Tweet
WE MUST HAVE PRIDE IN BRITAIN
Leek Post and Times
November 18, 2009
Mr Edmeades's response to my letter has confirmed my suspicions that
his original letter, in which he railed against an individual who put
forward the perfectly legitimate case that British history should
take precedence over the teaching of foreign belief systems, arose
from a scant knowledge of history and from a naive misunderstanding
of human nature.
Britain had an empire, one of the largest the world has ever known,
but we did not blaze a trail in imperial acquisition, as Mr Edmeades
surely knows.
In Europe, prior to ourselves, the Spanish, the French and the
Portuguese had undertaken empire building in various far flung parts
of the world and in the east the Ottoman Turks had conquered huge
swathes of the Middle East, North Africa and eastern Europe.
However, it seems from Mr Edmeades's letters his opinions are
symptomatic of a trend which for the last couple of decades has given
expression to the belief that the British, in particular the English,
need to apologise for their past and for the empire building of
their ancestors.
If Mr Edmeades had a more secure knowledge of history he would know
that the British Empire, while guilty of arrogance and oppression
(what empire hasn't been?) was, in the context of world history,
one of the more benign.
Read up on the imperial rule of our European partners, if you wish
to see the contrast or look at the atrocities committed under the
Ottoman Empire, the genocide of the Armenians might be a start.
Ghandi himself once said that if he had been living under French
imperial rule he would have been shot.
It is part of the same trend which has seen the appearance of
apologists for the Crusades who believe that relations between east
and west will be much improved if the west offers meaningless apologies
for crusading knights who lived a millennium ago.
But, significantly, no apologies have been demanded of or offered by
the opposing side who were equally guilty of aggression and atrocity
during those times.
With regard to the slave trade, Mr Emeades is wrong in what he terms
his 'broad approach'.
There was in fact vocal opposition to the slave trade in this country
long before the 1807 abolition of the slave trade.
As an instance of this it is recorded that in the late 18th century
a black slave joined the Royal Navy and ended up commanding a naval
vessel.
This would not have happened in the French navy, in fact Napoleon
reinstituted slavery in 1804.
Mr Edmeades's belief that 'the spirit of Admiral Lord Nelson' amounted
to setting sail to 'thrash a few Johnny foreigners' has no foundation
in fact.
Nelson commanded a navy which did not allow slavery on board its ships
and which was in fact a refuge for many slaves trying to escape just
that fate.
I would also point out to Mr Edmeades that while admittedly Britain
initially benefited from slavery, the country also expended huge
amounts of blood and treasure, chasing down and turning back over
1,600 slave ships in the Atlantic.
Let us also remember that the wealth of this country was to a
much greater extent based upon the exploitation of its own people,
ironically at the same time as the Navy was engaged in trying to
eradicate the evils of African slavery.
Read up on the underbelly of the industrial revolution and it will
be clear that slavery was not a monopoly of one race or colour.
Sacrificing British history, and with it national identity, on the
altar of political correctness is a misguided and fundamentally flawed
approach to improving race relations.
It merely breeds a resentment that festers and then feeds the fires
of extremists.
Imposing on the British, especially the English, a sense of moral guilt
about their past, is itself racist and unhelpful in any attempts to
harmonise race relations.
We live in a multi-cultural society, this is nothing new, and while
teaching our children about other cultures should form part of any
fully rounded education system, it has to work in all directions.
Multiculturalism should not be about misrepresenting, deriding or
demonising the history and culture of the host nation.
Labelling people little Englanders or anachronistic xenophobes because
they wish to take a pride in our national identity and history and
wish to see their children taught it is unjust.
To sum up, Mr Edmeades, I did not misunderstand your views, they came
through quite clearly and they betray a remarkable level of naivety.
Your blue-sky thinking, with reference to multicultural harmony,
needs to be tempered with understanding of a world history replete
with examples of the bloody outcomes of resentment engendered in a
majority against a minority when the majority fears that its cultural
identity is being denigrated, eroded and subsumed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Leek Post and Times
November 18, 2009
Mr Edmeades's response to my letter has confirmed my suspicions that
his original letter, in which he railed against an individual who put
forward the perfectly legitimate case that British history should
take precedence over the teaching of foreign belief systems, arose
from a scant knowledge of history and from a naive misunderstanding
of human nature.
Britain had an empire, one of the largest the world has ever known,
but we did not blaze a trail in imperial acquisition, as Mr Edmeades
surely knows.
In Europe, prior to ourselves, the Spanish, the French and the
Portuguese had undertaken empire building in various far flung parts
of the world and in the east the Ottoman Turks had conquered huge
swathes of the Middle East, North Africa and eastern Europe.
However, it seems from Mr Edmeades's letters his opinions are
symptomatic of a trend which for the last couple of decades has given
expression to the belief that the British, in particular the English,
need to apologise for their past and for the empire building of
their ancestors.
If Mr Edmeades had a more secure knowledge of history he would know
that the British Empire, while guilty of arrogance and oppression
(what empire hasn't been?) was, in the context of world history,
one of the more benign.
Read up on the imperial rule of our European partners, if you wish
to see the contrast or look at the atrocities committed under the
Ottoman Empire, the genocide of the Armenians might be a start.
Ghandi himself once said that if he had been living under French
imperial rule he would have been shot.
It is part of the same trend which has seen the appearance of
apologists for the Crusades who believe that relations between east
and west will be much improved if the west offers meaningless apologies
for crusading knights who lived a millennium ago.
But, significantly, no apologies have been demanded of or offered by
the opposing side who were equally guilty of aggression and atrocity
during those times.
With regard to the slave trade, Mr Emeades is wrong in what he terms
his 'broad approach'.
There was in fact vocal opposition to the slave trade in this country
long before the 1807 abolition of the slave trade.
As an instance of this it is recorded that in the late 18th century
a black slave joined the Royal Navy and ended up commanding a naval
vessel.
This would not have happened in the French navy, in fact Napoleon
reinstituted slavery in 1804.
Mr Edmeades's belief that 'the spirit of Admiral Lord Nelson' amounted
to setting sail to 'thrash a few Johnny foreigners' has no foundation
in fact.
Nelson commanded a navy which did not allow slavery on board its ships
and which was in fact a refuge for many slaves trying to escape just
that fate.
I would also point out to Mr Edmeades that while admittedly Britain
initially benefited from slavery, the country also expended huge
amounts of blood and treasure, chasing down and turning back over
1,600 slave ships in the Atlantic.
Let us also remember that the wealth of this country was to a
much greater extent based upon the exploitation of its own people,
ironically at the same time as the Navy was engaged in trying to
eradicate the evils of African slavery.
Read up on the underbelly of the industrial revolution and it will
be clear that slavery was not a monopoly of one race or colour.
Sacrificing British history, and with it national identity, on the
altar of political correctness is a misguided and fundamentally flawed
approach to improving race relations.
It merely breeds a resentment that festers and then feeds the fires
of extremists.
Imposing on the British, especially the English, a sense of moral guilt
about their past, is itself racist and unhelpful in any attempts to
harmonise race relations.
We live in a multi-cultural society, this is nothing new, and while
teaching our children about other cultures should form part of any
fully rounded education system, it has to work in all directions.
Multiculturalism should not be about misrepresenting, deriding or
demonising the history and culture of the host nation.
Labelling people little Englanders or anachronistic xenophobes because
they wish to take a pride in our national identity and history and
wish to see their children taught it is unjust.
To sum up, Mr Edmeades, I did not misunderstand your views, they came
through quite clearly and they betray a remarkable level of naivety.
Your blue-sky thinking, with reference to multicultural harmony,
needs to be tempered with understanding of a world history replete
with examples of the bloody outcomes of resentment engendered in a
majority against a minority when the majority fears that its cultural
identity is being denigrated, eroded and subsumed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress