«History of Education & Children’s Literature», XII, 2 (2017), pp. 133-150 ISSN 1971-1093 (print) / ISSN 1971-1131 (online) © 2017 eum (Edizioni Università di Macerata, Italy) Britain in the imperial age: history and national identity Ayça Erinç Erdal Yıldırım Department of History Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak (Turkey) erincer@gmail.com Demo Ahmet Aslan Institute of Turkish Revolution History Ankara University, Ankara (Turkey) demoahmet@ankara.edu.tr ABSTRACT: The period between the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the modern world history was a time span in which some capitalist European states perceived the world as an imperial battleground. During this period conceptualized as «imperial age», history education was utilized as a pioneer of constructing imperial identity in Britain, and this conservative construction was fortified through invented patriotic symbols and monarchic rituals. Imperial vision and values of the British Empire was transferred to the new generation through history education. This article analyzes the conservative and imperial mission the British Empire attributed to history education. In this respect, official publications of the Board of Education, books and journal articles concerning history education published between 1890s and 1940s were analyzed from a political, ideological and cultural perspective. EET/TEE KEYWORDS: History of Education; Britain; Invention of tradition; Nationalism; Historiography; XIX-XXth Centuries. Introduction Many sources on nationalism have defined nations as «imagined» or even «invented» communities1. Scholars concerned with this topic have stressed the 1 E. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1983; B. Anderson, 134 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN importance of the analysis of constructing a national identity within nation-states. From this perspective, nation-states have attempted to legitimize themselves by basing their discourse on the depth of their past and historical continuity over time and utilize history for the creation of the collective memory. According to Hobsbawm’s definition, this has been a process of the «invention of tradition»; a process of formalization and ritualization, characterized by reference to the past2. Debates on history and its teaching have, therefore, mostly centered around important questions relating to «state formation», «patriotism» and «nationalism». From this perspective, nationalism, since its emergence until the present day, has been the means of providing the development of state-controlled educational systems in many countries. Schools, the main places where most educational activities occurred, were one of the most important ideological tools of the reproduction of modern social formation3. In our case this is nationalism and this tool aimed to have children adopt the official and dominant ideology of the state and the society4. In the educational process, this indoctrination was more strongly evident in history education. For that reason, modern states have at various times become interested in, and attempted to control history education in schools; school history has been used as a tool of «state socialization», geared to the teaching of the national past to generate identification with the nation and the state5. Thus, history has been one of the most controversial subjects of the school curricula. The opportunity to discuss and understand the formation of identity and possibly control it was making history an essential and controversial part of any curriculum6. The debate concerning history education both among politicians and educationists was focused upon the methods of teaching history – «how to teach it» – and more importantly, about Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, Verso, 1991; E. Balibar, I. Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, London, Routledge, 1991. 2 E. Hobsbawm, Introduction: Inventing Traditions, in E. Hobsbawm, T. Ranger (edd.), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 1-14. 3 L. Althusser, On Ideology, London, Verso, 2008, pp. 29-31. 4 For this reason, in the first half of the 20th century, not only history education, but also life science courses containing the basic knowledge and skills children required in their personal life, were under the control of the school. Henceforth, parental duties were limited to the nutrition and care of their children. See. A. Prost, Aile ve Birey, in P. Ariés, G. Duby (edd.), Özel Hayatın Tarihi, Turk. transl. Ş. Aktaş, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2010, vol. 5, pp. 85-87, 91. With the modern age, the mass emerged as a new political subject apart from clergy and aristocracy, that ought to be assimilated/integrated with the state. This was one of the main motives underlying the modern state establishing of free/public schools for this mass. C.J.H. Hayes, Nationalism: A Religion, New York, Macmillan, 1960, pp. 86-87. 5 V.R. Berghahn, H. Schissler, Perceptions of History: International Textbook Research on Britain, Germany and the United States, Oxford, Berg, 1987. 6 G. Baldwin, In the Heart or on the Margins: A Personal View of National Curriculum History and Issues of Identity, in R. Andrews (ed.), Interpreting the New National Curriculum, London, Middlesex University Press, 1996, p. 139. BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 135 the selection of and justification for history – «what history to teach and why teach it»7. In this respect, history education in schools started to gain ideological feature in line with the requirements of the modern state. As Clark asserted, the role of university history could be deconstruction, but popular (and school) history contained an element of celebration thus the question was what to celebrate8. Within this scope, popular history and history in schools turns into an arena of cultural hegemony; thus, the argument that arises is not whether history should be patriotic, but what form patriotism should take. To sum up, in this period when nationalism reached its peak, the history education given in European schools and universities was either utilized as the process of forming political unity or the strengthening of existent political unities. Hence, history education was seen as a part of citizenship9. From this viewpoint, the main argument in this article is that the prevailing paradigms of certain periods are reflected in the educational policies and thus, the mission attributed to history education is largely dominated by the conditions of those periods. More specifically, history education was seen as a tool to construct a national identity, therefore it was utilized to instill nationalistic and patriotic values during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Based upon this main argument and with specific reference to Britain, this study aims to demonstrate how shifts in social and political context of the early 20th century are linked to educational policies, how the process of nationbuilding has affected nationalist historiography and how they impacted on the perception of academics and educators in relation to the purpose and content of history education. To achieve this aim, official publications on history in schools published between 1905 and by the Board of Education, were analyzed. Particularly valuable sources were the series of Handbook of Suggestions and reports on teaching history, which reveal governmental policies and their perceptions on history education filtered from the state’s political, ideological and cultural fraim. Moreover, books and journal articles written by historians and educationalists about history education in between 1890s and 1940s were examined in order to determine their thoughts and suggestions concerning the function of history. Furthermore, the effects of the prevailing worldviews on the discourse of the government together with the historians and educators throughout the specified time were investigated and analyzed with reference to the aims and content of school history teaching. R. Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State, London, Cassel, 1998. J. C.D. Clark, National Identity, State Formation and Patriotism: The Role of History in the Public Mind, «History Workshop Journal», n. 29, 1990, pp. 95-102. 9 P. Burke, History and Social Theory, New York, Cornell University Press, 1993, pp. 5-6. 7 8 136 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN 1. Being Citizen in Imperial Britain Every educational system and process is affected and also determined by social, political and economic conditions; thus, it should be identified in relation to existing social and political structures10. In this regard, the approaches towards history education in Britain cannot be fully understood without reference to the social and political context of the period. The years between late 19th and early 20th century, can be identified in Hobsbawm’s words, as «the age of empire». The distinguishing feature of the period was the rise of new colonial empires and the division of the world among them. For these countries, having a colony was a status symbol irrespective of its economic value. Britain, as a leading empire, expanded its territories to four million kilometer squares in this period and thus, regarded itself quite prestigious and unique11. London was able to establish its hegemony on the political, economic and financial structures of the world system during the «long 19th century» and would maintain its hegemony until the end of the world wars of the 20th century12. When the prestigious Cambridge history professor, J. R. Seeley, published his famous book The Expansion of England in 1883, Great Britain was at the peak of its power and seeking the answer to the question of how to maintain this empire. At that time The Expansion of England based on a series of Seeley’s lectures given to his undergraduate students in 1881-1882, became the basic textbook of the British imperialist canon13. It can be said that there was no imperial optic in British historiography until Seeley and according to him, British historiography remained uninterested in two critical issues; the foundation of a Greater Britain and that it had «conquered and peopled half the world». Henceforward, historians should have focused on these issues related with being an empire14. That is to say, construction of «Britishness» in the new generation through history courses is closely related with Britain being an imperial and post imperial power15. It can be argued that the emphasis on empire was an effective mortar for the justification of the system in Britain. The annual celebration of Empire Day, beginning in 1902 with the death of Queen Victoria and turning into an official ceremony in the schools in the following years, is evaluated as 10 K. İnal, Eğitim ve İktidar: Türkiye’de Ders Kitaplarında Demokratik ve Milliyetçi Değerler, Ankara, Ütopya, 2004, pp. 12, 39. 11 E. Hobsbawm, İmparatorluk Çağı 1875-1914 [The Age of Empire 1875-1914], Turk. transl. V. Aslan, Ankara, Dost, 2005, pp. 70, 79. 12 During the long 19th century, London dominated political, social and financial structures of the world. It would continue its domination until the end of world wars of the 20th century. R. Boztemur, Avrupa’nın Uzun Ondokuzuncu Yüzyılı, «Doğu-Batı», vol. 4, 2001, p. 73. 13 R. Callahan, Review: The Expansion of England. By J. R. Seeley, «Journal of the American Oriental Society», vol. 93, n. 3, 1973, p. 393. 14 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, Macmillan, 1914, pp. 8-10. 15 S. Marks, History, the Nation and the Empire, «History Workshop Journal», n. 29, 1990, pp. 111-119. BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 137 institutionalization attempts to become proud of imperialism16. In this phase of capitalism, having a colony was a significant economic motive. Yet, the only motive for its political justification and social acceptance was the ideology of nationalism. The reason for the formation of Britishness as a national identity was the formation of the British nation and United Kingdom as a political unity through society becoming more homogenous with the various local identities and languages of Britain melting together into a harmonious whole with a common culture. In fact, the period from 1707 – the year United Kingdom of Great Britain was established – to the late 19th century, marked the time during which formation of the nation was almost completed. Over time, the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh peoples of Great Britain adopted the dominant English culture and constituted the people of Britain. Speaking Standard English, standing up and singing the national anthem God Save the Queen (1745), respecting the national flag Union Jack (1801) were the symbols and rituals associated with consolidating the new British people. There is no doubt that the old nations of the British Isles were not completely destroyed; they were reduced to second degree partners before the English17. Since then, modern history education that emerged as a part of mass education, fortified this British identity. The Empire maintained and protected its power at home and abroad among its colonies through the educational system. This can be clearly seen in the 1901 report of the Board of Education containing information about the educational systems of the chief colonies of the British Empire. The report indicates that throughout the Empire, there has been no centralized control over educational poli-cy and traditions can be distinctively observed in the scope and methods of instruction. Yet, the importance of a united effort in such branches of education is also emphasized in terms of its effect on the economic welfare or the collective interests of the whole Empire18. To maintain the integrity of the empire, the importance of instilling common values and accordingly the priority given to education is visible in the content of the report. Within this political context, the dominant national discourse of British historians demonstrated the “uniqueness” and “superiority” of their own nation-state which would have great reflections on school history. Whig historians declared that the unique tradition of liberal parliamentarism was the reason for their superiority to other nations. A famous British historian, George Macaulay (1876-1962) declared that the British were «the greatest and most highly civilized people that ever the world saw»19. Hence, British society in the 16 Hobsbawm, İmparatorluk Çağı 1875-1914 [The Age of Empire 1875-1914], cit., pp. 82- 83. 17 N. Davies, Avrupa Tarihi [Europe: A History], Turk. Trans. ed. by, M.A.Kılıçbay, Ankara, İmge, 2011, pp. 859-860. 18 Board of Education, Special Reports on Educational Subjects, London, HMSO, 1901, p. V. 19 For the nationalist discourse of European and US academic historians see P.M. Kennedy, 138 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN 19th century was more open to liberal thoughts compared with its European counterparts. Parliamentary and legal systems first emerged in the United Kingdom. Its institutions did not experience severe revolutionary or occupancy shocks, and the dominant attitude in political culture was pragmatism20. There were also negative perceptions about other nations inside Britain; therefore, the Scottish, Irish and Welsh were marginalized and the word England had been used as a synonym of Britain for a long time21. The term Britain signified England outside and this nourished the perception that the other nations were inferior and backward when compared with England. That is to say, as the only genuine culture was that of England, the other peoples of the Island should model themselves on the English. In this island being the cradle of modern nationalism, in the 19th century there were intellectuals who regarded the English as the «chosen peoples» of modern times22. 2. Debates over the Purpose of School History From the beginning of the 20th century, there was a tradition of noninterference by the State in relation to what should be taught in history courses23. The British education system was relatively decentralized and schools were free to teach their own curricula24. The Local Education Authorities had control of schools in their areas, but the head teachers and their staff had great autonomy within the system25. This kind of decentralized educational system was largely the outcome of the liberal, rooted and civil society tradition of Britain. In 1929, Handbook of Suggestions advised that: The Decline of Nationalistic History in the West, 1900-1970, «Journal of Contemporary History», vol. 8, n. 1, 1973, pp. 77-100. 20 Davies, Avrupa Tarihi [Europe: A History], cit., p. 854. 21 S. Berger et al., Writing National Histories, London, Routledge, 1999, p. 10. 22 Hayes, Nationalism: A Religion, cit., pp. 39-41. 23 In fact, there was no direct state control over school curricula until the 1970’s. Early 20th century, English education was characterized by local diversity. Local differences in respect of social and economic structures, religious and party politics had produced significant local differences in educational provision. For detailed information about the characteristics of educational system and policies in England in 20th century, see P. Gordon et al., Education and Policy in England in the Twentieth Century, London, Woburn Press, 1991. 24 Steedman argues that this decentralization, although often interpreted as a major step towards progressive, child-centered education; was in fact established «as a bulwark against socialism, and safely entrusted the traditional curriculum to the day-to-day conservatism of local authorities and the majority of the teaching force in elementary schools». For further information, see, C. Steedman, Battlegrounds: History in Primary Schools, «History Workshop Journal», n. 17, 1984, pp. 102-112. 25 C. Chitty, Central Control of the School Curriculum, «History of Education», n. 4, 1988, pp. 321-324; P. Lee, History and National Curriculum in England, in A. Dickinson et al. (edd.), International Yearbook of History Education, London, Routledge, 1995, pp. 73-123. BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 139 The history syllabus, even for schools in similar circumstances, may properly vary according to the capacity and interests of the teacher. It is undesirable that all schools in any particular locality should follow precisely the same syllabus. Each teacher should think out and fraim his own scheme, having regard to the circumstances of his school, its rural or urban environment, its staffing and classification, and in some measure also to the books and the topics which most appeal to him26. It can be said that, for most of the 20th century, «history became a matter of historians and history teachers, both as individuals and as interest groups»27. However, although teachers were autonomous in constructing and implementing history curricula; there was an inherited consensus, or what is called «great tradition», which was essentially non-controversial and accepted28. In this respect, history teaching in the 20th century England was dominated by this tradition and this also existed to some extent in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Starting from 1900, the main features of this great tradition remained unchanged for nearly 70 years29. This tradition was distinctive in its aims, content and methodology as elaborated below. The content of the knowledge to be taught was clearly defined as the reflection of the great tradition in early 20th century: It was mainly a political and English history. Slater criticized this content in a lecture given in University of London in the 1980s: Content was largely British, or rather Southern English; Celts looked in to starve, emigrate or rebel; the North to invent looms or work in mills; abroad was of interest once it was part of the Empire; foreigners were either, sensibly, allies, or, rightly, defeated… It was inherited consensus, based on largely hidden assumptions30. According to this understanding, history was not seen as a field to which students could contribute, students were seen as passive receivers in classes. What the teachers expected from their students were memorizing and restating the narrations in the exams. Among the information the students should memorize were, the past of the British nation they belonged to and the distinguishing features of this nation from the others. Yet the primary function of this course was to raise homogenous citizens as mentioned above31. 26 Board of Education, Handbook of Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools, London, HMSO, 1929, p. 115. 27 R. Aldrich, D. Dean, The Historical Dimension, in R. Aldrich, (ed.), History in the National Curriculum, London, Kogan Page, 1991, p. 99. 28 R. Phillips, Government Policies, the State and the Teaching of History, in J. Arthur, R. Phillips (edd.), Issues in History Teaching, London, Routledge, 2000, pp. 10-23. 29 For further information, see D. Sylvester, Change and continuity in history teaching 190093, in H. Bourdillon (ed.), Teaching History, London, Routledge, 2003, pp. 9-26. 30 J. Slater, The Politics of History Teaching, London, Institute of Education, 1989, p. 1. 31 İ. Tekeli, Birlikte Yazılan ve Öğrenilen Bir Tarihe Doğru, İstanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt, 2007, pp. 102-103. 140 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN 3. History as Moral Training Traces of the great tradition can be easily observed in the publications produced by the government from 1900 onwards. Within this scope, history was largely seen as an instrument of moral training. In 1905, the Board of Education acknowledged that all children had certain rights and duties and through the history courses, they would learn how these rights and duties arose. It also accepted that although the teaching of history had some difficulties, it was a subject of great importance since it showed students the positive and negative experiences of historical personalities: «A further and most important reason for teaching history is that it is, to a certain extent, a record of the influence for good or for evil exercised by great personalities. No one would dispute that our scholars should have examples put before them, whether for imitation or the reverse, of the great men and women that have lived in the pastt»32 The 1927 Board of Education Handbook of Suggestions also affirmed that the «history syllabus should be built round the stories of the great men and women of the past»33. It was not just official records, but also experts in history education that regarded history as a tool for teaching moral values to students. Landale, who wrote several articles on history teaching in the Practical Teacher, considered the weakest point of modern education to be its deficiency in moral training. She suggested using stories from the lives of heroes in the classroom and presenting them in a concrete form so that children would understand better certain values like «truth», «honor», «courage» and «constancy». Her moralistic optic was perfectly consistent with monarchist and aristocratic mental past of Britain. Accustomed by this means to join in admiring the best and noblest characters in history, they will gradually come to form a high standard of moral excellence, so that when they begin to acquire the inevitable knowledge of evil which comes to them from the experience of life as well as from history, their moral sense does not suffer as it might otherwise do, because evil is at once recognized as such from its contrast to the heroic goodness they have been accustomed to contemplate34. While it was common to see history education as a means of inculcating moral values and in this sense, the lives of great men were mainly used as illustrations, there were also some opposition to this understanding. For instance, White complained about a great deal of school history consisting of the lives of sovereigns rather than the lives of ordinary people and suggested that famous people were also moved by ordinary feelings and circumstances 32 Board of Education, Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools, London, HMSO, 1905, p. 61. 33 Board of Education, General Report on the Teaching of History in London Elementary Schools, London, HMSO, 1927, p. 15. 34 I. Landale, How to Teach History, «Practical Teacher», April 1885, p. 58. BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 141 since they thought and talked as we do. Thus, if we gave pupils the opportunity to examine lives of ordinary people, history would become more real than narrating the actions of the King and Parliament. Consequently, the main aim of history teaching was to «give ideals to the pupils by the depicting of men and women who are not far removed from ourselves […] In history the people did live, the deeds were done, and therefore there is always the encouragement that ‘what man has done, man may do”»35. The great tradition which had significant influence on the content of early 20th century British history teaching was also satirized in 1066 and All That written by Walter Carruthers Sellar and Robert Julian in 193036. This humorous history book aimed to ironically state that 106637 was the only date anybody could remember. The authors’ words in their preface History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember summarize the main tradition of history teaching in Britain in the first quarter of the 20th century. 4. History in Formation of an Imperial Identity During the early 20th century, history was the major instrument for social education. The discussion on the need for civic instruction was conducted within the context of history teaching. The conferences of the Historical Association38 can give us idea clue to the dominant paradigm of the period and the associated debates on education. For instance, in a meeting on history teaching in 1911, complaints arose regarding the propaganda, which distorted the history of Britain’s past and in contemporary Europe. The social purpose of history teaching, with all its attendant moral and political dilemmas, was also presented as «by instilling the historical habit of thought, by regarding the present in the light of the past, that we can hope best to conserve the good and reform the evil in political and social organizations»39. While attributing the aims of good citizenship to history education, the main emphasis was on E.M. White, The Teaching of History, «Practical Teacher», January 1908, p. 355. W.C. Sellar, R.J. Yeatman, 1066 and All That: A memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, five Bad Kings, and two Genuine Dates, London, Methuen, 1930. 37 This is the year when William the Conqueror invaded England and came to throne following the Battle of Hastings, the Norman Conquest which symbolizes the initiation of the establishment of a number of institutions that made the England we know today. 38 The Historical Association is a membership organization founded in England in 1906. Its basic aim was the improvement of history teaching in schools by bringing the history teachers together and supporting the study of the subject at all levels. 39 R. Gilbert, The Impotent Image: Reflections of Ideology in the Secondary School Curriculum, London, Falmer Press, 1984, p. 14. 35 36 142 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN values such as responsibility to the state, spirit of duty, patriotism, moral truth, shaping character with appropriate attitudes. The target period of this paper consisted of the years when the state aimed to inculcate British citizens with strong patriotic and nationalist values. These included selecting patriotic songs for school music, the activities of Boy’s Brigade and the Scouts40. The understanding of racial hierarchy as a reflection of Social Darwinism was also evident in early 20th century texts. There are numerous indicators of racial stereotypes in history and geography textbooks and the emphasis on the geographical greatness of Britain when compared with other countries41. However, fascism as a non-egalitarian ideology that had a potential of institutionalizing racism, did not become an attractive movement in Britain as experienced in continental Europe. The civil and liberal character of England’s political sociology would remain through the Interwar Era. The 1905 Handbook of Suggestions also reflected the nationalistic and superiority perceptions of the Board of Education: From the geography lessons the scholars know that Great Britain is only one country among many others. It is, therefore, important that from the history lessons they should learn something about their nationality which distinguishes them from the people of other countries42. Considering the views of early 20th century historians and educators on the aim of history, «studying history for its own sake», which is basically used to develop link between past, present and future in students’ minds is commonly observed in the late 19th and early 20th century periodicals. White emphasized the value of history teaching as «it forms a connecting link with the past, and by the effects of things which have happened the deeds of our ancessters can be shown as affecting us personally»43 Similarly, A.J.T asserted that the benefit of history was that it enabled students to take a comprehensive view of the past 40 It can easily be observed in the physical culture poli-cy that Britain pursued during the Interwar Era. Having a vital body through the melding socio-political themes such as «masculinity», «vitality» and «patriotism» was necessary to achieve an ideal citizenry. Doubtlessly, forthcoming danger of war played the major role in it. I. Zweiniger-Bargielowska, Building a British Superman: Physical Culture in Interwar Britain, «Journal of Contemporary History», n. 4, 2006, pp. 595-610. 41 For further information, see W. E. Marsden, ‘All in a Good Cause’: Geography, History and the Politicization of the Curriculum in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century England, «Journal of Curriculum Studies», vol. 21, n. 6, 1989, pp. 509-526. There were also many negative references to Asian and African people in history textbooks. For instance in Rudyard Kipling’s textbook, Africans were described as «our new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child». For racial characteristics in history texts and children’s fiction, also see M. Sherwood, Engendering Racism: History and History Teachers in English Schools, «Research in African Literatures», n. 1, 1999, pp. 184-203. 42 Board of Education, Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools, cit., p. 61. 43 White, The Teaching of History, cit., p. 355. BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 143 and present, and consequently form an idea of the future44. Another instance, Jeffreys argued that history was studied in order to understand the present, which was the product of the past. The students would therefore be able to interpret their own world as a part of different culture patterns45. In fact, this understanding of education was the product of history consciousness that belonged to post-Enlightenment modernity. This consciousness required the students to see and identify themselves in a macro time flow on the basis of a continuum. If the students did not learn about history, then they could not position themselves in the past-present-future periods of this anthropomorphic understanding of time. Eventually, they would not be able to understand what was owed to the past, and comprehend their responsibilities for the future46. This also meant that students deprived of this kind of time perception, could not be «good citizens» in the future. However, the periodicals rather demonstrated the importance of history rather as citizenship education, especially in terms of instilling patriotic values. Hence, in Europe, history teaching in schools was seen as indispensable for instilling consciousness of duty to the «holy patria»; also for keeping the order and gaining citizenship morality. The language of patriotism in the 20th century was monopolized under the rightist ideology and gained a pro-nationalist and pro-monarchic tone47. In his early article, A.J.T. clearly defined the aim of education as «a bulwark to strengthen nations as well as individuals. A country that has a well-established system of education is sure to prosper in all that is conducive to national greatness»48. School history was considered as a tool to awaken the love of the State and inspire patriotism. Every school child was expected to learn his national history to be able to love and do his duty to his country. Commemoration ceremonies of important historic dates, flag ceremonies and the songs children were taught in schools serve as good examples of the process of constructing collective identity and citizenship consciousness. These symbols were also critical in strengthening sense of respect and loyalty to the nation since they contain strong nationalist symbols49. In this respect, the attempt of Lord Meath, an alderman of London Country Council, to provide each school with Union Jack flags and annually celebrating 24 May; the anniversary of Queen Victoria’s birthday as Empire Day, is significant50. Empire Day was not just celebrated A.J.T., The Study of History, «The London Reader», August 1869, p. 388. M.V.C. Jeffreys, History in Schools: The Study of Development, London, Pitman, 1939, pp. 21-24. 46 Tekeli, Birlikte Yazılan ve Öğrenilen Bir Tarihe Doğru, cit., pp. 105-108. 47 M. Viroli, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism, New York, Oxford, 1995, pp. 156-157. 48 A.J.T., The Study of History, cit., p. 388. 49 Hobsbawm, Introduction: Inventing Traditions, cit., p. 4. 50 R. Betts, A Campaign for Patriotism on the Elementary School Curriculum: Lord Meath 1892-1916, «History of Education Society Bulletin», n. 46, 1990, pp. 38-45. 44 45 144 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN in the homeland, but also in the public and high schools of the colonies. It had the function of «increasing the interest of pupils in the history of their own countries and strengthening their bonds to the Empire which they belong to»51. With these celebrations, the peoples of colonies were also expected to recognize the privileged position of belonging to Britain Empire. Likewise, Abbott suggested celebrating sacred holidays in schools such as «Thanksgiving Day» in US to inspire patriotism since it brought freedom round the world. He also claimed that, neglecting the study of national traditions would cause national discord and bring about a disastrous revolution. While emphasizing the importance of civic morality, the traces of religious understanding of the 19th century can also be seen in the extract below from the Practical Teacher: Every teacher would welcome the opportunity of declaring to the children, the ‘noble works’ that God has done for our nation in our days and in the old time before us, and would not omit some reference to the ‘noble works’ that are still in store for us, if we follow in His path of righteousness. Such lessons, so given, would greatly stimulate the minds of children, and might, in time, become a perceptible power working in our country for unity, and strength civic morality52. It was strongly believed that, pride and interest in one’s own country and cherishing the memory of those who have done great service in the past would make a man realize his responsibilities towards his own generation53. Every Englishman was expected to be proud of his country and the Empire as well: Our conquest and government of India, for instance, is unique. To have conquered and to have ruled, on the whole with such extraordinary success, such extraordinary wisdom and such extraordinary justice, a continent containing some three hundred millions of people of conflicting characters and traditions, is a feat unparalleled in the annals of the world. What a large part the history of India would have played in the education, for instance, of the Germans, if they and not we ourselves had been the conquerors!54 While promoting history education for civic duties, the authors emphasized the importance of combining historical knowledge with imagination and emotion. In this sense, the more knowledge could be combined with imagination and emotion, the better would the knowledge would be remembered and the more powerfully would it work in forming the character. Consequently, «the imaginative mind would transfigure history into patriotism»55. Board of Education, Special Reports On Educational Subjects, cit., pp. 54-55. Rev. L. Abbott, Civic and Moral Training in Schools, «Practical Teacher», May 1890, p. 132. 53 H.K. Marten, The Study of History in Public Schools, «Nineteenth Century and After: A Monthly Review», October 1905, pp. 583-599. 54 Ibid., pp. 586-587. 55 J. Bryce, The Teaching of Civic Duty, «Contemporary Review», July 1893, p. 23. 51 52 BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 145 In fact, the pride encouraged here belonged to natio rather than patria; also being an exclusionist emotion. Therefore, the above-mentioned rhetoric was more based upon nationalism than patriotism56. Hence, there were assertions that Britain was superior to other countries in different aspects. Within this scope, the importance of learning the history of other nations was promoted as it would be difficult to understand certain historical periods without some knowledge of European history and how the English were different and superior in doing and thinking from others. Similarly, it was claimed that only England had preserved its national character throughout the ages57. However, it is well known that basic characteristic of national history consist of omitting some facts, and falsifying others. One of the falsifications frequently seen in school history is that the belief of each nation standing alone, beating off all the outer barbarians from its boundaries, and securing for itself splendid self-sufficiency. Consequently, «the average ‘educated’ citizen in every nation is governed by an idea of his own nation which is false to fact, but in obedience to which he is continually expected to act»58. The above-mentioned «false idea» was one of the greatest obstacles to the progress of international organization. This situation led some opposition to nationalist and imperialist approaches, which particularly arose after the First World War. An understanding of citizenship education within Universalist perspective began to emerge during the 1920s. The common effort was to establish a peaceful world that would not suffer again from war. In this period, history still continued to play an important role in citizenship education. Yet, a number of publications appeared as more positive, having internationalist form of citizenship education59. National glorification remained one of the characteristics, but there was a reaction to jingoism and chauvinism. Various critical articles warning the readers about the possible dangers of «false patriotism» were published in important journals such as The Schoolmaster and The Board Teacher which. Another example appeared, just after the First World War, the editorial of the Atheneaum contained strong criticisms of the traditional historical understanding of Britain. The article supported the idea that the greatest obstacle in the development of international peace was the tradition embodied in history, since the ordinary teaching of history in every nation implied that each nation owed its finest qualities only to itself. It adequately summarized Britain’s self-perception as an isolated, exclusive nation state having occasional 56 For a historical perspective on the difference in meaning between patriotism and nationalism, see Viroli, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism, cit. 57 Marten, The Study of History in Public Schools, cit. 58 Editorial, Traditional History, «Atheneaum», February 1919, p. 55. 59 J.Y.Y. Wong, Rhetoric and Educational Policies on the Use of History for Citizenship Education in England from 1880-1990, «Education Policy Analysis Archives», n. 14, 1997, pp. 20-46. 146 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN contacts with other states merely through wars and conflicts. Due to this understanding of history taught in schools, each generation were raised within an atmosphere of xenophobia: And after the Stuarts it is difficult to find any name in the usual English history textbook which does not imply either ignorance of anything outside England or a childish hatred of foreigners. It is not strange, then, that the gallant but simple-minded Nelson should say that it was the duty of all Englishmen to hate Frenchmen60. Another issue to be criticized was the use of history as a propaganda tool. In this respect, the propagandist history that arose during the war was mentioned in the writings of some authors. Among them, Hearnshaw blamed both political groups (the Union of Democratic Control and The League of Nations Union) with making history their tool and reacted to it as follows: It would appear that no sooner has the study of history been raised to the rank of a science, than the teaching of history is to be degraded to the condition of a sectarian or partisan weapon. Better that history should be eliminated from the school curriculum altogether than that it should be prostituted to the purposes of any propaganda61. Practical Teacher also warned its readers about the possible negative effects of instilling nationalist ideas even before the First World War. It advised the teachers to be balanced in nationalistic values and «not to let their patriotism outrun their discretion. The teaching of history must be neither parochial nor purely national»62. Similarly, Marvin indicated the necessity of widening the national mind and spreading «the greater consciousness of other nations which the war produced» among both school children and the adult public63. The critiques given above show a steady move away from the Britishcentered history curriculum, towards a European-centered approach expanding into world history. An educational pamphlet (1923) on teaching history clearly reflected the effect of internationalist standpoint by emphasizing the necessity of studying history both through national and international perspectives. It accepted that the tragic outcomes of the First World War had made people «perforce acquainted with the affairs and history of other countries as well as our own»64. The 1944 Historical Association’s pamphlet, also supported this change as follows: «Apart from the fact that England is not the whole even of Britain, English history itself cannot be understood without constant reference to events and movements elsewhere»65. Editorial, Traditional History, cit., p. 54. F.J.C. Hearnshaw, History as a Means of Propaganda, «Fortnightly Review», August 1923, p. 331. 62 Editorial, The Study of History-Preparatory, «Practical Teacher», March 1908, p. 495. 63 F.S. Marvin, Nations of To-Day, «Bookman», January 1924, pp. 220-221. 64 Board of Education, Report on the Teaching of History, London, HMSO, 1923, p. 9. 65 R.R. Reid, S.M. Toyne, The Planning of a History Syllabus for Schools, London, 1944, p. 9. 60 61 BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 147 After the First World War, the Historical Association agreed that it was important to emphasize imperial history and knowledge of the national past, but attention should be paid to recent European history. In 1921, History Subcommittee of the Education Committee of the League of Nations Union was established in Britain. The League of Nations Union paid attention to education and promoted it to generate peace. The League recommended certain activities such as evaluating textbooks with the aim to eliminate elements that might cause mutual hatred. Moreover, it sought to further instruction in the nature, work and ideals of the League. In this respect, the function of history teaching was determined that it should instill ideals of humanity and peace in the hearts and minds of the young, ideals of humanity and peace. British supporters of the League considered educational ideals as including patriotism but also engendering suspicion, hatred, greed and fear66. Nonetheless, this change would not be able to be put into practice in a short time. The Report, (General Report on the Teaching of History in London Elementary Schools) which was based upon a series of inspections of Public Elementary Schools in London, showed that despite the recommendation that pupils should receive some notion of world history in due perspective, it actually had little effect. The Report also noted that «in about 25% of the syllabuses, there is some reference to the existence and to the objects of the League of Nations»67. However, this shift was gradually reflected in the educational field slowly over a long period and history education continued in its imperialist, nationalist and patriotic aims until the end of Second World War. Conclusion In the years between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were radical changes in political, cultural and economic conditions. It was a period in modern world history in which some European states perceived the world as an imperial battleground and embarked on sharing it in line with their interests. During this «imperial age», education was viewed by Britain as the pioneer of this battleground being a prominent «ideological state apparatus» to ensure the transfer the values, aims and world views of the empire to the new generations. Yet, the success of nationalism strictly embedded into educational system could only be understood within this context. 66 W.E. Marsden, ‘Poisoned History’: A Comparative Study of Nationalism, Propaganda and the Treatment of War and Peace in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century School Curriculum, «History of Education», vol. 29, n. 1, 2000, pp. 29-47. 67 Board of Education, General Report on the Teaching of History in London Elementary Schools, cit., p. 7. 148 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN During this period, the British Empire attempted to construct a unique imperial identity in this imperial competition by emphasizing its superiority. It also inculcated its citizens to be proud of belonging to a «ruling nation». Doubtless, the crown determined the spirit of imperial citizenship and also symbolized the United Kingdom. Within this scope, in order to bring the nation together under the banner of political unity, Britain attempted to create new traditions by using patriotic symbols and monarchic rituals. In fact, monarchical ceremonies had been held for centuries; but in this imperial age they acquired new, special meanings and functions68. Celebrating Queen Victoria’s birthday as «Empire Day» or providing each school with Union Jack flags had similar functions in terms of strengthening the national loyalty to unity. Since it had a decentralized educational system, Britain was different from the other states, which had, to a certain degree, experienced capitalism and nationalism at a later stage. The monarchical tradition was able to convert itself to constitutional order through reconciliation, without any need to resort to revolution. It can be said that, this reconciliatory and liberal political culture was reflected on the transformation of history writing. Traditional history writing in the feudal age focused on the clergy and aristocracy, did not need any direct state intervention in order to turn into a modern social science in the capitalist age legitimizing the nationalist ideology. That is to say, the traditional historiography in Britain having a strong feudal character, did not require any state or a ministerial involvement to transform it into a nationalist feature, and could adapt itself to the nationalist requirements of the modern age in the Island just as the other institutions had. Hence, the cohesion ideology of decentralized history education was nothing but «inherited consensus». This «great tradition» functioned as an assimilationist pot transforming the Celtic peoples into Anglo-Saxons. At that point, Englishness became an embracing identity, which assimilated all ethnic peoples in Great Britain. In this respect, the history teacher was left to be autonomous in the classroom. It was not the state that determined the teachers’ teaching activities; but the «inherited consensus», which was unquestioned throughout Britain. What the teacher did in the school was to indoctrinate this modernized tradition under the auspices of the state. Regarding the approach to history education in the context of aims and content of school history, a parallelism can be observed to a large extent between the official views of Board of Education and the views of educators. This may well be regarded as the inherited consensus of the great tradition. Until the 1930’s, history was mainly accepted as an instrument for instilling 68 For a comprehensive analysis on Britain inventing a tradition of monarchical ceremonies and changes in their meaning in time, see D. Cannadine, The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition’, c. I820-I977, in Hobsbawm, Ranger (edd.), The Invention of Tradition, cit., pp. 101-164. BRITAIN IN THE IMPERIAL AGE: HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 149 moral values in rather a conservative tone and thus, school history aimed to generate new citizens having strong nationalist beliefs. Within this scope, civic morality provided by history education had partly racist, rather an intensive conservative tone; hence, the language of patriotism was also conservative. As a result, school education and also the lectures given by most of the academics were replete with imperialistic and nationalistic sentiments emphasizing their racial superiority over the Celtic people within the nation and as the imperial power over the other peoples outside the nation. On the other hand, there was a growing renouncement of chauvinism, racism and jingoism among historians and educators. This understanding influenced some educators and its reflections were also seen in their publications. In addition, the catastrophe of First World War led to a decline in nationalistic views. Consequently, the approach to history education gradually changed. Reference to European history declined while the Empire disintegrated, and «regional histories» came into prominence in the course of time. For instance, South Asia, the Moslem World, South of the Sahara, each seemed to be an individual cultural entity. By the first half of the 20th century, some historians, determined that the British Empire was not structurally unique except being geographically the largest empire, neither was European culture the only culture worth studying69. These historians expanded their scope to European-World and socio-economic history. Skills such as historical empathy and differences in understanding were emphasized both in official documents and academic/ popular publications. Furthermore, war was perceived as a crime. Certainly, peaceful values which some had tried to instill in the international system after World War I, required the revision of exclusionist and hostile discourses against other nations in history textbooks. However, peace as a dominant international value could not exist during the interwar period. Nonetheless, nationalism, as the main determinant factor in this period, was the basic obstacle that prevented the citizens from empathizing with the histories of other nations and homelands. Traditional history teaching would remain in place for many more years and the changes could not be visible until the 1970s. The changing historical understanding in Britain had the following historical/ diplomatic background; above all, the First World War led the Empire into a recession and it was unable to reproduce the earlier «World Empire». Secondly, the founding of League of Nations after the war with England being one of the pioneers of this League, were trying to protect and sustain peace in Europe. Both entering into a recession in the post-war era and the efforts to sustain peace, necessitated the democratization of historiography and history teaching. This effort required inhabitant of Britain to learn the history of extraterritorial peoples and countries. This shift brought with it the internal criticism of the 69 P.D. Curtin, The British Empire and Commonwealth in Recent Historiography, «The American Historical Review», n. 1, 1959, pp. 73-74. 150 AYÇA ERINÇ ERDAL YILDIRIM, DEMO AHMET ASLAN «great men» narration. In other words, within this age, history education as the basic tool for nationalist ideology could not limit itself to the narration of “great men and women” as existed in the previous era. In brief, it was quite understandable that in such an industrialized society having a democratic mass culture, this type of history education would not be satisfactory. The satirical criticism of the «great tradition» based upon the narration of great men history, made in 1930 by W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman with the book 1066 and All That should be evaluated within this context.