The Battle of Culloden
The Scottish government is to offer school children subsidised trips to Bannockburn and Culloden, raising fears pupils will be indoctrinated with a 'narrow nationalist' view of Scots history.
Historians and opposition politicians have warned against teaching pupils a 'tabloid' version of history that could fuel anti-English sentiment. What absolute nonsense.
Ministers have given a sum of public money to the National Trust for Scotland which will supervise the trips to the battlefields and Burns Heritage Museum in Alloway, Ayrshire, but reval politicians said pupils might receive a skewed account of the past that fails to grasp that Scots fought both with the government as well as the Jacobites at Culloden.
What an insult to our history teachers and also those who from the NTS who will supervise the outings. Do they honestly think history teachers are incapable of teaching the history of Culloden and Bannockburn?
I'm rather pleased to hear of this innovation because I am of a generation which was taught only English or Empire history and the history of my own country was omitted from the curriculum.
Labour initiated trips to Auschwitz for school children and many, including myself, objected on the grounds that children were too young to cope with the raw emotion which is still evident there, so why are the unionists complaining about school children visiting Scottish battlefields?
As Huntly loon comments on the Scotsman article:
Surely the Unionists would be welcoming a proper interpretation of our history or is it that they would rather have it concealed or expunged.
Tom Devine, Professor of Scottish History at Edinburgh University sought to quell the unionists' doubts:
"If this is under supervision and organisation of both the schools and the NTS, I would certainly trust them to be responsible."
Source: Scotsman
Posts
33 comments:
Agreed, SR, the objections don't stand scrutiny. It's right that school-children should be taught these aspects of their history. Next they'll be objecting to English school trips to Marston Moor -if they haven't already ;).
Thanks for letting me know English school children get subsidised trips to English battlefields GV.
That leaves unionists without a leg to stand on. :)
Only if its a tabloid version as you say.
Because lets be honest here if we read our history correctly Culloden was not exactly a Scottish battle now was it. As much as it pains me to say so.
Do English kids get subsidised trips to English battlefields though? We certainly didn't when I was at school but that's going back 26 years and more. In fact we never got taught anything about the English civil war in all my years at school.
Of course it's right that Scottish school children get to visit these battlefields I hope it's well taught and that the teachers manage to debunk the BS of "Braveheart" and don't fail to mention that some of these battles had distinct highland Scot vs lowland Scot aspects.
It would also be very worthwhile to mention that these wars were directed by our feudal overlords on both sides and that the common English soldier had no choice where he was sent. And that if they'd had a choice they would have most likely chosen to have stayed at home or down the inn.
Ah LotF, I should have said battles fought on Scottish soil shouldn't I?
Very poor writing from me - sorry.
I'm sure history teachers will teach the facts Wyrd.
It seems as if English schools do make trips - Goodnight Vienna mentioned it.
It's a long time since I started primary too, was just thinking it's 58 years. :(
Of course Scottish history should be taught and there's nothing like a field trip to brighten up and make come alive the otherwise dull facts of history.
As long as the history is taught in a balanced way there would seem to be no problem. The Scots were not all good and the English all bad. The Scots fought amoungst themselves too and did some horrific things. It was as it has always been, a question of power and money.
What do the opposition want? The at we teach kids Empire history?
Look at some of the school history books from days gone by. Britain is portrayed as some sort of glorious and benevolent mother figure, out there to help the people and make their lives better.
Yeah right. Out there to take everything they could for as little as they could, more like, and to force innappropriate Northern European ways on people who lived half a world away. Of course, for the sake of balance I would have to say thet there were good people too.
Or, of course, you can stick to something simple(as they seemed to do at my school), the French Revolution and the Napolianic wars. Over and over again. Now that was really really useful!!!!!
My lot were apparently quite delighted to see their old clan enemies knocking seven bells out of each other at Culloden - not all highland clans or lowland families took part on either side.
Tragically the consequences for the Highlands (and Lowlands) paid no heed to that and many of my Culloden 'non-combatants' were forced to the far north-west coast to scratch a living and some left for New Zealand.
Anything that will inspire youngsters of any nationality to seek out their original histories can only help them make sense of themselves today and perhaps enable a few to grasp the slightest chance that the worst excesses and injustices may not be repeated.
By announcing their fear that learning history may encourage potential xenophobia - are these people a tad uncomfortable about some more recent indiscretions or redactions? "Diomhair" indeed? A little truth and reconciliation wouldn't go amiss for all of us but perhaps a step too far for many politicians for whom "spin" is their middle-name.
Well as long as they learn that contrary to English (myth)History most people did not prefer the English to Rule over them.
As they're going to the Burns Museum I'm surprised that a noble lord has not objected on the grounds that they might be "indoctrinated" by "A man's a man for aw that", part of which could have been written about him.
The battle-field at Culloden does not tell the whole story of the gross brutality inflicted on the Highlands and Highlanders, whether they'd been involved or not, in the after-math.
I wonder if the propaganda and pro nationalist history (according to the unionisits) that pupils can expect to be taught will undermine the pro-union history that has been taught in Scottish schools for so long, leaving many without a true insight into their own country's history?
I believe you are right, Subrosa, when you call this whole nonsense an insult to our history teachers. Another example of the unionist parties shooting themselves in the foot in an attempt to undermine the SNP government. As always they only end up undermining Scotland.
alternatively they could learn the reason for any anti-English sentiment is due to how the English(overwhelmingly Conservatives) treated the Scottish People(leaving out the welsh and Irish etc etc)
Don't take it as gospel SR. They have them in Wales so I'd be surprised, not to say miffed, to find out that English school children don't have the same opportunities. All school children should be able to explore their own histories, it goes without saying really.
Rosa you said - "I am of a generation which was taught only English or Empire history and the history of my own country was omitted from the curriculum." Yep and it all started with the map being red right round the world!
If ever there was an example of the cringe factor this is a prime example. Having filled our little heads for decades with history of little or no pertinence to the normal Scottish kid, up jump the unionists with the usual chant “oh no son you canne dae that, it’ll offend neighbours”. What would they like them taught, how to crawl on our knees to the rich and powerful and to be second class citizens in our own land? What a pitiful bunch of numpties some of our politicians are!
Mind you there are some very interesting gaps in our history that we could teach our children, just so that the current amnesia regarding the good old union is addressed. For example the Scots role in the slave trade, sugar plantations, the use of Scots troops (the fighting daft Jocks) to smash various people resisting the British empire, the Chinese drug trade. Oh yes, I can just hear the unionist howls now!
Get on with it, teach our history, warts and all, and don’t be frightened of teaching kids about the brutality of war –and there’s nothing bloody glorious about it – and why they happen
And at the same time teach them about the importance of NOT waging war and the benefits of peaceful coexistence and fruitful human partnerships.
Phew am away for a dram now - and not one from Diageo
Wyrdtimes,
"Do English kids get subsidised trips to English battlefields though? We certainly didn't when I was at school but that's going back 26 years and more."
I did, and around the same time. Then again, I didn't live that far from Naesby.
And Naesby is about the dullest historical visit imaginable. It's... a field.
Tris, the opposition parties aren't interested in Scotland, their interests lie in preserving Britain, the once great Empire.
Clarinda, the complaints are from those who encourage school children to visit Auschwitz. Double standards indeed.
I've had trouble tracing my lot because of so many clans with the same name but I usually decide mine is the one with the most attractive ancient tartan. :)
It wisnae like that back in 1745 Niko, not for those north of Edinburgh.
Ha Brownlie, Burns must have made the acquaintance of a few like Foulkes in his day too.
I've yet to visit the 'new' setup so I'll give you my opinion after the event.
It does insult history teachers though Johanna and glad you agree.
My history teachers all had a passion for their subject and therefore enthralled most of their classes.
Must have a word with the head of my old school and see what he thinks.
I'm sure teachers will include that Niko. Don't worry.
Thanks GV.
And the British Empire being completely out of proportion with the rest of the world Dram.
Aye, if children were taught about the 'hidden' side of Scottish history then perhaps some of them would realise stupidity doesn't pay.
Enjoy your dram.
But Optimistic Cynic, a good historian can make a field come alive. The sights of most battles are fields but it's up to those delivering information to create the interest. We have so much technology these days, there's no excuse is there?
>> Labour initiated trips to Auschwitz for school children and many, including myself, objected on the grounds that children were too young to cope with the raw emotion which is still evident there, so why are the unionists complaining about school children visiting Scottish battlefields?
I'm not sure what your point is here, Subrosa. As I am wont to say, "Unionism" is a vague concept which has become a term of derision in the same way those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome use "neo-con" as a criticism.
Thus, Labour is emphatically not synomous with Unionism.
Prof Divine's view is an apposite point, and I doubt even the SNP's control-freakery would be able to subvert the NTS. But...
... we all know that the cited battles *are* presented in crude nationalistic terms by a goodly few people. As I recall, at the 250th anniversary of 1745, the Scottish Episcopal Church and Roman Catholic Church were rebuked somewhat by the Church of Scotland 'cos it was a "Scottish affair".
What absolute piffle, and a complete inversion of who fought with/for whom.
As for Auschwitz, there is much about the Shoah which is too much for many adults, let alone children, to cope with, but the emotion that one sees is behind a curtain, so to speak. Furthermore, this was a mere 65 years ago and it is well within living memory.
Your last paragraph is what I mean Alec. Children go on trips to Auschwitz and I've seen the distress some feel months later. As you say, it's difficult enough for many adults to cope with and I think the curtain you speak about is very thin, possibly because it is such recent history.
My point is why are unionist parties criticising visits to national battlefields - is it because they think it will be too much for children to absorb or is it just a ridiculous attempt at political point scoring.
Admittedly, I don't know how old such children are, but at some point the subject cannot be taught without including potentially distressing details. Never again, they said, but is has happened again in Biafra and Rwanda and Bosnia and Darfur.
But, this is by-the-by. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that SNP organizers would wish to present a hopelessly - and dangerously - skewed view of these battles; as LotF suggested. As far as I can tell, it will only be battles perceived as a valiant fight by Scotland against England.
Maybe I'm wrong, and there are similar proposals to visit the fields at Dunbar or Kringen (when Scots loose, we loose *badly*).
Margo Macdonald has compared the situation which 'Scotland' faced at Bannockburn to that which the Palestinian Territories face now. There is some serious historical illiteracy about.
Also,given the current reluctance to formerly mark the anniversary of the Scottish Reformation, why the interest in this?
One anecdote from either the Herald or Scotsman sites was when I made an off-the-cuff remark about Scotland, in the event of independence, taking on responsibility for Northern Ireland. Some moron replied that during the 16/7th Century, Scottish peasants or farmers had faced the choice of being Planted or indentured servitude in the Americas; and that all the blood-soaked British history was down to English policy.
Yes, yes, I am concerned about such unpleasant bigots having any influence over education policy.
But Alec, you have to ask why do we have such bigots?
I blame it on honest, unbiased teaching of Scottish history in our school curriculums. If our history had been taught then perhaps the bigotry would have been reduced.
It's important to teach your country's history, but it's more important to teach the truth, not the fantasy.
Because bigots believe in bigotry, Subrosa.
Lack of teaching will explain a misconception that Culloden was a Scotland/England match, but doesn't explain the above.
Nor does any past lack of teaching explain why the SNP is proposing the fund trips to two battlesites which are used in the perception of their national myth.
Jings Alec, I should think anything the SNP mentions in Scotland could be classed as their national myth.
Not happy with the word 'myth' though. :)
I don't mean it in the sense of an easily refutable falsehood; more as one of those national myths which Norn Ireland has grappled with.
Not meaning to pick on tLotF, but why should recognition of the inter-communal rivalry at the heart of Culloden cause pain to anyone? It was 250 years ago and anyone around then is as dead as that squirrel, as are their grandchildren. And their grandchildren after that (*their* grandchildren, however, are potentially typing this message).
It could only be seen as an inconvenient truth if it's thought to contradict the image of Scotland as one unified homogeneous mass against outside oppression, i.e. a national myth.
Ah I get your point now Alec.
My point is that I have no objection to children seeing battlefields in any country and learning the history, because wars seldom solve anything.
Children must learn that war is an unjustifiable waste of lives and money. They usually end up with everyone sitting round a table talking.
Post a Comment