I didn’t think history could be “new”

Michael Winning

Scanning the papers just now this caught my eye. I can’t quite decode the article, it smells like inclusivist socialist claptrap but I can’t be sure. All this though is eyewash. We had a perfectly sound history curriculum until about the 1970s when all the marxist fellows camew out of the “teacher training colleges”.

All we have to do surely is go back to the way it was done, and just update for the last 30 years? Oh and we can delete all that apoligising for slavery stuff. The rest of the world should apologise to us for continuing it against oour laws.

10 responses to “I didn’t think history could be “new”

  1. I don’t see the schools as anything other than extremely expensive form of childcare, with political propaganda and sexualisation of children thrown in for good measure. We should think about just closing the entire state school system down. Sure, there would be a huge social problem, as there would be no one to look after the children, but it would flag up the fact that the whole thing is an expensive farce.

  2. “New” is one of these warning words. If any journal has the word “new” in its title then it is likely to have progressive leanings. “Critical” is I think another such warning word. If any …-ologist is a “critical …-ologist”, it means that he or she is a Marxist. Of course, in the world outside our present MSM / pseudo-academic hegemonic discourse these are prefectly useful and respectable words.

  3. I’m afraid that, in a sense, I’m with the post-marxists on this one. There are many histories, and no single objective one. Some are truer than others, some are deliberately or accidentally false (the post marxist ones, various religious ones, anything believed by Simon Heffer) but nobody can ever claim to have written the history. A history that I believe would probably arouse furious denials from many libertarians and conservatives- that England ceased to be England in a traditional sense in the nineteenth century under a tidal wave of puritan social reformism which crafted a new and unique social identity which was then projected onto the past as justification. I think I’m the only person I know who believes in that Cultural Revolution. Most of the people on this blog would probably call me mad, or a marxist, or something since I am effectively declaring that the traditional values cleaved to by conservatives and progressives alike are a false consciousness. But that’s my history.

    At school for O Level I did something called “Social History 1760 to, er, can’t remember”. We learned about children crushed by looms in factories and down mines and how the labour movement saved them. Is it true? Yes. Is it complete history? No. It lies by omission. It lied by not telling me that child labour- primarily in agriculture- had been the norm for most of human history and the factory and mine owners did not invent it. It lied by not telling me that the children in the worst conditions were sold to the worst factories by the State, via workhouses and Victorian worthies. And so on.

    I don’t know what history should be taught to children. I think they may be better off just picking it up from the internet. Like dj, I would prefer to free the children from the scholastic prisons the Victorians built and let they and their parents choose what they will study. As a youngster I taught myself about astronomy and computers because the school did not teach these things, and learned them faster and more thoroughly than in the absurd system of study X for an hour, study Y for an hour, study Z for an hour. In a libertarian society I’d expect a profusion of tutors and specific courses that could be purchased, and no “schools” as we know them whatsoever. A free market in history may give a rather more balanced picture than any State syllabus.

    Yes, I’m a devotee of John Taylor Gatto’s views.

  4. That’s a very interesting position Ian. I have some sympathy for it, intelelctually. But that’s a general libertarian philosopher-problem. That’s why we as libertarian are still nowhere (admit it, it’s more or less true) and the armies of the State and its Enemy-Class make daily gains against ordinary harmless individuals, nearly all of whom believe the mantra that they need to be farmed and “looked after”.

    My problem as the self-appointed strategic director for ensuring the emergence of a complete British Libertarian Government (which is initially to say: “hard-minimal-statist-English-classical-liberal” (I suppose…)) is how to get large masses of people to activle and willingly disbelieve the post=socialist claptrap – about Britain, and about the world in general -that they and their children hgave been fed for 60-odd years.

  5. David, if my history is correct; that is if it is significantly correlated with reality, then we have to undo more than 60-odd years. In my philosophy, socialism (in the marxist-ish sense) is already dead; its last gasps saw (for instance) Arthur Scargill centrifugally flung to the outer fringes and obscurity. What is happening to us now is a return to the Victorian cultural construction. It’s not 60 years to undo, it’s about 200. But fundamentally, everything hinges on the outcome in the anglo-socialist superpower, the USA. We in Europe are fighting their culture war by proxy.

  6. IanB is bang on.

    We’re not fighting the GramsciNaziFabioGreens (is that right?) but rather the Methodist Theocratic State (v2, godless but with added perversion). Or Anabaptism mark 7.

    (massively long post truncated due to the utter, utter futility of it).

  7. C H Ingoldby

    So, how exactly are we taking the fight to them?

    Theoretical discussion is important, but libertarians do have a bad habit of mistaking discussion for action.

  8. @CH
    that’s exactly the problem that troubles me and Michael and Fred Bloggs – currently absent at uni – when we meet for a beer. (We’re too busy trying to not go bust, to do any more than write and whinge.)

  9. C H Ingoldby

    David Davis, did you see my suggestion of setting up a libertarian version of Youtube?

    I don’t know the technicalities, but such video sharing sites do exist and if we got one that was hosted in a country free from political interference it could be a useful way of keeping videos in the public eye, especially as Youtube has such a habit of erasing videos that do not suit its politics.

    Libertytube could be promoted to all the Libertarian inclined bloggers for a start. Hopefully get a bit of publicity along the lines of ‘standing up for free speech’, which is the sort of angle that has traction with the public.

  10. Speaking as a history graduate it never ceases to amaze me that people expect objectivity in the subject and feel somewhat conned when they realise the amount of information teacher didn’t tell them. History is an interpretation of the past to suit the present needs of society as determined by the state and those who benefit from it. It is to shape our national identity which will be a reflection of the ruling ideology. The old saying..who controls the present… sums up every era. I too learned about mills and mines and child labour and the struggles to end exploitation. i was also taught how horrible we were in britain because of slavery. But no-one ever told me that slavery had existed since the begining of time and, what do you know, it still exists. However we don’t emphasise this as it doesn’t fit with the current P.C. remit. Along with the underlying assertion that nazi type racism was destroyed with the death of hitler( hooray the world is free) and we are all so tolerant and embracing of the “other” ( because we actually imprison those who don’t share these values, so they don’t count). I decided the only way to do history is to do it for yourself.Whatever you are told question it and write it again. As long as it’s clearly referenced it will be as good as anything else. libertarians should be the last people to expect the state to anything outside its own interests.