Whose history is it?
My last blog post about the history of statues an 'at brought a few replies, not all of them friendly.
So, true confession time: I'm not a historian. I did study history at secondary school: 'British and European History' - yes that's what it was called in the Scottish syllabus back in the olden days, as if Britain and Europe were separate entities. (Scotland never got a menshie, of course). I then studied French at university and found myself forced to study European but mainly French history for another two years. By the end, I knew more than anyone needs to know about the French Revolution, Napoleon and the Restoration of the French Monarchy, the causes of World War 1, the chaos that passed for government in France (and Germany) in the 1920s and 1930s. I could at one time recite the terms of the Treaty of Versailles 1919 in both French and English.
History back then stopped at 1940.
Then I went to live in France and discovered that I'd been taught history totally from a British point of view because the French see European history differently from the British.
Later I studied Russian and spent a wee while in the old USSR and - guess what - the Russian view of European (and world) history is also quite different from the British view.
My secondary French teacher was a woman from an Armenian family who had been refugees to Britain way back just after World War 1 ended. She had grown up speaking French at home and English at school. I wonder if that meant they were quite posh? She had also studied in Paris where she had been introduced to the works of André Gide. She remained a great admirer of Camus and Sartre, who were influenced by Gide. She was the best educated person I've ever met. I don't know how many languages she spoke. I went to Crookston Castle School in Glasgow. I think (is this right?) it was the first school in the city to have a language laboratory. My lessons with her in the lab (usually one-to-one as she was helping me prepare to sit A Level) were an adventure in two languages because she moved from French to English and back again at the drop of the proverbial.
She was the one who taught me that history is relative. That it is subject to constant revision. That only facts can be constant and even facts can shapeshift. It just depends who handles them.
She also taught me the French names of the great figures in history: Julius Caesar in French is Jules César. Caesar Augustus is Auguste César, Livy is Tite Live, Cicero is Cicéron. (I studied Latin). I loved that stuff.
She also told me: Believe nothing. Question everything. That was probably a quotation but I don't know who from.
I hope young people in Scotland still get an education like the one I got: very much affected by the character and interests of the teacher. My Latin teacher spent all her holidays - every last day - travelling Europe and inspired in me the desire to go and see Madrid, Rome, Athens, Naples etc for myself. Another French teacher overcame his deep embarrassment at having to teach me (on my own) about Voltaire and in passing gave me an abiding love of 20th Century French poetry. I don't know if my 'eccentric' teachers would survive in a modern Scottish school, but I'm so glad to have known them.
They understood that education is about not just the subject you're studying. It's about the culture that goes with it. For example, what's the point of studying the dates and facts of history in modern Britain if you don't learn about the effect of British imperialism? If you ignore the Empire, you overlook - deny - the damage done to so many cultures by British occupation.
I'm thinking about India, Pakistan, Ireland and so many African countries it's hard to list them all. The worst part for me is to see British politicians and the media failing to acknowledge the damage done to countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Malawi, although for some reason they still feel entitled to comment on the internal affairs of those countries at every opportunity.
Belgian politicians and journalists similarly struggle to deal with Belgium's role in genocide in the Congo. And do French politicians and media even acknowledge that racism exists in France?
What happens if we stop re-evaluating our history? I'm tempted to say: we end up with the USA. The USA, according to the (American) propaganda, is the richest, free-est, most democratic country in the world. It certainly defends freedom and democracy all over the world - by force, if necessary. And yet, the USA can't afford to provide its poor and vulnerable with health care; its research system is so under-financed, it depends on other countries to provide a vaccine against the coronavirus; its education system can't even begin to meet the needs of its children, with whole generations of clever kids allowed to leave school with no qualifications and US universities building up huge reserves of funding but failing to share those reserves with the general population.
Right now, 40 million Americans are finding out what unemployment feels like. It feels like the USA is incapable of changing to meet the current needs of its population. And if that isn't failing to understand history I don't know what is.
So, true confession time: I'm not a historian. I did study history at secondary school: 'British and European History' - yes that's what it was called in the Scottish syllabus back in the olden days, as if Britain and Europe were separate entities. (Scotland never got a menshie, of course). I then studied French at university and found myself forced to study European but mainly French history for another two years. By the end, I knew more than anyone needs to know about the French Revolution, Napoleon and the Restoration of the French Monarchy, the causes of World War 1, the chaos that passed for government in France (and Germany) in the 1920s and 1930s. I could at one time recite the terms of the Treaty of Versailles 1919 in both French and English.
History back then stopped at 1940.
Then I went to live in France and discovered that I'd been taught history totally from a British point of view because the French see European history differently from the British.
Later I studied Russian and spent a wee while in the old USSR and - guess what - the Russian view of European (and world) history is also quite different from the British view.
My secondary French teacher was a woman from an Armenian family who had been refugees to Britain way back just after World War 1 ended. She had grown up speaking French at home and English at school. I wonder if that meant they were quite posh? She had also studied in Paris where she had been introduced to the works of André Gide. She remained a great admirer of Camus and Sartre, who were influenced by Gide. She was the best educated person I've ever met. I don't know how many languages she spoke. I went to Crookston Castle School in Glasgow. I think (is this right?) it was the first school in the city to have a language laboratory. My lessons with her in the lab (usually one-to-one as she was helping me prepare to sit A Level) were an adventure in two languages because she moved from French to English and back again at the drop of the proverbial.
She was the one who taught me that history is relative. That it is subject to constant revision. That only facts can be constant and even facts can shapeshift. It just depends who handles them.
She also taught me the French names of the great figures in history: Julius Caesar in French is Jules César. Caesar Augustus is Auguste César, Livy is Tite Live, Cicero is Cicéron. (I studied Latin). I loved that stuff.
She also told me: Believe nothing. Question everything. That was probably a quotation but I don't know who from.
I hope young people in Scotland still get an education like the one I got: very much affected by the character and interests of the teacher. My Latin teacher spent all her holidays - every last day - travelling Europe and inspired in me the desire to go and see Madrid, Rome, Athens, Naples etc for myself. Another French teacher overcame his deep embarrassment at having to teach me (on my own) about Voltaire and in passing gave me an abiding love of 20th Century French poetry. I don't know if my 'eccentric' teachers would survive in a modern Scottish school, but I'm so glad to have known them.
They understood that education is about not just the subject you're studying. It's about the culture that goes with it. For example, what's the point of studying the dates and facts of history in modern Britain if you don't learn about the effect of British imperialism? If you ignore the Empire, you overlook - deny - the damage done to so many cultures by British occupation.
I'm thinking about India, Pakistan, Ireland and so many African countries it's hard to list them all. The worst part for me is to see British politicians and the media failing to acknowledge the damage done to countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Malawi, although for some reason they still feel entitled to comment on the internal affairs of those countries at every opportunity.
Belgian politicians and journalists similarly struggle to deal with Belgium's role in genocide in the Congo. And do French politicians and media even acknowledge that racism exists in France?
What happens if we stop re-evaluating our history? I'm tempted to say: we end up with the USA. The USA, according to the (American) propaganda, is the richest, free-est, most democratic country in the world. It certainly defends freedom and democracy all over the world - by force, if necessary. And yet, the USA can't afford to provide its poor and vulnerable with health care; its research system is so under-financed, it depends on other countries to provide a vaccine against the coronavirus; its education system can't even begin to meet the needs of its children, with whole generations of clever kids allowed to leave school with no qualifications and US universities building up huge reserves of funding but failing to share those reserves with the general population.
Right now, 40 million Americans are finding out what unemployment feels like. It feels like the USA is incapable of changing to meet the current needs of its population. And if that isn't failing to understand history I don't know what is.
Comments
Post a Comment