Antony Beevor in defence of history
The
teaching of history provides much more than the practical skills which
underpin the study of politics and society, it also gives children a
vital understanding of their place in the world, argues Antony Beevor
Also in tomorrow's Guardian Review: Philip Pullman, Hilary Mantel, Jeremy Paxman and others each choose a news photo that sums up the decade; William Boyd on an episode from Any Human Heart, soon to be on TV; an interview with CJ Sansom, author of Tudor murder mysteries; Mary Beard's review of Neil MacGregor's World in 100 Objects; and much more
Also in tomorrow's Guardian Review: Philip Pullman, Hilary Mantel, Jeremy Paxman and others each choose a news photo that sums up the decade; William Boyd on an episode from Any Human Heart, soon to be on TV; an interview with CJ Sansom, author of Tudor murder mysteries; Mary Beard's review of Neil MacGregor's World in 100 Objects; and much more
Is history
as good as finished? Our school system seems to think so. Often it
seems that the teaching of history is treated by the educational
establishment as the rough equivalent of the teaching of dead languages:
an unnecessary luxury of a bygone age, and something the modern world
no longer requires. In the most recent debates about the national
curriculum, history has been granted the status of an "inessential
subject". This is a grave and myopic mistake.
At a purely
practical level, history is important because it provides the basic
skills needed for students to go further in sociology, politics,
international relations and economics. History is also an ideal
discipline for almost all careers in the law, the civil service and the
private sector. This is because the history essay teaches students to
research and assess material, to marshal facts and develop arguments,
and to arrive at logical conclusions. The composition of a such an essay
trains young people to write reports and prepare a presentation. These
are skills that employers say graduates lack.
History is also
necessary because it helps to explain current events. How did western
culture and western capitalism come to dominate the world? How do
cultures rise and how do they fall? We need to know – because otherwise
we will not understand the consequences of the rise of China, India and
Brazil, the weakening of the United States, the political and economic
decline of Europe. History will not give us the answers, but it will
certainly help to focus our questions and our understanding of the
forces at work in the world today.
Of course history is easily
manipulated – though that makes it even more important for us to know
what actually happened. We need a knowledge of history to spot the
delusions of leaders making false parallels, such as President Bush
comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or Tony Blair talking of Saddam Hussein
as another Hitler. The media, too, are responsible for sloppy
comparisons that are highly misleading. As voters, and as citizens, we
have to be able to see through these dangerous distortions.
Teachers
who are responsible for the subject have little time to devote to these
questions. Year by year, the hours devoted to the subject have been
whittled away. Along with Albania and Iceland, Britain is now one of the
few countries in Europe not to require the study of history after the
age of 14. Worse, the subject is taught in exam-oriented modules – or,
to put it differently, in totally unconnected bubbles of specialist
knowledge.
How can a child grasp developments without a timeline? A
decade appears to them a very long time, so a century, let alone a
millennium, is way beyond their imagination. Some sort of understanding
of key events in Britain and the world is thus essential to provide a
context and a chronological framework. A friend who taught the history
of medicine to graduate doctors told me that she could no longer use
terms such as "Napoleonic" or "Victorian". Her highly qualified students
had heard of Napoleon and Queen Victoria, but most had no idea in which
centuries they had lived.
Besides, history is – or should be –
interesting. Though once (not inaccurately) described as "just one
damned thing after another", the chain of cause and effect is
fascinating, as are the details. Shying away from this, many teachers
who lack historical training themselves are naturally defensive, fearing
that the subject may be boring to their pupils. Knowing that their only
contact with history is through films or television dramas, teachers
are tempted to compound the process, even using programmes such as Blackadder
to teach the first world war. In an increasingly post-literate society
where the moving image is king, the dramatic fictionalisation of history
may soon become the predominant form.
Already, television
and film have influenced more schools and pupils to choose "Hitler and
the Henries" for their exams, simply because they are more comfortable
with something they recognise. But as Simon Schama rightly argued in the Guardian on Tuesday,
there are many other periods and events that are both exciting and
hugely significant. Much more of a story-telling approach is needed to
grip the imagination of the young. This should not be difficult. Ever
since Edward Gibbon in the 18th century, British historians have usually
adopted a narrative drive and broad sweep, in sharp contrast to the
often analytic approach in the rest of Europe.
Critics may say
that British history is far too parochial and makes immigrants and those
from other cultures feel excluded. But if the subject is taught well,
it should show all young people how this country, since the very
earliest times, has absorbed successive waves of migration. Teaching the
history of the British empire links in with that of the world: for
better and for worse, the empire made us what we are, forming our
national identity. A country that does not understand its own history is
unlikely to respect that of others.
I would never argue that
historians or history teachers have a moral role. Their main obligation
is to understand the mentality of the time and to pass on that
understanding: it is not to apply 21st-century values in retrospect. Nor
should they simplify for moral effect. It is absolutely right to convey
the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade, but the role of African
leaders themselves in promoting slavery must also be explained. So must
the fact that the eastern slave trade, mainly to the Arabian
peninsula, was older and more lethal. Certainly it led to the death of
more victims in peculiarly horrible circumstances.
Of course
history should never be used to inculcate virtuous citizenship. Yet it
offers the richest imaginable source of moral examples and moral
dilemmas, which are themselves the essence of great fiction, great
drama, and life itself. Without an understanding of history, we are
politically, culturally and socially impoverished. If we sacrifice
history to economic pressures or to budget cuts, we will lose a part of
who we are.