Patriotism and the Making of Our Island Story.

The recent finding that the percentage of people in Britain who have pride in Britain’s history, as surveyed by the National Centre for Social Research's 41st British Social Attitudes report, has declined from 86% in 2013 to 64% in 2024 is not altogether surprising. Labelling history through the filter of emotions is both disingenuous and polarising and not a true measure of either belonging ?or patriotism. The other headline, that the proportion of people who think it is important that somebody was born in Britain to be 'truly British' has fallen from 74 per cent in 2013 to 55 per cent now is, however, something to celebrate, to read that our increasingly diverse population identifys with the country that has taken them in. It is, surely, part of the process towards a true multicultural society.

Of course, people will look for reasons for the accelerating decline in recent years –happening under the watch of a succession of Conservative governments keen to promote a national narrative, an Island story for popular consumption.? Black Lives Matter, revelations about the payouts that led to the 1834 Abolition of Slavery Act, immigration, increased racial profiling, Grenfell, The Windrush Scandal, the increase in terrorism have all served to polarise opinion about our history.

What won’t be offered as a reason however, is the history we teach in our schools, or the attitude and arrogance of politicians who have tried to create – and control -? a national narrative aided and abetted by the right wing press who are wedded to it.? It is a narrative based around a Whig view of History, espoused and promoted by those who have been its beneficiaries.? There has always been conflict as how to deal with empire (Fergusson noted ‘how tenacious the grip of empire remains on the Oxford-educated mind’), but it was this Oxbridge educated mind, clinging to its historic role as arbiter of what qualifies as history in the decades after the last war, that failed to do so in a way that was either inclusive or, ultimately, responsible.

Its proponents, almost all of whom have been beneficiaries of an independent / grammar school / Oxbridge education include such redoubtable historians as Niall Ferguson, Nigel Biggar, Daniel Hannan and Simon Schama as well as popularists including Dan Snow, Dan Jones, Kate Williams and Bettany Hughes aided by a slew of columnists in the right wing press, think tanks and pressure groups.

In other words, for the last twenty years, we have been telling the British people what their history is from a very narrow bridgehead. It has been Their Island Story they have been telling.

The Whig interpretation of history, first popularized by Lord Macaulay’s seminal work, History of England published in 1848, became the stock history and basis of history teaching in schools for the next one hundred years. Two other books,? the History of England (1926)? written by his nephew, G.M Trevelyan, published in 1926 and HE Marshall’s Our Island Story,first published in 1905 and reprinted 100 years later, have kept the theme alive, that Britain was fortunate to be run by a cabal of landed aristocracy. It was the decision taken in 2005 to reprint H. E. Marshall’s ‘Our Island Story’ by the Right Wing Think tank Civitas, with copies paid for by readers of the staunchly right-wing newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, sent to all primary schools in Britain, that reignited the interest in having a common story. Written at the height of Empire, it was (Oxford alumni) David Cameron’s favourite childhood book and highlighted the mythology and history of early Britain, before venturing into more recent history with opinions and statements that are today highly contentious. It was of its time, but its time was not the 21st century.

Another of the best-selling books in 2004 was ‘The Pocket Book of Patriotism’, a 64 page collection of memorable dates and speeches from English History. Amongst all else, it included such unfiltered information as a list of the 88 colonies that had been part of the British Empire and the year they were acquired and noting events such as the Indian Mutiny (!), The Black Hole of Calcutta and Clive’s victory at Plassey without context or explanation. Written by Sherborne / Cambridge University alumni and City headhunter, George Courtauld, to provide the bones of a history syllabus for his sons, its popularity (it eventually sold over 400,000 copies) touched a nerve and demonstrated that the Whig view of history was still alive and well. For historians, however, it demonstrated just how difficult it is to examine history in the round when a product of a privileged British education is intent on promoting a national narrative that ignores the urgent need for a more balance, reflective and informed, history.?Founding myths and a national narrative are part of each country’s journey, but they have to be secure and not rely on, or promote, blind adherence.? We have just fallen behind in properly recognising and acknowledging ours. For as is often stated, history is contested knowledge and to properly recognise that fact, we have to knock down some of the barriers that are in the way.

This unashamedly? patriotic take on British history was also running through British politics. Old Etonians, Cameron, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson revelled in it while Michael Gove, as Minister of Education, became an unstinting proponent of a deeply patriotic chronological history utilising the language of persuasion, shaming those who disagree as unpatriotic and beating the drum for glories past – a reminder why historians should not be allowed to meddle with History.

It is what we have failed to teach ourselves and our children that has caused such a lack of understanding of where we are today. When George Orwell wrote in 1940 that

‘It is quite true that the English are hypocritical about their Empire. In the working class this hypocrisy takes the form of not knowing that the Empire exists.’???

The result of this state-determined ignorance was evident when migration started to increase from the old colonies in the 1950s and 1960s, immigrants who had long revered England and were knowledgeable about its history, found themselves the subject of hostility and racism fuelled by ignorance about the history of their links with Britain.? The failure to teach the story of Empire (and a good place to start would have been the title of Ian Sanjay Patel’s recent book ‘We’re Here Because You were There’), has had profound implications ever since so that today, schools are forced to play catch up, reacting to various movements and revelations about Black Lives Matter, slavery and religion by piecemeal soundbites. It didn’t have to be this way. Orwell wrote in 1940, that ‘Only half a million people, the people in the country houses definitely benefited from the existing system.’? He was referring to the fact that, in order to have a more inclusive history, we need to take heed of other cultures and ethnic groups, but also of the majority of British people who were excluded from the benefits of empire and whose stories have always been under-represented in our national narrative. With a little more transparency, a little less government interference and a more balanced view of history than world view espoused by those traditionalists amongst Oxbridge Academics and the privately educated – their island story – we might arrive at ours..

The imperial legacy of British education has been enduring. In New Zealand, until 1989, the only sixth form history course available to students was ‘Tudor-Stuart England.’? It has been a similar experience throughout countries of the old empire, in Nigeria and Kenya, in Hong Kong and India, in Canada and Australia, where British history provided the basis of history curricula until very recently, when former colonies started to reclaim their history. Britain was the Mother Country and when she went to war, or suffered hardship, the empire responded.

After the War, these same people who helped with the war effort returned, at our invitation, to help to rebuild Britain. Their story shouldn’t have had to wait to be told by the media in the wake of the Windrush scandal. We should have been taught about it. However, this can only happen if we give our children a little more context of our country’s place in the world. And patriotism, which is a personal feeling of allegiance, has no part in the teaching of History, although, of course, it can be a by-product. But trying to artificially build up a sense of patriotism by teaching a slanted or selective view of history, will not only fail, but will likely alienate those people whose histories are deliberately ignored.

Nor was that history that was peddled to the Empire in any way balanced.? It was a deeply sanitised history, more akin to a mythology, that was peddled round the empire, using nostalgia (for the colonisers), and grandeur and wealth (for the colonized) to promote Britain and the Empire. Very rarely was there anything taught that was even remotely critical of the ‘Mother Country’ nor anything that related to the history of Empire. Amritsar, for instance, was not mentioned, but the flawed mythology of the Black Hole of Calcutta was used to justify the Empire’s use of force in India. Instead, the curriculum was a pean to a more civilized, and prosperous world that was willing to embrace the indigenous peoples that fell under their yoke. Moreover, there was always an underlying theme? of compliance and obedience in the messaging and the curriculum.

What is damaging are the voices that label history. When Prime Minister, Liz Truss?commented?

“I won’t apologise for Britain or who we are as a nation and will stand up to people who talk down our country, our history and our values. I reject dehumanising identity politics, cancel culture and the voices of decline.”

It was as sentiment that resonated with many, particularly in the right of her party, but was itself an example of cancel culture by accusing historians going about their job as ‘voices of decline’ (she could equally have celebrated them for rounding out our view of history).?

When Philip Johnston (The Daily Telegraph – yes, again) ended his article about patriotism by describing our history as . . .

‘ . . . one in which we can all be proud, if we would only stand up to those who seek to trash it’?

. . .? he is talking about a history that is selective, nuanced and often misleading or wrong.? It is a history for the beneficiaries of empire. But history cannot be kept in the shadows, like a dirty secret. After all, you can’t “trash” history, only opinions about it.

Simon Heffer, (another Telegraph columnist / Oxbridge historian) also weighed in on the 9thSeptember arguing that

‘a combination of some of our more politically motivated universities and the BBC, which talks of little else left the public thinking that we have the most loathsome past imaginable.’?

They both should know better.? It is the job of historians to educate the public and not denigrate those who do so by pointing out omissions in our national story.? The shame and the negative reaction they feel, I would suggest, should be directed at those who have failed to do so and, worse, to push a history that those of a certain social, economic and political class agree with and benefit from. The failure to provide a broader, more inclusive history is what makes the public cynical about what they are being fed and leads to scaremongering and misinformation on all sides. If we have learned nothing else in the last twenty years, it is that the blinds are up.

Our history is not about pride or shame – it is what happened and should be seen in its proper context. What is shameful has been the failure to teach our history in the round and to use the subject as a tool. For too long, traditionalists and those wedded to the Whig view of history have had it all their own way, by promoting their view of history as the national narrative.?

In 2004, Richard Cairns, Headmaster of Brighton College (yet another Oxbridge Historian) made the commendable move to require all pupils to learn History up until the age of 18 years (the UK being one of the few countries to stop compulsory history at age 14 years). However, his ambition to make his student ‘proud to be British’? by imbuing them ‘with a sense of their history’? was misplaced. Pride (or shame) are not products of history unless someone makes them so. Of course, students need knowledge, but not selective knowledge relying on one methodology, one viewpoint. They also need to learn the skills of discrimination and analysis to recognise history as ‘contested knowledge’, but it should be taught objectively, without a national agenda – that (sadly) is for the politicians. But learning one’s history is nothing to do with being ashamed or embarrassed; it is about seeing our place in the world and evaluating what happened in the past from different vantage points to form a rounded and balanced view.? Teaching about our historic relationships with former colonies would help teach children tolerance and understanding. Teaching them about seeing history in its context and learning from it would help build our national identity, not harm it. That is what our curriculum has failed to do.

History cannot to be avoided even though it is often conflicted or weaponised. Of course, there are aspects of history anywhere that can appear to 21st century sensibilities as cruel and loathsome. But we have to see history in the round, see the context and learn from it. If our history had been confident enough to look outwards rather than inwards, to embrace the empire, the role of women, people of different backgrounds and genders, colours and religions, social class and political allegiance, and employ other methodologies, other approaches to our history we would be in a far healthier place. Historian William Dalrymple commented several years ago,

‘At the moment our imperial history is not taught in schools – our children go from Henry VIII to the Nazis, omitting that very interesting period in-between when we had the greatest empire the world had ever known’

Perhaps the public, today, is more aware of their past and conscious that some of their story has been censored. Certainly, changes have been made to curricula, in an attempt to be more inclusive. Perhaps they see that ‘Our Island Story’ that has been foisted on them is not the same as ‘Their Island Story.’ ?Perhaps we should celebrate that fewer people feel that being born in Britain is necessary to ‘feel British.’ Patriotism, the sense of belonging and sharing a common future should never be taken for granted and need to be encouraged by a proper, inclusive and reflective teaching of history, an acknowledgement of its impact and influence, and greater responsibility from a scaremongering and damaging right wing media. As George Orwell noted in his Essay, ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’,

‘patriotism has nothing to do with Conservatism. It is actually the opposite of Conservatism . . . .’???

Nor is it a by-product of a Whig or a Marxist view of history, or of any political persuasion – after all, all political parties are keen to own the narrative and claim to be the true defenders of the British people. Oxbridge historians, such as Sathnam Sanghera, Alan Lester or Francesca Beauman are no longer hide-bound traditionalists, although challenging the national narrative can bring its own dangers as Sathnam Sanghera found out after his books on Empire were published. ?We need to educate our children to blow away ignorance and prejudice.? And we need to stop cherry picking our history or trying to justify it – it can speak for itself – and be open to other views and interpretations by seeing our history as part of a wider world view. We also need to help our children understand the country they are living in by learning what has made the Britain of 2024. For patriotism to flourish, a little more honesty and transparency might be all that is needed.

?