History lessons should be balanced, not just British

Michael Gove’s plan for a nationalistic history curriculum verges on indoctrination

The education secretary wants the history curriculum to be more patriotic. Photography: Norman B. Leventhal Map Center

At Beamish Museum, in the heart of the County Durham countryside, there is a schoolhouse – frozen in time and as it would have looked in 1913.

The walls of its classrooms are covered with world maps splashed with red ink, charting the furthest reaches of the British Empire. There are framed pictures of Wellington at Waterloo, Nelson lying on the deck of HMS Victory and the various generals of the Empire.

The newly crowned King George V peers down at you and the room seems to echo the approving words of the Education Secretary: “give people the chance to be proud of our past and, in particular, proud of the heroes and heroines that fought for freedom over time.” However, this was not the opinion of some long-dead minister speaking on the eve of World War One. These were the words of Michael Gove, current secretary of State for Education, speaking in November 2011.

History is a powerful tool, with the power to teach us the mistakes of previous generations as well as informing our morality and view of the world. Michael Gove knows this. However, rather than seeing this as the reason to treat the past with care, demonstrating  its complexities and trying to present as full a picture as possible (even when it is uncomfortable), the Education Minister’s vision is for history lessons which are patriotic and inspiring, though not necessarily accurate.

Only last week did Mr Gove express his displeasure at the teaching of US and German history. He would prefer a greater emphasis on Britain, saying that history should “celebrate the distinguished role of these islands in the history of the world” and portray Britain as “a beacon of liberty for others to emulate”. This attempt to rewrite history has been going on since the start of this coalition government – one of his first acts was to ask Niall Ferguson, a man who claims that “empire is more necessary in the 21st Century than ever before” to rewrite the history curriculum. Presumably, this tour of British history does not spend too long in the hellish slave plantations of Jamaica or amongst the starving masses of the Irish potato famine. The Churchill of this fantasy was the cigar-smoking superman, not the man who stood in the House of Commons in 1937 and said, “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.”

History is full of complex issues and even more complex figures, of different moralities and few ‘beacons of liberty.’ To use history as a propaganda tool, glorifying your own nation’s past, is at best arrogant and at worst an attempt at indoctrination. History should shape our vision of the world; our vision of the world should not shape our history. Nor should we try to understand our history in isolation from the rest of the world.

Michael Gove bemoaned that “twice as many students believed Nelson commanded British forces at Waterloo as [correctly] named Wellington.” Well, if Mr Gove gets to return British children to the classroom of 1913, they’ll know it was Wellington. Though when asked why Hitler rose to power, the reply might be, “why would I care? I am British.”