Teaching Patriotism

I was reading a report on the teaching of patriotism in schools when my nine year-old walked in. The report, by Dr Michael Hand and Joanne Pearce of the Institute of Education, came to the notice of the media last week and generated a lengthy thread at Cif. Its conclusion is that "philosophically...the most defensible policy on patriotism in schools is to teach it as a controversial issue and, empirically, that this policy is a viable one." It adds that, "Recent calls by political leaders for the promotion of patriotism in schools lack a sound philosophical justification and run counter to the views of most teachers and pupils."

I asked my nine year-old, he being a school pupil, what he thought about patriotism. Did he, in fact, know what it was?

"No"

"Patriotism," I explained, "is the love you feel for your country. You know, the country you live in. Or, actually, it could be the one you were born in, which isn't always the same one. I suppose it's the country you feel you belong to. Complicated, eh?" More complicated to explain, indeed, that I'd anticipated when starting the conversation. "Which country do you think is your country?" I asked.

"England," he replied. "And Ireland."

"Why Ireland?"

"Because I go there a lot and because Mummy comes from Ireland."

"That's an interesting answer," I said. "Though, funnily enough, Mummy isn't exactly from Ireland. She was born in England. But she feels Irish because her mum and dad came from Ireland, so she was part of an Irish family. She's never actually lived there, either"

"Oh," replied my son, thinking this over. "But is Laura from Italy and Spain as well as from England?" Laura is his grown-up half-sister. She's lived in both those countries.

"Well, no," I explained. "Like I said, it's complicated."

He left the room. I went upstairs. There, I repeated the conversation to my wife. "Very interesting," she said. "But I suppose the Ireland I relate to is the old Ireland of my childhood in the Seventies; a place that was quite poor and I was always having to defend because of the bombing campaigns and everything. Now that's in the past, I suppose I have more of an affinity with this country."

Like I said, complicated. And a great subject for a classroom debate.

Comments

[Richard Madeley]

Normally patriotism isn't a bad thing until it's put in the hands of politicians. It's a tie that binds us together, like that old fashioned notion of 'community'. To the likes of Brown, both patriotism and community have become forms of emotional blackmail to force us into accepting another of their crazy new schemes.

[dannybrod]

Wonderful! My own kids, who have long grown and flown, could never give a toss even though I used to agonise over it. My old man was Irish and brought me up to think of myself as Irish, and like your wife Dave, I spent the 70s defending the Irish, traveling there as much as possible and being all anti-English. Then, sometime in the 90s, I realised that I was actually English and loved England and being English. My mum was English and was less bothered about it than my dad so we never really heard her side of it. What changed everything though was I got fed up with chippy Irishmen who were always banging on. During the World Cup of 2002 I was in Barcelona on my way to visit my mate who lives in the south of Spain. I watched the Irish play that game where Robbie Keane scored in the last minute and kept them in the tournament - can't remember who it was against. I was in a small bar, but after, going to meet someone who was putting me up overnight, I ran into some Irish boys in the metro. They were ecstatic and I wanted to share my enthusiasm. "But are you Irish?" they asked me. "Well, I'm half Irish," I told them. "So who do you support?" "England and Ireland," I said. "Ah, you can't do that...fuck off!" they said. Since then my Englishness has grown to outlandish proportions.

[Political Umpire]

Interesting stuff Dave and, as you say, complicated. George Orwell said this in 1941:

"All through the critical years many leftwingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British. It is questionable how much effect this had, but it certainly had some. If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were ‘decadent’ and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible."

I suppose the answer is that every country has been responsible for good and bad. Ireland's a good example. Cromwell and others did some unpleasant things to them over the years. But I was appalled recently watching Cathal O'Shannon's documentary on Ireland harbouring Nazi war criminals after the war. It was one thing (and not a good one) to be neutral during the war, quite another to be giving mass murderers sanctuary, which the Irish did, quite deliberately.

[peter]

I'm an Australian living in England for nearly two decades. But I'm of Irish-Catholic Australian stock, from a strongly republican (ie, anti-monarchical) family which like most such opposed Australia's participation in World War I, and was implicitly Irish-Republican (supporters of a united Ireland) through most of the XXth century. But, it turns out, we were sean-come-latelies to Catholicism, only converting after emigrating to Australia. Before that, we were staunchly-Protestant Ulstermen, whose ancestors had, indeed, been immigrant Scotsmen who had gone west, young man, across the Irish Sea.

So, I have Catholic and Protestant relatives sharing the same surname in Australia, Eire, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England (and, as it happens, the USA). Apart from supporting Australian sports teams and opposing the descendants of obscure, in-bred German princes ruling over us, national allegiance is not yet something I've really figured out for myself.

[Jane Henry]

Hi Dave, yes a fascinating debate for discussion. My eldest made the point only last week that she is a quarter German and has friends at school who are half French, Asian, African, and very few who are plain English, and how great it is to have that diversity.

I encountered alot of the Irish anti English feeling at my school in North London in the 80s, I was at fourteen unable to see how evidently beleagured they must have been feeling, but it did irritate me that they didn't have a decent thing to say about the country providing their parents with work and them with an education.

Having said that in a class of thirty there were only about five of us who could claim to be English through and through - and I didn't really count as I have some Irish in me - so I think we're all a bit muddled up probably.

It does seem to me that you owe a debt to the country of your birth, but roots are important for all of us, so if your ancestors hail from overseas then it is proper to acknowledge that too. What I don't like to see is people taking the good things from a country and putting nothing back, or denigrating the place they call home. If you don't like it that much, perhaps you should push off somewhere else.

I also think it is a pity that patriotism seems to be being confused with the worst kinds of jingoism, and the people from whatever thinktank it was who said that teachers and pupils alike didn't want to discuss patriotism, depressed me immensely. Love of your country does not inherently a bigot make.

I met a third generation Asian yesterday and she was immensely proud to be British.

And to me that says something about our nation whatever its faults. We do seem to have the capacity to welcome people of all cultures and creeds and make them feel at home here.

I was talking to a Polish woman recently who was astounded that I had such a diverse mix of ethnicity in my long ago school days - and yet to me it was quite normal, and the Poles/Italians/Irish/Asian/African girls I knew seemed to cope well with straddling two cultures. I think we should look at it in a more positive light. Other cultures bring a vibrancy and difference to our own, and we can share some of our good points with them.

Feeling patriotic is something I think we should be able to feel proud of, not ashamed about. But I agree, quite where our loyalties lie isn't always straightforward!

[littlejow]

interesting indeed - I get a whole load of abuse for supporting Wales in the rugby - I always have because Mum's welsh.
Saying that, she was born and raised in England, just has Welsh parents and a Welsh name.
So I guess I'm not Welsh at all.
Or am I...?

[An acky]

Political umpire i do not see how you can equate British crimes in Ireland with an allegation that Ireland may have harboured a few Nazis after WW2. Four hundred years considered, the British probably killed nearly as many people (in Ireland) as the Nazis did (everywhere) during WW2, and they had other colonies as well....

The Irish had no role in Nazi war crimes and on balance we exhibited greater support for the allies during that war, as for Europe itself it stood idly by and watched as Ireland's torment happened for 400 years, we didn't exactly owe them anything, did we, we certainly owed Britain nothing. Some Irish people who lived then might even have felt that a spell under German colonial occupation might have been of great service to Britain's arrogance.

[Tim Footman]

Perhaps people who support the 'promotion' of patriotism tend to be those for whom it isn't complicated: who have always lived in the country in the country where they were born, and where their parents and grandparents were born as well. Of course, other people can be patriotic, but it's rarely a simple, automatic response.

Add to this the questions posed by devolution (am I British or English?) and any notion of promoting patriotism without discussion or qualification sounds simplistic to the point of crassness.

[Dave]

@An acky "the British probably killed nearly as many people (in Ireland) as the Nazis did (everywhere)"

That is utter bollocks: you seriously propose that the rule of the English crown in Ireland killed more than 30 million people? Because that's what you're talking about. Extinguishing the entire population several times over, then presumably breeding them up [from what? test-tubes?] so they could do it again...

And let's not mention that for much of that '400 years' the people 'oppressing the Irish' were Irish themselves, by any definition that isn't crude ethno-nationalism. The place was a f*cking nightmare for human rights, as we define them now, but back then nobody did, and it certainly wasn't an ongoing genocide.

[Ed]

As a teacher, the idea of 'promoting' patriotism in schools strikes me as very silly idea. What on earth would it achieve? The conversation Dave summarises in his blog post above rather suggests that the whole idea of patriotism is so nebulous that to take it seriously as a subject worthy of being taught in schools as anything other than, at best, an absurdity, and, at worst, something grotesque, is ludicrous.

I would not wish to teach it (and how does one teach patriotism?) any more than I would wish to teach courses on astrology or alchemy. The only time that patriotism comes into my classroom is during those lessons which touch on the mass slaughter of the First World War. Siegfried Sasson and Wilfred Owen had something educational to say about it.

[Oliver Williams]

Interesting that whereas several contributors have explained what "patriotism" evokes for them in the context of personal and family histories where migration has taken place, only Tim Footman has come back to what the original article you read seems, politely, to have been about: the absurdity of a teaching programme promulgating "patriotism". But one that our present government is considering instigating.(I've just seen that Richard Madeley at the outset did make a similar point.)

[Political Umpire]

That's right An Acky, Ireland was quite justified in admitting the murderers of European Jews rather than European Jewish refugees themselves, because of ... what the English had done centuries ago. No wonder De Valera signed the book of condolences at the German Embassy for Hitler's death, and I'm sure he just forgot to do the one for Roosevelt ...

Er hang on, that doesn't quite work, does it?

[Jane Henry]

I think Tim Footman's point about patriotism being much less complicated for those whose families have mainly stayed in one place is interesting (though it doesn't quite hold true for my husband whose mother is German and is probably more patriotic then I am - but then I think she is too!). Scratch the surface of most people in Britain and such is the history of our shores you'll find most of us have some foreign blood mingling with our pureBrit stuff (I am being ironic I hope you all realise). I tend to think of myself as English/British mainly, brought up here with English/Brit parents, and three English grandparents. But I also have an Irish grandparent, and some Welsh somewhere, and lots of Scots, and oh a bit of exotic polish ballet dancer somehwere in the background thrown in. I am sure it is the same for most of us, which is why I have always found the stance of the BNP so absurd.
I do think there is nothing wrong in loving the country of your birth (or the country of your choice for that matter, should you move), warts and all, and I think it is a shame the notion of patriotism has become somewhat belittled.

I do take the point that abstract discussions of patriotism in the classroom/having patriotism lessons probably aren't the way to go. Like everything it should be taught in context. Teaching it by way of Sassoon and Owen is one way of doing it, or if as I presume happens in PHSE in secondary schools there is discussion of what we are doing in Iraq etc, it would be a suitable topic for discussion then.

As to the comments about Ireland and the Nazis, I would not dispute at all the UK's involvement in Irish politics has not always been happy and often very bloody, but it certainly doesn't excuse the Irish government harbouring criminals from a regime who perpetrated mass murder of its own citizenry on a scale that still defies belief. Am I being dense here, what precisely had the Jews to do with the Irish Question?

[Political Umpire]

It's rather off the topic, but I am interested in Ed's comment: "The only time that patriotism comes into my classroom is during those lessons which touch on the mass slaughter of the First World War. Siegfried Sasson and Wilfred Owen had something educational to say about it."

As a blogging friend of mine once remarked: "I am not about to disparage the importance of Wilfred Owen to literature, because he was a really great poet, but I do consider using poetry as a basis for the conduct and history of war as quite incorrect. War poetry is after all, only one man’s reflections of his own experiences and does not reflect the historical reality.

There is no doubt that the war poets of the Great War, especially Owen, have played a crucial role in how that war is now perceived. Owen’s view of the futility of the war and his language, “these who die as cattle”, are very emotive

... From a historical perspective the war poets of the Great War are not accurate. They romanticise and ‘glory’ in their despair and purport to speak for all those involved. They make no account of the political and military realities of the war or the difficult and onerous decisions, often out of necessity, that were made, and none of which were made without due concern to those who would be affected."

Off the topic, sorry. But there is no doubt that the likes of Owen and the horrors of war have done for patriotism in this country, to a sizeable extent. Maybe that's no bad thing. But it is an interesting subject, is it not? Perhaps Ed's real objection is to the _promotion_ of it, and I wouldn't entirely disagree, though I wouldn't base that on the war poets.

[An Acky]

Dave

If you factor in deaths caused by Malthusian solutions to an unwanted Irish Catholic population (see famine) and if you factor in instances of genocide (eg Cromwell, 1798) forced emigration (Cromwell, Australian penal colonies, mid 19thC famine emigration) the number does go into the millions, but you are right in a sense, the numbers do not compare to Nazi actions - yet still drawing moral equivalency between these events and allowing a few suspected Nazis to live in the country is outrageous, they might have been 'good' nazis too.

As for the Irish oppressing themselves, in a sense - in the beginning - you are right. The Gaelic Irish nobles fought each other and made alliances with England during the Tudor period, they seemed capable of anything except uniting (they believed the insular period was still going on!) and so Irish leadership during that period was poor for Irish people. One of the things an occupying power does is turn one side against the other, not just Protestant V Catholic but Catholic V Catholic and many Irish leaders made it easy.

@Political Umpire"because of ... what the English had done centuries ago. No wonder De Valera signed the book of condolences at the German Embassy for Hitler's death, and I'm sure he just forgot to do the one for Roosevelt ..."

At that time the War Of Independance was still fresh in the memory, possibly the famine too, hardly centuries. Also, Ireland can claim that we deported no Jews to the Nazis, unlike Britain (Jersey island). When are the allies going to own up to the allowed deaths of millions of surrendered Germans immediately post-war? You might find that most of them were not Nazis, just ordinary soldiers caught up in something beyond their ability to control. I do admit however that when he ran out of Jews and Gypsies etc Hitler would have gotten around to other non-Nordic populations eventually, certainly the Pavee here in Ireland would have been butchered.

[Political umpire]

1. You write as though Britain was the only country Germany was fighting. In fact the British were a tiny minority of those oppressed by the Nazis. Signing Hitler's book was a snub to the Brits, but millions of others too.

2. O'Shannon's programme showed how some mass murderers were welcomed in Ireland, not just ordinary soldiers.

3. Ireland didn't export Jews, but it didn't let any Jewish refugees in either.

[Ed]

Political Umpire - yes, you're right. I suppose I broadly agree with the findings of Hand and Pearce.

Perhaps you won't be surprised to know that I completely disagree with your (or your friend's) views about the Great War poets. I fail to see how the (all too real) experiences of these men in the trenches were somehow less real than the political and strategic 'realities' of the war. It was, surely, the brute (and brutal) reality of life and death in the trenches that drove these poets to produce their work and which animated their contempt for the men making the 'tough decisions' well away from the bullets and the bombs (and no doubt their contempt for that whole platitudinous discourse of 'tough decisions' and political/military 'realities' that you appeal to above).

I'm afraid your statement that "They romanticise and ‘glory’ in their despair and purport to speak for all those involved" borders on the offensive. These were not teenagers wallowing in self-pity. They saw their friends and peers dying in various horrible ways in a war they considered (or came to consider) stupid. It seems to me that a certain amount of upset and anger on their part was wholly reasonable.

'... From a historical perspective the war poets of the Great War are not accurate.' What does that mean? From whose historical perspective? You mean they are not accurate from the perspective of History? They fail to see the wider picture. So did Anne Frank. Perhaps her experiences were are not accurate from the perspective of history. Perhaps no human suffering has any significance at all. Especially when we factor in the perspective of the powerful as something of over-riding significance ... sorry, factor in the 'historical realities'.

Hope this doesn't sound rude, by the way, Political Umpire. It's not meant to.

[Political umpire]

No problem Ed, I don't think there's any point being thin skinned about these things. Those were the comments of a friend, rather than mine, but I did do a series of blogs about the Great War (there's a link to them all here: http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com/2008/01/ww1-experiences-of-english-soldier.html
)

I won't repeat it all here for obvious reasons (though am always looking for different perspectives, so please comment on any/all of them):

1. "well away from the bombs" Four British lieutenant generals, twelve major generals and eighty-one brigadier generals died or were killed during the Great War. A further 146 were wounded or taken prisoner. These are not statistics associated with out of touch toffs avoiding the front.

2. "They fail to see the wider picture. So did Anne Frank." Fatuous comparison, extremely offensive too. The British commanders of Owen et al were trying desperately to win a war they didn't start, by whatever means possible. They were not the callous butchers of legend. Those responsible for Anne Frank's death, by comparison, were mass murdering genocidal lunatics. There is no comparison at all and it's a disgrace to draw one.

[a very public sociologist]

I'd love to know the content of these lessons. I can imagine there will be lots of nice things about multiculturalism and the second world war, but what of other aspects of our heritage? Indeed, how would it deal with the thorny subject of Ireland?

[Trofim]

I’ve tried explaining to Russians that there is no equivalent for “rodina” in English. Fatherland – no, connotations of the Nazis. Motherland? – not quite so bad, but redolent of the USSR. Homeland? No. And it’s even worse trying to explain that in England it’s not quite the done thing to be proud of one’s country, which to Russians is incomprehensible and bizarre. I find it exhilarating when I am amongst a people who know who they are and where they came from, and whilst recognising their country’s shortcomings, are, nevertheless, proud to belong to it.

[peter]

Perhaps the English are not proud of their country because for a millenium the ruling class has been comprised of foreigners -- Vikings pretending-to-be-Norman invadors, Welsh tudors, Scots claimants, Dutch stadtholders, and then German princelings -- a succession of non-doms with one foot in England, another foot in their country of birth, and their wealth somewhere offshore. Has any other country outsourced its ruling classes for so long?

[Jane Henry]

That is such a good point Peter. We are the country of non doms. I like that. I think it can be a strength too, because we are also very suspicious of our leaders. A good national character trait in a country where civil liberties seem ever more under threat