Letter - Ironic situation on our nationality
I don’t quite know how or when it happened, but at some point in the last 30 years, common sense in this country got turned on its head.
I don’t quite know how or when it happened, but at some point in the last 30 years, common sense in this country got turned on its head.
Thus, we now have the most perverse situation where the vast majority of our children have no idea what the first verse of the National Anthem is or who Winston Churchill was, because the PC brigade would have it that such knowledge is too subversive for young minds and might promote a dangerous nationalism.
On the other hand, new government proposals would ensure that all future immigrants to the UK have a comprehensive knowledge of our history and culture before they’re allowed in because they won’t otherwise be able to integrate properly.
The irony is mind-boggling.
Bob Jenkins, Stirchley
Comments for: "Letter - Ironic situation on our nationality"
Wenlock Un
I do agree that forcing immigrants to learn British history is ironic when we don't ourselves, but I don't see why the failure to teach the National Anthem or who Winston Churchill was is being PC? They are just not considered by parents as a necessity for our youngsters in today's world, who we hope will look to the future not the past.
These are as you state, history and knowing them doesn't make you a better member of society or any more a 'Briton'. It's just a perception of value that you personally hold. If we were teaching the political behaviours of Churchill and the economic results of having the monarchy then yes, but the glorification of war and forced adoration towards an unelected person is outdated and shouldn't be imposed on our youngsters.
How has knowing the national anthem enhanced your life/career?
Andrew finch
Look to the future yes of course but surely our History should include winston churchill the leader of this country during the second world war ? if you teach the children about the holocaust then they must know the names of most of those involved who brought about the down fall of hitler and the natzis?.
Just because past history is not relevant now why exclude children from broadening their minds and have a knowledge of all things .
A good example was on a quiz show the other week two adults aged mid 20,s were asked a history question on world leaders and they could go back not go back any further than kennedy and thought he was shot in the late sixties or was it early 70,s?.
Why limit knowledge just to the last 20 years ? or what as a country we were guilty of ? because that is what it seems to have become we teach about the victims only.
davi
I was saddened by this comment which fails to recognise an eternal truth- those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course young people look to the future as they always have - but to deny them the knowledge of how we reached the current state of civilisation is to fail them. A history of the second world war is not about imposing a view of the world - it is about how people just like us only 80 years ago sleep walked into Hitler's Germany. How can we say never again if our young people don't even know it happened? Civilisation is always under threat from those who would exploit power. To miss this out from education because it is not considered a neccesity in today's world is a dangerously blinkered view.
It is vital that young people both learn from and respect the past, both of the good developments such as within medicine and of the bad so that they can make informed decisions - knowledge is power may be a cliche but it is so true.
Wenlock Un
Davi,
Please don't be saddened. Within my comment you'll see that I state "if we were teaching the political behaviours of Churchill" (and others for that matter!)then I'd agree, but lets be honest our teaching of Churchill focusses on the glorification of his v for victory, to such extent that many of my generation learned only as much as to 'hate the Germans because we beat them in the war'.
My point was that our children have the mobility to allow them think beyond 'Great' Britain and not be constrained by our historic themes of national identity, be it in politics, the monarchy or religion. They will look at WWII and all history from their own perspectives and are not being fed a nationalistic story. And I call that progress.
Ken Adams
The problem is we are told that it is important for those children from ethnic minorities to understand their own history to aid the development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values.
It would seem to me that you are taking a particular view of the teaching of history which you claim is progressive, however as is often the case this political correct argument contains a flaw when they also want to diminish the historic values of the host nation.
If it is progressive for children of immigrant minorities to understand their history cultural identity and values why is it also progressive to diminish the hosts understanding of their historic themes of national identity, cultural identity and values, there is a dichotomy of ideas in this argument.
Wenlock Un
Ken,
MY opinion is consistent across all cultures and ethnicities, I don't buy into the 'them and us' concept, but the examples quoted are from the original writer and do apply to me/my children personally.
History should be taught/explained based on facts with impartiality, to allow our youngsters to form their own objective opinions and not be biased by our traditional beliefs/direction.
I think from the responses on this thread, it can be seen there is not a common view of these subjects in British adults today, so why expect a restricted teaching perspective for our children?
Ken Adams
I agree YOU are merely putting the view of one side of the equation, hence you would not perhaps agree with those who put the other; that it is important for those children from ethnic minorities to understand their own history to aid the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values.
I do not mean to say You are offering a duality in your argument, only taken as a whole these arguments are not consistent. So perhaps we should dispense with the view that it is important for ethnic minorities to understand their historic values and cultural identity.
Katherine de Gama
@davi - re not learning from the past.... I would like children to know about the history of this country's engagement with Afganistan.
towbar
Irrelevant.Unless You teach them that the starving Afghans have the land to grow food for themselves but prefer to grow Opium poppies instead for conversion into Heroin, the countries only export,and that 91% of all Heroin in the West originates there ?
John Howard
"the vast majority of our children have no idea what the first verse of the National Anthem is"
It shouldn't be difficult as it's just a repetetive dirge asking God to save the Queen. It has to be the most boring national anthem in the world. If we had something stirring like the French or Italian one the kids might find it more memorable,
Because we've allowed the Union Jack to symbolise the National Front and St George's cross to be the logo for the football team there is no respect for our flag either.
Andy
The union jack symbolises the national front?
Are you still fighting the cold war, comrade?
Katherine de Gama
I think that repellent association remans for many of us.f
Telford Tez
I think that the recent Royal ocassions such as the Royal Wedding, Jubilee and even the Olympics build up, have finaly put paid to the Union Jacks hijacking by the National Front. There is nothing wrong with patriotism it doesn't mean your racist, just that your proud and believe in something. That something might be your Queen, Country, Football team or Olympic team. It is good to believe and certainly does not make you racist.
Vitruvian
Looks like a vague rant to me, but anything including the phrase "PC Brigade" triggers that alarm.
I would like to see some factual basis for these claims.
The Original Jake
Forcing people to learn and retain tedious facts and lacklustre dirges doesn't impart 'Britishness'; it's simply a test of commitment to separate those with genuine intent from casual freeloaders. There's no requirement to retain any of the knowledge once they're in.
adam
@ Bob Jenkins
<i>Thus, we now have the most perverse situation where the vast majority of our children have no idea what the first verse of the National Anthem is or who Winston Churchill was, because the PC brigade would have it that such knowledge is too subversive for young minds and might promote a dangerous nationalism</i>
I have rarely read such rubbish. I think there's much to be said for constantly looking at what we teach about history and citizenship, evaluating what seems to be working (however we define that).
However, the idea that there is some conspiracy out there banning 'subversive information' is complete nonsense.
Watchdog
Lord Halifax probably responded in much the same way to Churchill's "poppycock" regarding Mr Hitler - but he was right, wasn't he?
adam
Yes. And this is wrong. "They laughed at Galileo didn't they" Yeah, they did, and they were wrong, but they took Newton seriously when he spent most of his life writing about alchemy and magic and they were right to laugh then.
<i>"The vast majority of our children have no idea what the first verse of the National Anthem is"</i>
I completely disagree - and I'm a teacher, working with young people all of the time. Ask them to sign the national anthem and they can all sing it - in a big mixed race inner city comp. I know this is just anecdote and I'm happy to consider your evidence but I think this is simply wrong.
<i>"or who Winston Churchill was"</i>
Students spend a lot of their history study looking at second world war history - often through looking at the Nazis but unavoidably also about us. Again, I'm happy to hear your evidence about this but from my experience I completely disagree. I think Churchill is an iconic figure and people know who he is.
<i>"because the PC brigade would have it that such knowledge is too subversive for young minds and might promote a dangerous nationalism"</i>
Urban mythology and complete nonsense. I'm happy to look at evidence you can point me at. I recommend Ed Sturton's book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-PC-World-Politically-Correct/dp/0340954876/ref=tmm_pap_title_0" rel="nofollow"> 'It's A PC World"</a> which is a really good look at this history and mythology of political correctness.
adam
Stourton, not Storton. Apologies for the typo.
adam
Oh god, there are typos in my apology for making typos. At least I've noticed, I suppose. I'll get my coat.
Watchdog
Very reassuring, Adam. Thanks for the book tip.
Colin.Dodd.
When I first had to learn the national anthem, in primary school, I was very curious as to what it was that the King needed saving from. When I asked the teacher, she told me not to be silly, so I was left to grow up in ignorance of the threat to successive monarchs, and I'm sure this has contributed to my lack of development.
Another puzzle was, what on earth would the King/Queen do with all the plums we were asking to be sent to her. "Send her Victorias" we sang. There must have been loads of pies at the palace.
towbar
Don't You mean PLUMS Colin ??
ian
Much of our past has little to recommend it.Vast poverty,imperialism the aristocracy the monarchy to name but a few blots on our past.Its true that we have produced great minds and many inventions but we should be proud mostly of our acheivments after WW2.The Nhs welfare good housing and food for the majority,opportunities for working people unheard of before.These are things we should be made aware of and to value above all else.Still rampant imperialism in the middle east tho.
Ian Francis
Just done a quick straw poll in the office. Most of those in their 20s only know the first LINE of the National Anthem, never mind the whole verse.
Has ANYONE committed all this to memory?
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen!
O lord God arise,
Scatter our enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their knavish tricks,
Confuse their politics,
On you our hopes we fix,
God save the Queen!
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world ov'er
From every latent foe,
From the assasins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign!
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!
1066 and all that
i was lucky to be educated when churchill was a peacetime prime minister, but surely history evolves and is not helped by government constantly changing the curriculum.
in the 1950,s it was a pleasure to study geography and history, but i do not recall being taught much about ww1 and ww2. modern overseas activities involving the british included aden, malaya, mau mau in kenya and exploding h bombs in australia.
our history lessons were dates of kings , battles and a certain captain jenkins ear. oh and the french revolution was taught as well
as for the royal anthem it is a boring dirge and should be replaced by land of hope and glory or rule btittannia, although this may not go down too well with our newly joined british.
so i say hurrah for history, each to their own and leave the curriculum alone, gove. we do have a deficit and a barclays bank to deal with
Roger
The question of the day is what should we teach our children and how shall we test their knowledge.
Where does history fit into that equation and what is history? History is a growth industry, more is created every day and as communications improve the history of other peoples is becoming more and more important. When do current affairs get old enough to be become history? What were the issues of the First and Second World wars that made them historic? What were the lessons learnt?
So history can become the biggest subject of all, but it won't help you get a job. History is in the ambit of the academic world where a small number of people need to learn study and interpret it the rest us. What we the general population need is a short hand appreciation of the major events and the knowledge of where to look for the facts when you need them.
From some of the stuff brought home by my granddaughter I have some serious concerns on what they are being taught. A recent music homework asked What is apartheid. How would you feel to be black in Africa? And how would you feel to be white in Africa. This was music referring to Africa not the RSA and without preparation. So I ask myself what is an eleven year old supposed to know about apartheid and why the question is wrong if applied to Africa not the RSA, it worries me.
Recent debates in these comments on various subjects serve to prove that anything over thirty years old is lost in time and biased opinions whilst the main facts are forgotten unless prompted.
shaun
God save the queen, fascist regime, they made you a moron , potential h bomb...........
Town Walls
'A vast majority' of children don't know the National Anthem?
Yes, if you only asked the under fives, I suppose that this might be plausible, but otherwise it sounds like you have just made it up.
Watchdog
Funny that. I've just conducted a straw poll amongst my colleagues, just as Ian did (post 8) and got exactly the same result. No-one knew the full verse. Try it yourself?
Watchdog
I've just done the same as Ian (post 8) and found exactly the same result. Why don't you try it?
James
No reason whatever to disbelieve you, though I guess there are questions to be asked about the sample of respondants. It's surprising, though.
What conclusions do you draw? I can think of a few ;
1. We don't have a national anthem people feel an identity with. After all, God Save the Queen is barely about the country as such.
2. Increasing apathy about the monarchy and songs celebrating it.
3. It's difficult to recall whole verses of songs when you're put on the spot and required to do so.
4. England's footballers, most of whom sang lustily along before every game at Euro 2012, are unrepresentative of the rest of the nation. Not that it did them an awful lot of good.
Nigel
How do you know that the vast majority of children don't know who Winston Churchill is?
And even if it is true, how do you know this is down to the mythical 'PC Brigade'?
More likely it's down to the fact that a certain percentage of children come from homes where education is not valued or encouraged, and they take this attitude into school.
Then there's the all pervasive consumerism in our society that continually sends the message that acquiring the latest MP3 player or trainers is the meaning of life.
Still, mustn't interfere with the 'dynamism' of the market that is so beneficial for us all.
In that context, Churchill becomes irrelevant.
How deluded do you have to be to think the imaginary PC brigade are suppressing support for the monarchy?
We've just had wall to wall coverage of a 4-day Jubilee celebration!
Yep, that dastardly PC brigade, no one dare sing God Save the Queen these days for fear of being branded a dangerous nationalist.
I must have imagined all that fawning and hours of TV devoted to damn near deifying the Queen just a couple of weeks or so back!
There's not a shred of fact to back up this letter.
Children should be advised to critically evaluate the national anthem, not learn it off by heart and unquestioningly accept that there is a God, and one we should beg to favour our country and our Queen above all other people who live in this country.
In my opinion, it's a load of deferential drivel that belongs to another age.
There is nothing inspirational or stirring about it.
Things will probably never be traditional and reverential enough for the Bob Jenkins of this world!
Roger
I think the teaching of history should be relevant to what's happening today. Issues such as the development of London as a financial centre, balanced with the "South Sea Bubble" might give today's events some meaning. How the great depression of the twenties came about, and how we got out of it. The rise of Hitler in the interwar period would be interesting. How austerity imposed on the Germans opened up the opportunity for extreme politics and politicians and where that led. (BNP & UKIP). Or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire as related to the British Empire. Of course the balance of what we teach and when will always change to match the situation. By making it relevant we might just get our kids to understand the problems of the day instead of the blank expressions we get and the ignorance which is only replaced by common sense as the kids become adults and try to make sense of what is happening to them and why. We give them a vote at 18 but do we educate them to be able to use it wisely. The current political motivation of our youth can best be described as apathy. Luckily most of them do not vote because they see the options as all the same and nothing to do with them because it changes nothing.
Watchdog
Now that's what I call a "rant".
Watchdog
Agree completely with the comments regarding the lack of appreciation for education and also with the corrosiveness of consumerism on personal and social aspirations. It turned into a "frothing at the mouth" rant thereafter and I lost interest.
Tyrone Shoelaces
A couple of things to start with, I am a Royalist and an expat (USA - nearly 20 years), and yesterday was Independence Day - a celebration of all things American.
Watching fireworks accompanied by music (or vice versa) it struck me how many songs there are here about the joys of living "free" in a "beautiful' country - the " " are mine as many people might disagree.
The songs are not about the president but about living life and enjoying it in a country most people that live here, love. They are not sung by old fogies but by young and popular artists.
What does the UK have? Every couple of years some football anthems are rolled out before the World Cup or Euro's - not good enough.
Anyone up to the challenge? Something relevant to recognise Britishness and Britain. Not the monarchy, not years of naval dominance .... just Britain.
Ooops, sorry I forgot. Everyone is too busy being critical.
Katherine de Gama
@ Tyrone - yes the bard of New Jersy, Spingsteen, packs out arenas with his tales of despair, redemption and the triumph of the human spirit. There's nothing like it in the UK.r
JOHN JONES
Tyrone Shoelaces A Celebration of all things American; Yes I have been to you country on the day and was very impressed.Excluding the monarchy, there is not much to celebrate in England, even the Scots and the Welsh don't want us, We are afraid to show our identity in fear of being caled a racist.
Katherine de Gama
@ Towbar re Afganistan.. I refer to Britain's futile waste of youth in that place which goes back a very long way. Btw I draw on oral as well as written history. I'm from a raj family. My great aunt was a surgeon on the NW frontier. She told a tale or two!
sordid
Bob Jenkins seem to forget Churchill's imperial atrocities across the globe:
In 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused by the imperial policies of Britain. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.
When the Kurds rebelled against British rule, Churchill said "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...It would spread a lively terror". Ironic when you think of the what happened to Saddam for doing the same thing.
It was Churchill who created concentration camps in South Africa, for white Boers. The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were also put into British camps (14,000 died) he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men".
Ken Adams
What load of baloney, Churchill was a 25 year old War correspondent during the second Boer war was captured and escaped, no way was he responsible for the concentration camps.
In 1943 Churchill was fighting a war with the Germans and the Japanese we were all short of food and it was rationed, there was famine in Greece, and it would have have taken too long for any spare supplies we might have had to reach the area.
You selectivity quote Churchill’s position in 1919 with regard to gas.
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." From Wiki “Alleged British use of gas in Mesopotamia in 1920”
sordid
Quoting from Wikipedia immediately renders your reply redundant. A quick internet search will easily clarify what I wrote.
Ken Adams
So Wiki is wrong? that was not the full War Office minute of 12 May 1919, including the form of words you selected.
Churchill was not a 25 year old war correspondent in 1899 was taken prisoner and escaped, that was just a myth instead was he in charge of the British army and pioneered the concentration camps.
We were not at war with Germany and Japan in 1943, Burma had not just been overrun by the Japanese and were expected to invade India? Instead we had a surplice of food and lots of ships an open seaway, no German U boats, no Japanese air craft carriers to hamper our shipping, it was just that Churchill just decided out of spite not to aide the Indian government.
Talk about rewriting history and all you can say is don’t trust Wiki, come on you have to be able to do better than that.
Ken Adams
"surplus" sorry
Telford Tez
I cant believe that my daughter was in her final year in senior school and in history lessons they had to study 'The American Wild West'. What's that all about. I cant believe they ran out of English History when they hadn't studied the industrial revolution, WW2 and lot of other periods I covered at school 30 or so years ago.
Roger
I think the Wild West is very relevant. The biggest land grab in history with the oppression of the natives to steal their resources. The birth place of the American entrepreneurial spirit. The right, or necessity, carry arms to defend against rebellion, and enforce subjugation. Where did these settlers come from and why? Some might argue that the invasion of immigrants could be good or bad but it certainly changes the social landscape - discuss?
Very relevant to the UK today, more so than the rule of the Williams though the Georges might be more interesting. It must be considered that the American rebelion was the bith of the national debt and the Bank of England and the emmergence of how Jewish Bankers came to dominate the control of central banks world wide.
If you don't look afer the common man it will come back to bite you on the bum.