This morning I sat down in the tube and next to me I saw a left over from the Guardian, the Education section had been dashed aside and left behind about to turn into trash. I looked at it and thought that maybe I'd find something more interesting in there than I would if I stared at the sleepy, grumpy faces of Monday passengers. I picked it up and the front page head line sounded quite relevant to my current theme of discussion
"Know your history, know your cultural identity" great! I thought, identity is being discussed in schools. Teachers are encouraging children to know, value and embrace their cultures, this way helping to shape their identity. It had not become clear to me then that "your" in the title was giving every child from every country and nation studying in England, a British Culture as means of identification.
The article debates whether children should leave school with a chronological account of significant historical dates of "Our Island History" this idea on the surface sounds practical, we are all living and sharing this Island. Mike Baker speaks about his own experience in school and history admitting he has been left with a "maze" of knowledge and describes the teaching method as "narrow and unrelated" personally, I can relate to that statement - I am ashamed to say I lack a good grasp of the narrative history of the British Isles.
Then there is a an intersting debate which follows about the balance of factual and practical knowledge students should have in contrast with what the curriculum requires. He seems to be supporting the idea that the teaching of History should go much further than just memorizing facts but develop source analyses skills in young people.
I am now over half way through this article, and I see no relation to the title. There is a proposed chronological structure on a new learning strategy, starting with Roman Britain, the Angles and the Saxons, and the Vikings in year 7 and moving steadily through to the Civil Wars, the Restoration and Victorian Britain in year 9. In year 10 and 11 students could opt for either a full or half GCSE in which they would choose from a selection of key themes in British history as well as topics from modern world history blah blah blah...blah...
This to me sounds fantastic and coherent, I would be very happy if my son learned accordingly. However, what Bake has failed to acknowledge is that in this way children are not gaining an individual cultural identity. Children from African and Latin American cultures for example - would learn about their heritage through modules on the Age of the Empire and that would be how their knowledge is shaped, similarly Latin American children would be taught through the supposed discovery of America by Spaniard Cristobal Colonm, which at 25 I still find very hard to digest.
Although it is common for countries to focus heavily on their own national history as compulsory knowledge, for example France, Finland, Greece and Sweden regard all studying their own countries history it is not a way of fostering an awareness of national cultural identity, the raise of cultural identity is especific to children from different countries it is not a general "your" in the self as proposed in the this title. Unless "you" have willingly made this decision. Frightfully however, this title seems to imply that this decision has already been made for all students as they are taught History in Britain.
It disregards both diversity and inclusion of others cultural identity. One can emigrate to Britain, be born in this Isle without identifying ever through its History, I stand in that line. I am proud to be here, I hold great respect and gratitude to this country for the opportunities from which I benefit, I also enjoy being part of British Culture- but would never identify though it.
How History is taught in schools today affect the way foreign children are appreciated and valued by their fellow pupils, also the way they see and value themselves and the history of their country. To learn that your origins were once heavily and inhumanly prosecuted, considered inferior with little other facts or emphasis to balance these painful historical facts, there is a damage being done to the image a child will have formed about their history and self representation.
We can see how this narratives also exist in material culture. High culture is the playground of the rich and paintings worth sometimes billions of pounds are found depicting people from none western cultures predominantly as slaves or servants. These are hanged in highly regarded institutions or fairs, which are often part of immense buildings reflecting Britain Imperialist Roman Architecture, built to be admired and to be associated with grandeur, strength - sending a message of superiority to other nations. This can cause a child to feel shame or a sense of inferiority. I have chosen below three paintings which to illustrate my point.
What I most love about Art History is how paintings act as time capsules unknowingly capturing aspects of history as it was lived through those that experienced that time. This includes: style, fashion, social and personal practices. It was not the intention of the painter to present the black women as servants, it was normal practice of the time and a common view of society.
 |
| Dante Gabriel Rossetti,The Beloved, 1865 |
 |
| Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863 |
 |
A Homage to Velazquez Luca Giordano, about 1692-1700
|
I want t mention briefly "M.R" a friend of mine, she does not wish to be named. This not an issues which is easy to discuss for everyone when speaking from experience, but it is nevertheless a brave step to admit these feelings and talk about about them. Thank you M.R.
This is her story:
M.R grew up in the United States where she went to school in New York, she is from a practicing Jewish family. While M.R was in school she was questioned endlessly about her heritage and religion, these curious minds sometimes then turned into sceptical critics who found her an object of discussion and sometimes mockery. As M.R got older she began to feel ashamed of some aspects from her culture and hid them from others instead giving way to the American way of life, this way she was able to fit in and feel less like "the other". It is precisely this distinction between a dominant culture and the "other" which causes division which can lead to segregation and alienation of children.
I propose that children should be taught as a compulsory module the history of the country in which they are learning as it is done to date, but they should also take additional modules of their choice of foreign history, from the year 7 onwards, or a module which overviews cultures and countries of the world, not necessarily focusing on popular events. This way by the time they are in year 13 they are not mostly ignorant of others cultures including and practices.
This would mean that from an early age children do not fall victims of myth or stereotypes against others of even worst, themselves and are included and valued. Teachers should be especially trained to encourage acceptance and integration where all ca coexist and at the same time respect others freedom to be different.
NOTE:
I am aware that I have probably taken the title
"Know your history, know your cultural identity" a bit further than it was intended. But it is these type of comment is what shapes peoples way of thinking and expectations. As a journalist of the Guardian Newspaper, I would expect Mike Baker to know how to use language in a more inclusive way.
![[1]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Floris_-_The_Fall_of_the_Rebellious_Angels_-_WGA7947.jpg){kind=link}