John

I will, I think, refrain from returning the compliment by marking your essay, and just get back to how we are to interpret wars.

Firstly, I am not confusing ‘battle’ with ‘war’. I think you may be confusing ‘war’ with ‘wars’.

I am well aware of what the Anglo-Dutch Wars were about, and once had the pleasure, in my college library, of examining an amazing painting of one of the naval engagements, with all the ships, printed on a long thin strip of paper. I agree with your general characterisation of the Anglo-Dutch Wars. However, they were wars, and we have to be careful about looking back at the past and saying ‘well they were one long war really’. It doesn’t do justice to how people regarded them at the time. Some of them, on any scale of judgement I have ever come across – and I have quite a large military history library – were military defeats.

How would you characterise the Second Dutch War, then, a defeat, a victory or a draw? Or are you saying that all that matters is that in the end English arms finally triumphed a century later? In the 17th Century there were fairly tight protocols regarding what constituted a war, a battle, and what constituted defeat: I should have thought there was a clue here in what Pepys thought about it! Indeed it was partly due to his ability to look defeat squarely in the eye that enabled the Royal Navy to begin to get its act together again.

I agree with your date of 1784 for when the Dutch gave up: in the peace treaties that followed the American War of Independence they handed over their settlements in India. This followed the 4th Anglo-Dutch War which was part of the American War of Independence. However, as well the American War of Independence (where I agree with you there were extenuating circumstances!) we lost the other wars associated with it, the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) and the Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783), and had to concede territory in both cases. It’s not really much consolation that the Spanish then lost theirs fairly quickly (but not to us!)

Finally, may I point out that of the two armies that sorted out Napoleon in 1815, the Anglo-Dutch one was thoroughly polyglot, with German, Belgian, and Dutch contingents making up a considerable proportion – and don’t forget that about a third of the redcoats were Irish, not British. And all in defence of Brussels!

I am very wary of the History mood music that sometimes plays in the background of our political discussions. Strongly and widely-held historical myths can be wrong. Where the facts are available, I don’t think any of us want to be led in a particular direction by incorrect information. So, sorry John Green.

Another reason why I am taking up this particular historical issue is because of the Brussels scheme to set up a European Army. I think it is important to understand how Britain has fought her wars in the past. The simple answer is – always with allies. In or Out we need to ensure that this ‘European Army’ either doesn’t happen or happens in such a way that doesn’t upset the applecart.

In #189 John Green wrote ‘Britain has never militarily lost a war’. Having spent 3 years doing a degree on Modern History I can tell you that is completely wrong.

I have just counted 17 major wars we have lost since 1660. Quite a few of them I have studied at various times in some detail. So let’s be realistic about our military history, and how it might influence our view of the world.

I’ll just give you some detail on the first war on my list of lost wars:

2nd Anglo-Dutch War (1665-1667)
This ended with a Dutch naval raid on the Medway (and Chatham naval base); ten British ships were destroyed including ships of the line, and two ships of the line (including the flagship HMS Royal Charles) were towed away by the Dutch. Samuel Pepys (who was in a particularly good position to understand the significance of this event) remarked in his diary: and on 29 July 1667: “Thus in all things, in wisdom, courage, force, knowledge of our own streams, and success, the Dutch have the best of us, and do end the war with victory on their side”.

I have just spent a few enjoyable and informative hours reading this thread from beginning to end. It is, if I may say so, a very decent discussion in every sense of the word, with evidence of a good deal of research and practical wisdom from both (and possibily all) sides and even, on a few occasions, a touch of humour.

This is actually the second time I have arrived almost by accident in the General Discussion area of this Forum. The first time was a few years ago when I googled ‘Michael Gove’ and found myself here: as a recently retired History teacher I was appalled of what he was intending to do to the History syllabus, and there was a discussion going on about school history. This time it’s the possible demise of my Virtual Airline and I was checking out all the aviation websites I have visited to see if I could get any inspiration as to where I my next ‘hub’ might be. To be honest, it hasn’t helped much with that, but it’s done wonders for my understanding of the Brexit debate – so thanks.

As I’ve not contributed to this Forum for several years I ought to give a few more clues where I am coming from: I’ve been a European federalist for the last 60 years. For me federalism is like democracy – thoroughly flawed but better than the alternative. I read the Grauniad every day, and am increasingly focusing on ‘climate change’, more so since becoming a grandfather.

As an historian I believe more in terms of cockups than conspiracies. The European Union has examples of both. Christopher Booker is an entertaining writer, and while I take him with a large barrel of salt he makes a powerful case to prove the title of the book he co-authored ‘The Great Deception – The Secret History of the European Union’. However, I find the cockups he chronicles equally interesting. He explains that one of the things that happened with what some newspapers would refer to as ‘barmy EU regulations’ only really became barmy when British officials got their hands on them, enforcing them in an unnecessarily officious way. Perhaps connected with this was the way the UK approached deals with the EU diffidently, failing to play the game of negotiation with Europe seriously. In other words some of the problems we have with the EU are of our own making. More typical of the book, however, is the tragic account of what happened to the British fishing industry. Overall, Brooker does I think make out a case that as federations go the setting up of the EEC/EU was from the beginning a very odd project. While I will be voting REMAIN I believe fundamental reform is required.

I had the unexpected pleasure of sharing a package holiday in S.E.Asia with a retired (British) EU mandarin and his wife. He worked in the President’s office in Brussels, and he had I believe received a medal for his work, from the Queen, but I never got round to asking him what type of medal. I don’t think he had ever met a convinced federalist from Britain before. He said that every country in the EU thinks they put more in than they get out. All European prime ministers regularly blame the EU for things that go wrong, and proudly proclaim to their parliaments the success of the deals they have managed to get out of those awful people in Brussels. (I mention this not to change anyone’s mind, but just to point out there are other perspectives out there.)
There is no doubt that what we believe happened in the past influences what we do in the present. The trouble is that what we think happened in the past may be wrong or very distorted. There is actually quite a lot of History in this thread that perhaps needs some unpicking – for example how we regard the two world wars and what they were fought for. But this is quite enough for now.

Hi paul178. The method I used to get my students remember the Black Hole of Calcutta you would need a risk assessment nowadays!

I sense the whole class nodding off, so I’ll repeat the comment I made in the Telegraph to the Telegraph article: Because of the way Michael Gove chose not to consult from the beginning, we have not even begun to have a proper debate. Just clichés: either facts or interpretation; either Churchill or Mary Seacole; either British History or World History; either chronology or themes; either Gove’s way or Marxism; either remembering details or studying in depth. What’s wrong with consensus, and why wasn’t Michael Gove seeking one from the beginning?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/21/michael-gove-history-curriculum?INTCMP=SRCH

Charliehunt

Thanks for the opportunity to present the case for many Secondary History Schoolteachers re Michael Gove’s new syllabus.
At the very least people will have a better idea what they disagree with!

I think we more or less agree on the role of parents.

My comment about how teachers might react to this syllabus needs some explanation. Teachers have, of course, contractual obligations. But they (as well as Headteachers) also have moral ones. With regard to ‘dereliction of duty’ I would be looking at the other side of this particular coin, and it is noticeable that a couple of days ago 100 History teachers and lecturers sent a letter to ‘The Independent’ newspaper accusing the Secretary of State for Education of breaching his statutory duties by introducing political bias into the History Curriculum.

History teachers have the task of introducing a narrative, story, or at the very least a vision of the past in the course of a school year. This story may be challenging, must never be cynical, and has to be true. Now the new Programme lists 4 main topics in Anglo-British relations – Clive, the Indian ‘Mutiny’ (as it was called by us at the time), Independence for India, and Gandhi. Taken on their own (which because of constraints of time they have to be) these provide a nonsense account of our relations with the Sub-continent, ignoring such matters as what we were doing there in the first place, how we changed from trading to acquiring territory, how the nature of British rule of India changed until we became the ‘Paramount’ power, how Britain introduced railways and a civil service … and much besides. So far my MP has kindly passed on 3 letters from me to the Department of Education on the subject, and I am not so far impressed with their answers. Were I still teaching I would be considering asking my Head if I could teach a different subject.

I’m not sure if we are disagreeing on the subject of ‘being interesting’. I think it’s essential to be interesting and this new Programme of Study clearly isn’t. The most boring syllabus I once had to teach was the one devised by a couple of Geography teachers who were in charge of our Humanities Department, who managed to produce a History syllabus without any guns and drums at all. I got pretty good at presenting boring material in an interesting way, but it’s no coincidence that it was the year I took up gliding.
Boring material can defeat the best of us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qQL5L31-1E

Charliehunt.

A little unpicking.

My comment on ‘what the public regard as proper history’ was in response to your previous observation that children don’t really notice the politics in History, and don’t remember it that way even when they’re older. At any rate, that’s how I read “I have no recollection of the dates I learnt as a child – many years ago – and those I have come to know in later life. But even now none of them registers with any political overtones. They are just dates when events happened.” Well, that sounded as though you didn’t do much political History, or, if you did, you remembered it as ‘History’ rather than ‘Politics’. What I was getting at is that the new Programme of Study has a quite disproportional amount of Politics. 40% is far too high a proportion. Michael Gove may think that politics is the most important aspect of life, but in this he would be out of step with the majority of people, the general public, the common man or woman, or, as I rather loosely put it, ‘the public’.

I can imagine the parental complaints. At the first Parents’ Evening for Year 7’s using the new History Programme of Study parents will be asking why their Sharon is having to learn so much about late 18th Century infantry tactics. (Too much military History!) Two years later they will be asking why their Sharon, who used to love History, seems to be doing boring Politics all the time … why can’t she do more about how people lived? (Too much Political History!) While, I too, can see possible mayhem if we took into account “what the public regard as proper history” in the production of a syllabus, I do think parents will recognise if their son or daughter is bored to tears and will have a right to know why.

Incidentally I don’t actually think that the above scenario will really happen, even if Michael Gove’s proposed syllabus becomes a reality. One reason is that Academies, Free Schools, etc. will take full advantage of their right not to teach the National Curriculum. In fact some Academies have already dropped GCSE History as a subject simpy because it’s ‘too difficult’.

“And secondly isn’t it part of the teacher’s job to make whatever he/she is teaching interesting?” You have backed up this up with a classic description of a good teacher, while recognising that the true description is more like the swan – cool and serene on the visible outside but actually paddling like mad underneath. From my own experience I can only report that I always found it much more difficult to be interesting facing a class of 20-30 children than I did in my time as an advertising copywriter.

As a general point I would say the earlier the classroom teacher is involved in the process of devising a lesson that’s to be taught the better. It really won’t be good enough for Michael Gove to decide, without consulting teachers properly, what History should be taught to children and then step back and say: ‘It’s now up to you to use your professional creativity.’ Teachers can only be interesting when they are teaching something they believe in their hearts and heads. If this syllabus goes ahead some of the very best History teachers will, I am quite sure, simply ignore it, and let OFSTED do their worst.