Don't Be Patriotic

[VinnieK]

What I was asking is whether in Manx schools children are presented with a "consensus view of their nation's virtues and told and taught what to feel".

 

I'm not sure, it's been over ten years since I was at school. But if the syllabus is anything like it was when I was there then the answer's no - generally the subject matter was broadly international and its treatment largely unbiased.

 

If I remember correctly the curriculum roughly adhered to the following plan:

 

1st/7th* Year Ancient Rome

2nd/8th Year The American West

3rd/9th Year The Industrial Revolution and a bit on the French Revolution

4th/10th Year The First World War

5th/11th Year The Second World War + a little bit on the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict

 

A-Level: Unification of Germany, the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression.

 

*old money/new

 

There were large gaps for a broad introduction into world history, and a lot of the first couple of years amounted to little but drawing pictures of Roman villas and making minature wigwams out of cardboard, but in spirit it's not a bad selection.

 

I couldn't tell you what was taught during primary school though. I vaguely remember having some old myths about the Isle of Man mentioned (Manannin, Finn MacCooil, etc) and spending a bit of time learning about the Vikings.

[Viking Mike]

Patriotism or Nationalism, are they the same thing?

 

What we are looking for here is a society that can allow for open debate and yet come to agreements that move us all forward. We can't all move forward unless there is some grounds for consensus.

 

Being Patriotic is not necessarily stating "my country, right or wrong!" But it should at least engender some feelings that make us want to work hard for some idea of the common good. Years of Thatcherism and Blairism appear to have created a self centred ME ME ME society that couldn't, in general give a rats about anyone else.

 

So what is the UK all about these days? Can we define this in terms of past achievements? I doubt it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Patriotism or Nationalism, are they the same thing?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism. (Sorry I know, it's Wikipedia)

 

What we are looking for here is a society that can allow for open debate and yet come to agreements that move us all forward. We can't all move forward unless there is some grounds for consensus.

 

Being Patriotic is not necessarily stating "my country, right or wrong!" But it should at least engender some feelings that make us want to work hard for some idea of the common good. Years of Thatcherism and Blairism appear to have created a self centred ME ME ME society that couldn't, in general give a rats about anyone else.

 

Supposedly patriots believe that their patriotism is a good thing. Thatcher and Blair's policies were carried out under the belief that they were doing what is best for themselves, people like them, and the country themselves. They believed they were doing what was best for their nation.

 

I do think that people should work for the greater good, but I don't see why patriotism is important enough to use it to work for common good. People can work for a greater good without being patriotic. I don't think it necessarily has to driven by ideas surrounding one's owns nation and the state.

[MarkKerruish]

I am generations apart from my ancestry. For me, it is the right and true. I know that sounds silly. I am Mark Kerruish. I was born to the scatter of the Boer War. My grandfather's smile, a teacher's smile, however, made an astonishing difference. My mother ran a soup kitchen. My mother was Joyce. My grandad, Jack. The slayer of giant problems that you, in the Irish Sea, might not have noticed. You had larger things to think about than the Manx diaspora. There are others of us out here.

 

I fought apartheid and I am tired. I can't do teargas again. I have a wife now; a daughter. I ... am ... so ... tired. I'm a teacher, not a revolutionary! It's starting again. This time, I want to run.

[Albert Tatlock]

IMO, today patriotism is a very misused and dangerous word in the UK, mostly a political tool used against the population to justify and hide the actions of failed politicians, or used inappropriately by politicians and various political/lobby groups groups to enhance their point of view (whilst implying that any opposing view is unpatriotic). As has already been said in this thread, patriotism is truly the last refuge of a scounderal.

 

The problem with Britain these days is that it is so divided, and even 'patriotic' people have such deeply opposing points of view e.g. right v left, for ID cards v against ID cards, immigration v no immigration etc. in terms of 'what is, or what should be, Britain today?'. Much of Gordon Broon's current patriotism is about keeping the union together, but when you look deeper, it is also associated with the current 'terrorism threat' and used as a justification for 'patriotically' stomping on our civil liberties 'for the good of the country' - Labour's version of the USA patriot act. Though she destroyed much of Britain in her own way, at least Thatcher didn't let terrorists change our way of life, other than having to be more careful.

 

My 'patriotism', if it exists, is a kind of personal patriotism today - I pick and choose those values etc. that I think are worth fighting for e.g. Manx and British culture (and especially against those elements of British culture that I feel will eventually impact and damage the island), the good bits of history (the Magna Carta - innocent before guilty etc.) and the building of a liberal democracy etc. I remember and respect those people that fought died/got injured to achieve or protect those values - values I would still fight and die for.

 

But would I fight for the country created by Thatcher, Blair and now Gordon Broon - not anymore - I'd tell em to stick it where the sun don't shine, because they have either destroyed or are in the process of destroying many of those values I personally hold dear, and which many 'patriotic' people fought and died for especially in the last war - and in the process have changed Britain into such a strange place with elements of 'Me, Me. Me!' a culturally divided nation, and latterly more towards a police state (we even fought a 'cold war' supposedly against all that).

 

I have two children who have been right through the education system in recent years, and I think they have been effectively 'brainwashed' in so many ways by a socialist education system - designed to take away much free thought in the name of 'political correctness'. I see British politicians signing away major decision powers to the EU, rightly or wrongly, but without asking Joe Public, as though it is all somehow inevitable.

 

Patriotism is used to muster people in one country to fight common enemies, but the problem is these days, that most people can't see that many current enemies were actually born and bred here and remain in power unlected by the majority and unchecked. 68% of the adult population didn't vote for this agenda, and many members of the Labour party itself are against much of the agenda too, never mind all the Scottish MPs voting on English affairs whilst having their cake in Scotland through devolution.

 

I think the UK has lost its way, and has become much of what it used to muster its population to fight against. What have people got to be patriotic about anymore?

[Lonan3]

"Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is."

Sydney J Harris, (1917– 1986)

[Skeddan]

What I was asking is whether in Manx schools children are presented with a "consensus view of their nation's virtues and told and taught what to feel".

 

I'm not sure, it's been over ten years since I was at school. But if the syllabus is anything like it was when I was there then the answer's no - generally the subject matter was broadly international and its treatment largely unbiased.

 

That seems surprising to me; UK schools are supposedly biased according to this report, but Manx schools somehow manage to be unbiased - at least during the time of your education.

 

The fact it is broadly international doesn't mean it needn't have slant or bias. I just watched a factual historical doco on the Battle of Midway - the Japanese fought 'stubbornly', whereas when the Americans had their backs to wall they fought 'bravely'. The Japanese were never brave, and the Americans never stubborn.

 

In more general terms I think that the article in the original link is interesting in saying it is impossible to teach history without patriotism. There may be something to this: for the subject to be engaging and interesting it needs to tell a story with drama, thus have conflict of some kind - so there will be a protagonist and anatagonist, goodies and badies. Without that the subject might be dull, flat and lifeless. From a position of impartial detachment one cares little about the outcome. History is full of value judgements - and it is almost impossible not to be, even in the selection of material. Instead of a false pretended objectivity and impartiality, there is growing emphasis on addressing this by declaring these authorial biases and standpoints.

 

The schools I went to in the UK were very biased in their teaching of history. Firstly I was taught how the English unjustly invaded, committed terrible atrocities and did the most heinously wicked crimes like burning alive a very brave young woman who was a patriotic freedom fighter , and how after a long struggle the English were driven out . Then at another school when this was covered I was only taught about Agincourt (as a brave victory), and how the stubborn French had been in the wrong - and not a word about the things Mdme Didier had told us at the Lycée - apart from maybe that Jean d'Arc had been a stubborn fanatic and dangerous religious maniac .

 

It might be hard to teach history without patriotism - or at least value judgements - but it doesn't mean to say it has to be anglocentric patriotism. Why not have some variety and a multiplicity of viewpoints instead of presenting a standard 'authoratative' account which by itself appears unbiased? (i.e. it will seem unbiased to those who see the world only according to that view, while any departure from this may seem plainly misguided and wrongheaded - or subversive, disruptive and an attack on one's values).

 

It also seems when most people here discuss whether or not they feel patriotic, it concerns patriotism to the UK rather than IoM. Is this the result of an education in the UK or education in IoM? (are any Manx children given a pro-Manx slanted view of history at school? Or is the bias (if any) slanted to the UK?).

[Albert Tatlock]

It also seems when most people here discuss whether or not they feel patriotic, it concerns patriotism to the UK rather than IoM. Is this the result of an education in the UK or education in IoM?

...because, IMO, after centuries of war, the word 'patriot' has lost its meaning and is now largely associated (by the general population) with conflict. 'Patriotism' is that which has largely been used by the UK to drag-off many a Manxman to fight in UK wars.

 

The word 'patriot' is little used on the island in terms of the islands' history or in teaching it, and I don't think I've heard a Manx politician use the word in recent history to 'muster people' on the island - preferring to use the word 'culture' or phrases such as 'protect our culture' or 'protect our way of life'. With the bulk of the population now not being from the island, this also gives the word less meaning here.

[Skeddan]

It also seems when most people here discuss whether or not they feel patriotic, it concerns patriotism to the UK rather than IoM. Is this the result of an education in the UK or education in IoM?

...because, IMO, after centuries of war, the word 'patriot' has lost its meaning and is now largely associated (by the general population) with conflict. 'Patriotism' is that which has largely been used by the UK to drag-off many a Manxman to fight in UK wars.

 

The word 'patriot' is little used on the island in terms of the islands' history or in teaching it, and I don't think I've heard a Manx politician use the word in recent history to 'muster people' on the island - preferring to use the word 'culture' or phrases such as 'protect our culture' or 'protect our way of life'. With the bulk of the population now not being from the island, this also gives the word less meaning here.

 

The questions wasn't so much to do with whether the word 'patriot' is used in teaching Manx history in Manx schools, but rather if when children imparted with a "view of their nation", whether the nation in question is the UK or the nation is the IoM.

 

When La_Dolce_Vita says: "But why should be we be proud of being British?", who are the 'we' - Manx? The idea that seems to be accepted is that Manx patriotism is about being proud to be British.

 

It slightly reminds me of what might have been the kind of discussion in Australia and New Zealand prior to Gallipoli - when many still proudly thought of themselves first and foremost as part of the British Empire. No one then would have thought a patriotic New Zealander in terms other than 'British' - though there might have been some sense of NZ culture and identity in much the same terms as Manx culture might be spoken of as you suggest.

 

It seems perhaps that the sense of 'national identity' in IoM is that of being 'British' with IoM being under the 'mother country'. This suggests that perhaps Manx schools are slanted towards British history rather than Manx history - and even this is taught from that perspective. Alternatively it may be simply that most people here went to school in the UK or perhaps subsquently became naturalised Brits, so naturally think in terms of being British rather than Manx.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I have two children who have been right through the education system in recent years, and I think they have been effectively 'brainwashed' in so many ways by a socialist education system - designed to take away much free thought in the name of 'political correctness'.

 

How is this the case. It has been a while since I have been in school but I know what you mean by a socialist education system. As for political correctness, it is undoubtedly a good thing. I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

Free thought has not been removed because of political correctness.

 

You have made me think about terrorism though. We may have been under just as much threat from terrorists in the early 90s than Britain is now. Then you had the IRA but now you have Al-Qaeda. Yet Al-Qaeda are painted as being far more dangerous and their existence worth curtailing our civil liberties, as you said.

 

Patriotism is used to muster people in one country to fight common enemies, but the problem is these days, that most people can't see that many current enemies were actually born and bred here and remain in power unlected by the majority and unchecked. 68% of the adult population didn't vote for this agenda, and many members of the Labour party itself are against much of the agenda too, never mind all the Scottish MPs voting on English affairs whilst having their cake in Scotland through devolution.

 

Sorry to be a bit dim, but who do you mean?

 

In more general terms I think that the article in the original link is interesting in saying it is impossible to teach history without patriotism. There may be something to this: for the subject to be engaging and interesting it needs to tell a story with drama, thus have conflict of some kind - so there will be a protagonist and anatagonist, goodies and badies. Without that the subject might be dull, flat and lifeless. From a position of impartial detachment one cares little about the outcome. History is full of value judgements - and it is almost impossible not to be, even in the selection of material. Instead of a false pretended objectivity and impartiality, there is growing emphasis on addressing this by declaring these authorial biases and standpoints.

 

I may agree that it is impossible to eliminate bias from history but attempts must be made to do so. Without some efforts to remove bias it would be too easy for historians for produce distortions and exaggerations.

 

It also seems when most people here discuss whether or not they feel patriotic, it concerns patriotism to the UK rather than IoM. Is this the result of an education in the UK or education in IoM? (are any Manx children given a pro-Manx slanted view of history at school? Or is the bias (if any) slanted to the UK?).

 

I didn't realise, you're not from here are you? When I went to school there was no teaching of Manx history and culture. It is the same syllabus as in England as far as I am aware.

There was Manx history teaching so there is no bias AGAINST the Isle of Man.

I imagine the patriotic views given on here are due to the fact that due to our ethnic and cultural background and due to our links to England, the Manx are British. Though some may say they are not. I suppose some may find more 'value' being patriotic towards Britain and see the Isle of Man as being less important. But I don't think it is schools that have created an awareness and understanding of 'nationality'.

 

I do think that most Manx people are patriotic towards the Island. And nowadays you have that awful corporate/government inspired scheme to whip up more patriotism on the Island.

 

When La_Dolce_Vita says: "But why should be we be proud of being British?", who are the 'we' - Manx? The idea that seems to be accepted is that Manx patriotism is about being proud to be British.

 

No, I don't think so. You couldn't have inferred that from the comment. Some are proud to be Manx, some British. Some neither, etc. But naturally people on the Island identify with the UK. Therefore, people on the Island respond to instances or incidents where patriotic feelings may be felt in the UK just as much as nearly as much as the English do.

 

Though what I meant by the comment is something in direct response to a previous poster's comments about WW2. What I meant was whether you are British, Manx, Irish, etc. is whether patriotism is needed. I think not

[Lonan3]

As for political correctness, it is undoubtedly a good thing. I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

Free thought has not been removed because of political correctness.

Perhaps not; but the expression of free thought has been severely curtailed by Newspeak political correctness.

[Skeddan]

When I went to school there was no teaching of Manx history and culture. It is the same syllabus as in England as far as I am aware.

...

But naturally people on the Island identify with the UK.

 

Why is it 'natural' for people to identify with the UK? Is it perhaps in part due to there being no teaching of Manx history and culture, but schools having the same syllabus as in England?

 

Therefore, people on the Island respond to instances or incidents where patriotic feelings may be felt in the UK just as much as nearly as much as the English do.

 

The article was about how English schools are biased in the way they teach history, encouraging loyaty to Britain rather than sticking to bare facts.

 

Can one conclude that children in Manx schools following the same syllabus as in England are equally indoctrinated to feel loyalty to Britain? Might this account for there being nearly the same patriotic feelings and responses as English feel, and might this in part be why you feel it is 'natural' to identify with the UK?

[VinnieK]

When I went to school there was no teaching of Manx history and culture. It is the same syllabus as in England as far as I am aware.

...

But naturally people on the Island identify with the UK.

 

Why is it 'natural' for people to identify with the UK? Is it perhaps in part due to there being no teaching of Manx history and culture, but schools having the same syllabus as in England?

 

I'd say it's more likely down to the fact that the UK and the Island are and have been deeply connected. We watch British television, listen to British music, read British papers. People on the Island tend to visit Britain for short breaks away, sometimes even spend a significant time working or being educated in the UK, and more often than not have neighbours and/or friends from the UK. This is nothing new, so it's only natural that there should be some level of identification between the Manx and the British.

 

Also it's worthwhile pointing out that to identify with something or someone isn't the same as being "loyal", or having universal affection and admiration

 

In a sense I agree with you that history lessons shouldn't be biased towards Britain, but neither should they be biased towards the Isle of Man, and the fact is that any serious, broad treatment of history is going to mention Britain and England more than it does the Isle of Man (if it mentions it at all). Also, I have to say that I don't recognise your description of history lessons - I can't remember ever hearing notions such as bravery entering into serious discussions and the teaching of history when I was at school (they were more interested in talking about the economic and political reasons for war, and the conditions under which it was fought, rather than go into details of the qualities of the troops involved). I have however read quite a few British written histories of the war in Burma that openly acknowledge Japanese bravery and superior training compared with the British and Imperial forces at the beginning of the conflict - which suggests that if such naked bias was a feature of History, it has waned since.

 

The article was about how English schools are biased in the way they teach history, encouraging loyaty to Britain rather than sticking to bare facts.

 

Not exactly. The report was about why patriotism shouldn't be introduced into schools and was responding to current proposals to use British history in citizenship lessons in such a way as to build a sense of identity and patriotism.

 

Can one conclude that children in Manx schools following the same syllabus as in England are equally indoctrinated to feel loyalty to Britain?

 

Not really, since that's not the report was about, and since there are so many other factors at play. I for one have been through the Manx education system and I don't feel any great degree of supposed loyalty to any nation.

[triskelion]

I may regret wading in here, but anyway.

 

Albert: Thatcherism, and British politics, have not destroyed patriotism in Britain and created a 'me me me' society. Britain never, ever, was the proud united nation so many people believe it was before Maggie came along. The trade unions were hardly agents of national strength, they entrenched faulty, poorly run industries at the cost of huge amounts of other people's money. Nationalised industries ran badly, and those that have stumbled since privatisation wouldn't be better off if they hadn't been. The seventies also saw organisations like the National Front. The whole idea of Britain being a communal state pre-Thatcher is just horrendus. It's almost as bad as the idea that Britain needs strong central direction; a grand purpose of some sort. You have also greatly over-simplfied Britain's politics today. It is nowhere near the left vs right, id vs no id, this vs that country you seem to think it is. Indeed, this is much less the case now that it was in the past. It is indicitive of the problems Britain faces when David Cameron can get acres of column space by saying police officers shouldn't have to fill out a 'foot-long form' (ie, an A4 side). And again, there is the bizarre worship of the Magna Carta, the primary purpose of which was to allow feudal nobles to put some brakes on the King, hardly the great achievement for democracy it often cited as, especially as the King was little more than a senior feudal noble anyway.

 

Strangely, every generation seems to think 'the current lot' are totally destorying everything that made Britain great. This attitude is almost always a symptom of extreme conservatism and 'imperial hangover.'

 

As for the teaching of history, it HAS to be bias. There is no such thing as 'balance.' Teaching people the 'bare facts' is a complete waste of time, because facts are useless. The Battle of Hastings might have taken place in 1066, but so what? Knowing that doesn't actually help you understand the reasons why, the significance of this, the consequences, the reasons for the Norman victory etc, etc.

 

There is nothing faulty about teaching British history in a way that is pro-Britain. Nor does this signify an underhand attempt to encourage national feeling to the benefit of the Government. Societies have in-built basis into them, and there simply isn't the time or facilities in High Schools to have students doing proper investigative history. Accordingly, the history is quite limited in scope, but there isn't really that much advantage in getting students to think about these things more, as it will just confuse them. It is quite easy to convey Martin Luther King Jr's role in the American Civil Rights movement, and the brutality of the conditions on the Trans-Atlantic slave boats, but it would be much more difficult to expand on these. For example, facilities are too limited for teachers to place the Atlantic slave trade in the context of Africa's slave-based social system, the importance to this of cowrie shells from the Maldives to the trade, how the demand was created by the declining supply of native labour in the Americas due to the impact of disease, why slave labour was needed instead of paying European labourers etc.

 

Simply put, a more complete understanding is beyond the scope of a High School education and the abilities of most High School students. Ultimately, I have serious doubts as to the influence history lessons have on things like patriotism anyway. Personally I think people, especially young people, are get much more of this kind of thing through the media, and that their patriotism extends so far as supporting the national sports team during major tournaments. To a large extent, this will always have been the case. The idea of nationalism is, after all, a very recent (19th century) concept. Traditional institutions of 'national pride,' often have very regional links. The British Army at its height, for example, was made up of county regiments, which would have been as signficant to its troops as fighting for the Empire was. Obviously people go bat-shit crazy for the England football team, but even that is really an occasional thing.

 

In the end, 'patriotism' is a very intangible entity that always seems to have been a lot stronger in the past, but it wasn't. It exists to the same extent now as it always did, more or less, just the institutions through which we experience it have changed.

[Viking Mike]

Countries always have differences of opinion just as families or any group of free thinking people. So in Thatchers time yes there were the unions and were were on the brink (or is that too dramatic) of having some pretty deep rifts. These have occurred before and we can assume that they'll happen again. One thing that the unions did show though that there were people who were willing to suffer individually for the benefit of their families and communities, witness the miners strike without getting into the issues of the causes and outcomes.

We are very much more prosperous now and I think with that prosperity comes some degree of a lack of conviction and also a predeliction for taking the easy option. We all want to become consumers and bigger consumers (that is definitely a product of both Thatcher and Blair/Brown)

 

Hands up those who think the Scottish are more nationalistic/patriotic than the British, or the Welsh? Possibly there are Yorkshire folk who feel more Yorkshire than British? And Manx too.

 

The point is that we (the British) have been encouraged to think more about ourselves than each other. And why should I care for you when its obvious you don't care for me.

 

Patriotism/Nationalism is often a reason for showing why we are different from someone else and not for illustrating the need we have to act as a community that will pull together when there is a threat. Whether that be from another country or something serrious like climate change