There has been a
lot of fuss this week about the fact that a piece of graffiti on a wall near
Aberystwyth was vandalised by someone painting a different piece of graffiti
over it and has subsequently been restored by a group of young people who have
attempted to replicate the original graffiti.
No doubt some will be offended by my referring to the original as
graffiti at all: it is, as they see it, a commemoration of a significant event
in modern Welsh history. And actually, I
agree with them and am pleased that those local young people have restored the message
- but I’m being deliberately provocative because there is an important point
here.
It isn’t just the
superficially obvious one about who decides what is or is not graffiti and/or
vandalism. Not that that point isn’t
important in itself, of course; like it or not (and for the avoidance of doubt,
I don’t), Elvis really is more significant in the lives of some Welsh people
than Tryweryn. I might, like many
others, see Tryweryn as a hugely significant event in our modern history as a
nation; but I also recognise the work which the possessive pronoun is doing
there. ‘Our’, just in the use of the
word, presupposes a great deal, and I’m not sure that that is being
widely-enough recognised. There's rather more to making something truly part of the history of all of us than painting a message on a wall.
And that’s the
underlying point that I want to come to.
The disrespect shown to what many of us regard as a memorial, albeit a
completely unofficial one, has led to calls for people to be taught more about
‘our’ history. The problem is that
history isn’t just a series of events – any ‘history’ requires events to be
selected or discarded; given a significance on a scale in relation to other
events, and above all, interpreted. And
who makes all those decisions, none of which is entirely objective or
impartial? I am always concerned about
politicians – of any hue – demanding that pupils be taught ‘our’ history; they
invariably mean that they want their own take on history to be taught. Like most people, I suppose, I don’t have a
problem if politicians with whom I agree are selecting a version of history
which I like; but when politicians with whom I disagree choose a rather
different version, we can end up with situations like this
one. I remember the old story about
the Soviet historian who allegedly said that “In our country, only the future is certain – the past is always
changing”. There’s something very
Orwellian about politicians redefining history to suit the needs of the present,
but continuing redefinition and reinterpretation is a normal part of developing
history.
That there is a
need for a better awareness of history, I don’t doubt. But it isn’t just in Wales – one of the
things which Brexit has revealed to be rampant in certain sections of society
(even among elected politicians) is an over-simplistic understanding of the
complex relationships between these islands and our continental neighbours
(which for many apparently is all about the inherent German desire to dominate
and the plucky English single-handedly defeating them). It’s true that we all need to know more about
our past, and that knowing the past is a key element of understanding who we
are and how we got here, but it’s as naïve to believe that there is only one
way of understanding that past as it is to believe that there’s only one way of
being Welsh. I’m no more a fan of Elvis
than I am of Edward I – but they both fit somewhere in what we are today. Deciding what to teach as ‘history’ is far
from being as simple as some might suggest - and teaching dates and events without context and interpretation is unlikely to make much difference to anything.
Posts
2 comments:
I think you make a rather common mistake here, you assume that just because something is taught it needs to be regarded as something important or something that cannot be challenged. This is a mistake many teachers also make.
We need to educate our youngsters to appreciate that everything should, can and must be challenged. Just because something was found to be true today does not mean that by tomorrow it cannot be found wanting. This is a key element in schools outside the state system but sadly lacking within.
I think part of the problem we have here in Wales is 'fessing up' to the realisation that once we start to challenge fundamental things we have always assumed true, let's take a couple of historical examples, English aggression in the Middle Ages or the importance of the Welsh language, we might well find that the entire house comes crashing down.
Are we really ready to start re-building?
"...you assume that just because something is taught it needs to be regarded as something important or something that cannot be challenged" Do I? Where did I say that? You're making an assumption about what I think here which is a long way wide of the mark.
And actually, I agree, in general, with "We need to educate our youngsters to appreciate that everything should, can and must be challenged. Just because something was found to be true today does not mean that by tomorrow it cannot be found wanting.", although not with "This is a key element in schools outside the state system" which, unless you have some evidence to support it, looks like an assertion of your own prejudice against state schools.
When you refer to "fundamental things we have always assumed true" you give examples which suit your own prejudices and priors; I would give alternative examples which suit my prejudices and priors. When it comes to 'history' and especially 'our' history, that was precisely the point that I was making - these things are not (and can never be) entirely objective. Which leaves the question - who decides and on what basis? Anybody who thinks there's a simple answer to that one probably hasn't given it enough consideration.
Post a Comment