Monday, 15 June 2020

Avoiding oversimplification


The current debate about statues and symbols is in some ways superficial; it’s not the statues and symbols themselves which cause the problem but the things being symbolised and commemorated. It’s a debate about what constitutes our history, and that doesn’t only apply to the current controversy about slave traders and the pros and cons of the British Empire. The issue about the teaching of Welsh history in schools has some parallels. It isn’t about teaching ‘Welsh’ history at all – it’s about the clash between different understandings of what ‘Welsh’ history is. There isn’t a single, correct version of Welsh history any more than there is a single, correct version of British history – all history is written from a viewpoint.
Whether our national story is one of joining with our neighbours to create an entity whose sum is bigger than the parts or one of a small nation subjugated and exploited by a larger nation is more to do with perspective than with fact. At a factual level, both contain a degree of ‘truth’. There’s no doubt at all that the incorporation of Wales into England was a result of a bloody military conquest rather than a voluntary union, but neither is there any doubt that many Welsh people became enthusiastic supporters of, and participants in, British imperialism the world over. Some Welsh people chose to protect and promote the native language and culture whilst others enthusiastically seized opportunities for self-progression in the English court and parliament and actively promoted the project of ‘Britain’. At different times and in different circumstances different people have followed different paths – all those paths are part of our history, part of what makes us what we are today, whether we like it or not; we can’t pretend that the Empire was somehow nothing to do with us. The facts are the same, but the stories we tell ourselves are inevitably partial and biased – as they are for all other nations. The relationship between identity and history is complex and circular; our sense of identity shapes our understanding of history and our understanding of history shapes our identity.
Our understanding of history should always be changing, not least because values and perspectives change. It often seems as though the defining event in history, from an English perspective, is what they usually refer to as ‘the last war’ (ignoring all those other wars in which they’ve taken part since), but it strikes me that the fall of the British Empire (itself in part a consequence of that same war) has much more long term significance (although it may be another century or two before they fully realise that). People tend to forget that it was the British Empire, not the UK, which declared war on Germany in 1939, and whilst the immediate reasons for the conflict are generally simplified, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the desire to preserve that empire. England is still struggling to come to terms with the end of its empire and what that means for its understanding of itself (which is one of the major causes of Brexit). It should be no surprise that we in Wales also struggle to reach a common understanding of our own history. My problem with the calls to teach more Welsh history in schools isn’t that I disagree with it. I completely agree, I’m just not entirely sure that there is sufficient agreement about what it means in practice. I want a nuanced version of Welsh history taught – one that also explains what history is and why there are different interpretations rather than merely covering what will inevitably be a selection (selected by whom?) of historical facts and events.
History can’t simply be decided by a majority at a point in time, let alone by governments and politicians. Yet it often seems – in Wales as in England – that the latter group are demanding that ‘their’ version of history be the sole orthodox version. Aping England by simply swapping an orthodox ‘British’ history for an orthodox ‘Welsh’ history is not enough. A mature and confident nation should be able to look at the totality of its history, warts and all. The long-term failure of the British educational system to facilitate that sort of understanding displays both arrogance and exceptionalism on the one hand and a surprising lack of confidence on the other. It has a lot to answer for, and not just in the way it fosters a bizarre attachment to symbols and statues. Whatever they say, that attachment isn’t about learning history, it’s about avoiding much of that history. Wales can and should do better than replicating that approach.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

An excellent post and a thoroughly enjoyable and thoughtful read.

The history I worry about is the 'history' passed down from parent (or grandparent) to offspring. It is this history that so often ends up being willfully destructive and downright dangerous.

Education is the key, it always has been and it always will be. We do so need to improve lifelong education for all.


dafis said...

You say ......."that ‘their’ version of history be the sole orthodox version. Aping England by simply swapping an orthodox ‘British’ history for an orthodox ‘Welsh’ history is not enough. A mature and confident nation should be able to look at the totality of its history, warts and all."

No argument with that. However we must ensure that it's not just a warts and all approach as we may find that one man's wart is another man's beauty spot ! It is about the enabling of a rational discussion insofar as information is retrievable. Sadly but not to my surprise dear old Boris will prefer a singular orthodoxy when it comes to any aspect of Brit history. More surprising is the growth of reliance on and adherence to the singular orthodoxy when it comes to political activity within our nationalist movement and its (current) leading party. This intolerance of any alternative stance or viewpoint threatens to destroy any hope of unifying the various strands of thought that inhabit the current politics in Wales. If they don't sort that out then any debate about "history" will be of abstract value only as we will continue to be divided and ultimately assimilated.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

"We do so need to improve lifelong education for all." I agree, but it isn't just a Welsh problem. We need to reflect on how on earth we ever got to a position where so many people seem to believe that 'British' history can by summed up in the phrase "two world wars and a world cup". Education isn't just about facts, it's even more about the ability to think critically and challenge received 'knowledge'. And, above all, it should be about encouraging people to want to learn and understand.

Dafis,

"... intolerance of any alternative stance or viewpoint threatens to destroy any hope of unifying the various strands of thought that inhabit the current politics in Wales" I agree - and that was one of the points that I was trying to make. A 'nation' is a complex entity, and ultimately subjective. A nation's history is the sum of a whole series of different histories, and will never be experienced or understood in the same way by all. I worry that replacing the history of the 'glorious' British past with a history of princes, conquest and oppression is just as exclusionary. We don't all have to agree on one simple version of history, but it would help if we could start by agreeing that different interpretations exist and can be equally valid. I don't think that 'nation building' requires conformity or orthodoxy, but it does require tolerance and acceptance of difference. Politicians - of whatever hue - who demand that we all accept a single version of history do the nation no favours.