The importance of history in developing national identity

Interest in your own country’s history amongst those other than historians develops largely out of a longing to find your nation’s place in the world and where your national identity derives from (national identity is best pitched by comparing your culture and history to another culture and history). The times when interest in history grows is often when people feel a lack of pride in their nationality, so they look back at past ‘achievements’. However, when it comes to these achievements as events to be proud of, they are often distorted. For example, the Armada- although was a fantastical victory, it was a victory in a war that England essentially lost. The Blitz was indeed a time when Brits had the mentality to stand up to the greatest might the world has seen, but was also a time when Britain lost its imperialistic history. In fact, the coupling of the First and Second World Wars helped destroy what Britain had become- it helped bring down the Empire, it helped break the class system and drive equality (everything that Britain at the time was historically not) and it also levelled Britain’s footing in world politics in comparison to other countries.

However, this should not hide away the benefits this history can bring to developing what has always been an evolving national identity. (I must stress that patriotism and nationalism does not always induce national and racial tension- it is only when these forces are moulded into that direction that it does). For example, the Empire was imperialist, colonialist, based on false racial claims and was exploitative. But when people look back on it patriotically, they do not do so thinking we ruled over inferior races, they do so thinking back at Britain’s influence in the world, or ability to have influence in the world- its power. The myths form stories based in the Blitz evoke feelings of doggedness, standing up for what is right, doing your bit. The Second World War belonged much more to the forces of anti-imperialism, to equality, to the fight against fascism and hence racism and to social justice than to powers that bought about racial cleansing and who had(ve) the power to enslave humanity, to destroy cities, to kill innocent lives- all of which Britain could shame to but which Britain had to switch from as it grew up into a world developing it’s own national consciousness’. Britain may not have a history it could be ‘proud’ of in its most traditionalist interpretation, but there is much history during Britain’s darkest moments to enlighten a national identity, a national culture and a national consciousness that helps shape the direction of what being British (or English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish) really should become.

Looking back at Britain’s history develops a notion of wanting Britain to be a world power again, but in a world where social, economic and political equality and justice flourishes. Being a world power should not mean you rule over other peoples, to tell them what to do- instead it should be about setting an example. Making other people and countries look at Britain and aspire to be like it. But in this day and age we as a nation are well off of this example, and that is why I look back at our history and wonder….

Historical readings from today… and the death penalty

Today I started my preliminary reading for my Master’s dissertation, my chosen topic; to what extent did the Second World War help develop a notion of Britishness (throw into that the question of race during early 1940’s Britain). So the first book I pick up to read is: Forgotten Voices, stories of the Blitz and Battle of Britain. The Forgotten Voice’s series is a fantastic couple of books that take oral testimonies of those who fought or lived in the war and put’s them into chronological order without historical analysis (well, this point can be debated as only extracts of oral testimonies are selected and it could be argued that the author only selected those testimonies that can be moulded around his own view point).

The point of my reading (not just out of interest) was to try to piece together some ideas of what British people during the war thought of their country and some common characteristics of national culture during the war. I have already done some reading into this- Paul Ward and Britishness since 1860 where he claims many West Indians who fought in the British army called their post-war children Winston out of patriotic support. Also Tom Harrisson’s Mass Observation archive has bought up such classics as ‘I don’t consider myself British, [I consider the Scots and Welsh as a different race] but I would die to defend Britain [and my Scottish, Welsh neighbours]‘.

From my brief reading I have discovered that the whole British identity could be summarised by two things: tea (that old Chinese import) and common decency. One story talks about how during the blitz a father lost his child through decapitation, he held his child’s body stroking it and saying ‘So this is how you went, Jimmy’, he then got up and thanked a stranger on the street for handing him a mug of tea. More obscure forms of common decency came during the vacation of Dunkirk. One example is that many French and British soldiers were shot by their own side, without hesitation, because they tried to barge into the queues for the boats (that’s right, during the evacuation of Dunkirk when the German’s were bombarding the troops you were expected to form an orderly queue while waiting to get onto a boat and in some cases wear full clean uniform and have a shave).

Digressing from my reading, some thoughts on the death penalty came into my mind today. I would like to point out first that I do lose a lot of respect for people when they make the uneducated statement that we should bring back the death penalty, even if it were for only the most serious of crimes. These thoughts centred around the obvious- if the death penalty were a deterrent then why are crimes still committed in places that still have the death penalty. Then onto the notion that if the death penalty were the most righteous form of justice, then why do some killers kill themselves before they are caught? As a matter of fact- why did Hitler kill himself before he was caught, even though the Allies would had killed him in the end anyway? Are the majority of these people acting through the will of remorse, regret and justice? I think not.

Defeating the terrorists

I always thought the House of Lords was an undemocratic, elitist and the use-ridden side of British politics, but on 13 October 2008 the Lords single handedly defeated terrorism and exemplified humanity and Britishness in one sweep.

Pushed through the House of Commons by bribing the DUP, the proposed 42-day terror detention extension was demolished in the Lords.

Not only was it argued that 42-days is unworkable, but most importantly that it was anti-British and a serious attack on civil liberties. When the day comes for civil liberties to be destroyed in the fight against terrorism, then the day will be the one where Britain loses what it means to be British, and everything fought for in the Second World War becomes meaningless. I wonder if those who support the 42-day limit also think Churchill was a great leader- if so, hypocrisy!

Why erode liberties when there is no need to?

The point is, it is not about whether you have anything to hide, it is about your right to privacy. It ties into the debate on CCTV and ID Cards. This may sound like an extreme example but how would you feel if you had to write down in detail everything you have done each day and send that to the government or the police. Alternatively, if everywhere you walk, a person follows you with a camcorder, filming your every move and the doing what they want with the film. If you have nothing to hide then surely it does not matter… Let us do away with curtains at the same time and promote dogging!

It’s so amusing so many people are scared by two terrorist attacks in the UK in 7 years- I wonder how these people would had coped during the blitz. Although, what is more amusing is that we needed the out-of-date aristocracy to protect us from the terrorists in ourselves and our ‘democratic representatives’ in the Commons. I would not go as far to say that the Lords have justified their existence, but today they went someway to doing so.

Applauding a Tory

I never thought I would say this, but I respect and applaud Tory MP David Davis on his resignation from the House of Commons. His reasoning (obviously one of many) for this was to force a by-election in the constituency of Haltemprice and Howden in order to debate the issue of the 42-day terror detention limit.

Maybe Davis is just trying to impose more election woe upon New Labour, but nonetheless, Davis, along with all but one Tory MP opposed the 42-day terror detention expansion. Sadly for the British public, the limit was passed in the Commons, and will now come under attack within the House of Lords.

There is not one reason for the terror detention limit to have to be increased. If the police cannot find enough evidence to charge somebody of a suspected terror incident or conspiracy to commit terror within 28 days then the chances are they never did or never were.

But let us not forget why we should oppose the increase in the detention limit; our civil liberties. British people have been fighting for generations for our rights, and now we are in a age where we are willing to throw them all away without an ounce of fight.

There was a time when the sacrifice of our rights and liberties would be the last straw. However, with large public support for this extension, and the fact that ID Cards are being debated, it seems that any terrorist threat has succeeded. The whole concept of terrorism is to scare people and to therefore control them, and so be it, it has.

I wonder whether these people supporting the extension (and on a larger scale ID Cards), are the same people who feel that it means nothing to be British any more, and that there is a lack of a British identity. Where has the patriotism of the British gone; we will never give up, we keep fighting, and fight for our principles, we will never give in- Churchill will be turning in his grave.

Craig Murray commented at People & Planet’s Shared Planet event in 2007 that MI5 have suggested there are around 2000 terrorist suspects in the UK, however, Murray notes that considering the number of terrorist attacks in the UK, they are perhaps the most inefficient terrorists of all time.

I would also like to point out that there have not been any terror arrests that have required more than the current 28-days. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the need to extend the limit.

Yet we are now at a stage where the limit has been passed – in the Commons at least – and where there is large public support for it. People say this country is going down the pan, they create scapegoats out of ‘foreigners’. I say if it is going down the pan, it is because British people have lost British principles. We no longer have the fight within us to secure our own and others liberties. We would rather throw them all away and let any actual and fictional terrorists win.