians were much influenced by this, drawing from the past for their arguments. So the arguments with the King often took the form of appeals to Magna Carta. But the Opposition in the House of Lords saw themselves as the heirs of the barons who had opposed King John and Henry lll. In the same medieval spirit it was a Scottish baronial army in 1639 which led the revolt against Charles l’s religious policies and began the drift into war. The English opposition lords revived the medieval idea of lordly ‘office holders’ to balance the power of the King. For example one reason why the Earl of Essex hesitated to use military force against the King was that he had not yet been given the official job of ‘Constable’! Had the Civil War been won by Parliament in the first couple of years, Essex, not Cromwell, would have been the winner. Essex’s great mistake was to be outmanoeuvred and to lose an army. The balance of power began to shift away from the nobles. The noble offices of ‘Constable’ and ‘Steward’ were abolished. Cromwell’s famous ‘slighting’ of castles underlined the changing times. Where we become particularly unstuck in trying to interpret Cromwell’s actions in modern terms is when we play down the religious dimension of the Civil Wars. Cromwell’s famous comment to his soldiers just before a battle “Trust in God and keep your powder dry” sounds to the modern ear like a pragmatist whose real agenda is far from godly. A more characteristic Cromwellian pre-battle comment was when he appealed to an enemy “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” They didn’t, and he proceeded to pound them to pieces. However, that was the Scots. The Catholic Irish were, to Cromwell, another matter entirely. Sometimes Cromwell the pragmatist prevailed. He certainly tried to get an alliance with Catholic Spain against France. Only when Spain refused to make any worthwhile concessions did he decide to turn on them instead. As he said concerning the expedition he sent to the (Spanish) West Indies ‘God had called them to work his will in the world at large as well as home.’ Much the same mixture of religious conviction and pragmatism apparently motivated his fateful expedition to Ireland.

The first book I read on Darwinism was ‘The Succession of Life through Geological Time’ British Museum Natural History, London, 1956. I found its catalogue of fossils from different periods and its chronological account compelling - but not its maps. Its maps of different geological periods were based on the continents as they are today, so that, for example, the entire South Atlantic was labelled as part of Gondwanaland, and the key said ‘Land in Early Jurassic, but now Sea.’ Somehow that didn’t seem quite right, and the authors, Kenneth Oakley and Helen Muir-Wood, had hinted there was a problem here by also placing a question-mark over the South Atlantic. The theory of continental drift had not at that time yet been fully accepted by the Scientific community. The changing idea of the world map over time is one example, to my mind, of how Darwin’s, and related scientific ideas, have grown in credibility. But then in Britain ‘Darwinism’ (if that is the appropriate term) would seem to have been generally accepted for the last hundred years. In the 20th Century there were virtually no challenges to it, and no court battles. On the other hand Religious Knowledge teachers who taught Creationism in schools were not challenged either, but over the years have simply got much thinner on the ground (and many of them thinner on top too.) A profound change occurred about a year ago when it became clear that some of the government-encouraged Academies (in this case Christian Academies) were going to feature ‘Intelligent Design’ in the syllabus. Following that, the idea was put forward of teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ in Science lessons in state schools, and, when that idea did not go down very well, in Religious Education lessons. My main concern over that was not that students would be unable to cope with a debate, but that it would simply be received with cynicism by both teachers and students -and we have enough of that commodity already. Hence my personal surprise and concern when 3 friends with connections with local education and one national education official who I met declared their belief in Creationism – not even anything as sophisticated as Intelligent Design. My reference to ‘Evolution denial’ does not relate to the ideas I have read on any part of this thread, but to a rather cruder version of the debate where the argument is apparently completely settled by the non-negotiable announcement that Evolution is ‘only a theory’ – and therefore of no importance. My apologies if my initial posting was careless in its phraseology. In response to the recent rather crude attempt to revive Creationism in British education I started collecting books on the subject, and I have found the suggested reading on this thread helpful. However, at no stage do I imagine I will understand the subject, especially as under our over-specialised education system I ‘gave up’ science at the age of 14. What I ultimately rely on is the academic community (even to a very large extent in my own subject of History) to be of reasonable integrity. Hence my close interest in the idea that ‘the Darwin Cult’ is a conspiracy.

Three of my best friends deny evolution. That, and a recent encounter with an OFSTED Inspector who also denied it, have led me to take this issue seriously – seriously. I have evidence that this issue is hotting up. In Terry Pratchett’s ‘The Science of Discworld’ (1999), the Wizards of his completely flat world carried out an experiment (in a squash court) creating a miniature universe, whose earth turned out to be remarkably like our own. Here and in other books Terry Pratchett has had fun describing the motivation of those in Discworld who went on claiming (against all available evidence) that their world was a globe with a fairly small sun orbiting around it. ‘The Science of Discworld lll Darwin’s Watch’ (2006), on the other hand, has two very detailed chapters by Pratchett’s collaborators on the subject of William Paley’s arguments concerning the discovery in a field of a stone, and then a watch, and what they suggested about how life came about. What is striking is the almost bitter and humourless tone of what I had mistakenly thought was going to be a funny book, as we follow a detailed argument on how such a complicated organ as the eye evolved and didn’t have to be specially created. Can we resolve this issue, please, being careful, as has already been pointed out, to define terms? And perhaps Terry Pratchett will be able to get back to being funny again.

Hi, Ian. I thought your name was familiar. Nice to see a fellow Trinitarian. Back in the 60's one of my Trinity friends was into the university cadet force, claimed to be training in secret operations, and was sent out on exercises by a Commander Bond. It's difficult to take the whole spying business seriously. Thanks for your contribution.

That list is worrying me. It's the feeling that no-one could possibly take it seriously. Could they? But then that's exactly what we were thinking before National Curriculum History arrived and the government tried, in all seriousness, to ban any mention in the classroom of events that had happened in the last 30 years. So I sent this to David Willett's 'Public Service Challenge': 'As a retired History Teacher I am pleased to see this recognition that History matters. The list of British worthies brings tears to my eyes with its sheer quirkiness. However, I hope this list is not going to be imposed on History teachers, who are highly professional, and as capable of judging what will work with Year 10 tomorrow morning as the distinguished panel. According to OFSTED, History teachers teach their subject more effectively than most other subject teachers. They have to balance many more dimensions than the role of individuals in our great institutions. For example they have to take account of local factors: here in Essex we tend to rate St Cedd rather higher than St Columba, and I have to tell you (because one never gives up being a history teacher) that neither of these gentlemen contributed anything to the parish system. So, please trust history teachers to get on with their teaching and their own professional development without the threat of a prescriptive list hanging over them. '

I already spend far too much time on my flight simulator to start investigating Second Life. But it does occur to me that we generally manage, despite ourselves, to make education in the real world rather boring. So you've got quite a challenge. I have one very subject-specific suggestion: could we have a Time Machine? After that thought, my imagination reverts to the mundane: it could have an interview room, say, for candidates to the English throne in 1066.

I’m making rather slow progress reading the Stern Report. In fact, to be honest, I’ve got to the Appendix of Chapter 2, which is, if I understand it correctly, discussing the ethics of one generation (i.e. this one) defrauding other generations (i.e. the next two and probably more). The fact that it’s written by an economist makes up a little for the dreadful editorial in ‘The Economist’ some years ago which went through the litany of denial already referred to, and then majored on the fact that in any case the world economy was far more delicate than the environment. Although the scientific arguments were not so clear then as they are now, the complacent tone of the editorial convinced me we really had something to worry about! The opening statement of the Stern Report is pretty clear: ‘Key Messages An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures. This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a global scale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C. If annual greenhouse gas emissions remained at the current level, concentrations would be more than treble pre-industrial levels by 2100, committing the world to 3 – 10°C warming, based on the latest climate projections. Some impacts of climate change itself may amplify warming further by triggering the release of additional greenhouse gases. This creates a real risk of even higher temperature changes. • Higher temperatures cause plants and soils to soak up less carbon from the atmosphere and cause permafrost to thaw, potentially releasing large quantities of methane. • Analysis of warming events in the distant past indicates that such feedbacks could amplify warming by an additional 1 – 2°C by the end of the century. Warming is very likely to intensify the water cycle, reinforcing existing patterns of water scarcity and abundance and increasing the risk of droughts and floods. Rainfall is likely to increase at high latitudes, while regions with Mediterranean-like climates in both hemispheres will experience significant reductions in rainfall. Preliminary estimates suggest that the fraction of land area in extreme drought at any one time will increase from 1% to 30% by the end of this century. In other regions, warmer air and warmer oceans are likely to drive more intense storms, particularly hurricanes and typhoons. As the world warms, the risk of abrupt and large-scale changes in the climate system will rise. • Changes in the distribution of heat around the world are likely to disrupt ocean and atmospheric circulations, leading to large and possibly abrupt shifts in regional weather patterns. • If the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets began to melt irreversibly, the rate of sea level rise could more than double, committing the world to an eventual sea level rise of 5 – 12 m over several centuries.’ The body of evidence and the growing quantitative assessment of risks are now sufficient to give clear and strong guidance to economists and policy-makers in shaping a response. Stern Review Report is http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_...view_report.cfm My usual late-night reading is ‘Chronology of the 20th Century’ by Neville Williams. Guaranteed to put you to sleep. However, scanning through ‘Science, Discovery and Technology 1967’ I came across this entry: ‘S Manabe and R T Wetherald warn that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produced by human activities, is causing a ‘greenhouse effect’, which will raise atmospheric temperatures and cause a rise in sea levels.’ 40th Anniversary!

Why has this become an issue now? In the 19th Century Darwin’s ideas were accepted without much fuss in Britain, the geological and fossil evidence having already prepared the ground: in this respect the famous Huxley/Wilberforce clash was not representative of what happened. In fact belief in Creationism in Britain showed a steady decline until comparatively recently. Its revival, in the form of Intelligent Design, was apparently an import from ‘the political wing’ of American Evangelicalism with a political agenda within the guise of a religious one. While the idea of introducing I.D. as a theory into Science teaching doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere, it is a shame that the government has seen fit to allow it as an Religious Education option, taking advantage of the subject’s low status (and peculiar status compared with other subjects.) From this point of view it is important that colleagues from other disciplines recognise the growing professionalism of Religious Education rather than clinging to our own memories of baiting the R.E. teacher on the subject of evolution – happy days! The point is that the best R.E. is now taught critically and R.E. teachers actually need more encouragement than most. Andrew Brown in his book ‘The Darwin Wars’, Simon and Schuster UK Ltd 1999, charts the debate over ‘the selfish gene’, and its place in understanding human behaviour. The book tells how Richard Dawkins attempted to build a moral philosophy on the discovery of the selfish gene. But it really centres on how evolutionary scientists could teach Christian theologians a thing or two about in-fighting! He points out the stakes are high - we expect Science to provide the same authoritative answers that Theology once did. That neither has an authoritative position in the modern world is illustrated by the sad story of George Price, the man responsible for the mathematics behind ‘the selfish gene’. A convinced atheist, a consideration of the implications of his discovery produced a nervous breakdown, religious mania, a period of Tolstoyan Christianity where he gave all his worldly goods away, and ultimately to his suicide.in 1974. Young people need to understand that there are no certainties about knowledge. They desperately need a system of education which equips them with the tools of criticism and analysis. One of the problems of debates about creationism and evolution is that there are very few George Prices who actually understand the arguments. Another is that, unlike the flat earth theory, Intelligent Design cannot be disproved by simple observation. We need to be honest with students that in many cases we ourselves don’t understand the arguments or we don’t have the evidence, and we rely very much on what the majority of experts believe - in our understanding of History for example. Teaching simple logic and philosophy at the beginning of Secondary Education would help. Admitting as teachers that we don’t know everything would be another important, but perhaps impossible, step. If we equipped students in this way then we wouldn’t need to worry what silly theories they are presented with.

Had he been around in the 21st Century the young Robert Clive would have collected an ASBO. Is this some cunning scheme by the Conservative Party to give encouragement to disaffected youth? It was the superiority of institutions such as the company structure of the British East India Company over feudal institutions and the political chaos that existed in 18th Century India that resulted in the British conquest of Bengal. Had Clive been killed at the Battle of Plassey the next man in the military or political structure would have taken over. What the EIC proceeded to do with Bengal, drain wealth and introduce starvation for example, is not I would have thought part of British history we should be particularly proud of. So what lessons about our island race are we planning to teach through looking at Clive? By contrast ‘Teaching History’ this month has some very tightly argued articles on the subject of ‘significance in History’, which I needed a week, and a dictionary, to get through. Unfortunately the mantra ‘British History. British History. British History ….’ seems to carry more weight than the idea that History can teach young people how to think. I believe we do need to take every opportunity to expose the laughable stupidity of these proposals: many equally silly politically inspired History curriculum ideas are still with us. It’s a tough business reading the Telegraph, Derek, but somebody has to do it. So thanks for that titbit.