1 Feb 2008
Samuel
I'm sorry, but it's too late. The disease has infiltrated too much of the body.

1 Feb 2008
Enoch
For most Brits among the white native born and Protestant majority however, there is no foreseeable wish on their part to rid themselves of a thousand years of history, tradition and the identity forged between the monarchy (whose sovereign is still the Defender of THE Faith), the flag (with its crosses of St. George and St. Andrew), the Churches of England and Scotland and the Anglican prayers and hymns heard at all nondenominational comprehensive state schools' morning assemblies. This is likely to remain true no matter how multi-cultural, multi-ethnic or multi-religious Britain becomes.

Oh really?  That's not what I read in the news today.  What I read is, stick a fork in the white Protestant Brits, they're done.

Don't teach children patriotism

Patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous”, a leading educational body recommends.

History and citizenship lessons should stick to the bare facts rather than encouraging loyalty to Britain when covering subjects such as the Second World War or the British Empire, the Institute of Education researchers said. Teachers should not instill pride in what they consider great moments of British history, as more shameful episodes could be downplayed or excluded.

The slave trade, imperialism and 20th century wars should be taught as controversial issues while students are deciding how they feel about their country, the report says.

Three quarters of teachers felt obliged to tell students about the danger of patriotism. The survey suggested neither pupils nor teachers wanted patriotism endorsed by schools.

Historians said last night, however, that it was impossible to teach the subject without patriotism or a recognition that British values were rooted in the past.

The report criticises the current drive to use citizenship lessons as a way of promoting pride in being British and developing a sense of belonging. It said: “To love what is corrupt is itself corrupting, not least because it inclines us to ignore, forget, forgive or excuse the corruption. And there’s the rub for patriotism.

“Countries are morally ambiguous entities: they are what they are by virtue of their histories.”

The authors added: “It is hard to think of a national history free from the blights of warmongering, imperialism, tyranny, injustice, slavery and subjugation, or a national identity forged without recourse to exclusionary and xenophobic stereotypes.”

Alan Johnson, the former Education Secretary, announced last year that pupils aged 11 to 16 would have compulsory lessons in British history. Ethnicity, religion, race and national identity will be taught, through studying immigration, the Commonwealth, the Empire and devolution, extending the popular vote and women’s rights.

Gordon Brown said at the time: “There is a golden thread that intertwines the unshakeable British commitment to liberty with another very British idea: that of duty and social responsibility.”

But Dr Hand, the co-author of the report, said: “Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both called for a history curriculum that fosters attachment and loyalty to Britain, but the case for promoting patriotism in schools is weak.

“Are countries really appropriate objects of love? Loving things can be bad for us, for example when the things we love are morally corrupt. Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, it’s an open question whether citizens should love their countries.”

The institute - part of the University of London – asked nearly 300 pupils aged 13 to 14, and 47 teachers, in 20 London schools, how patriotism should be handled. About 94 per cent of teachers and 77 per cent of teenagers said that schools should give a balanced presentation of opposing views. Fewer than 10 per cent felt patriotism should be actively promoted.

However, 19 per cent of teachers and 16 per cent of teenagers thought schools should support patriotic views when expressed by pupils.The historian Tristram Hunt said of the institute’s report: “I think it’s a very immature approach to the topic. The point is not whether history was right or wrong from a 21st Century liberal-left perspective. It’s about teaching students to understand the mindset and context of our forebears.

“The real problem isn’t that our children are being indoctrinated with patriotism, but that they don’t know enough British history."

22 Feb 2008
vivek iyer
Dear Sir, I'm puzzled. Was multi-culturalism dead in the water prior to 9/11? If there were no terrorist threat would we feel quite the same way we now do? Hard cases make bad law. Before we give up on multi-culturalism let us briefly consider what it offers and entails. 1) An institutional barrier against Jingoistic chauvinism. Istitutionalised mono-culturalism means that competition between self-seeking agents will lead to a hyper-trophied variant of the valorised culture. In other words, we will have much more of the officially defined desiderata than is in fact healthy for the country. Schools are particularly vulnerable to wasteful competition in advertising compliance to the line laid down by the Inspectorate of Schools. Indeed, one reason why so many middle class parents want to send their kids to Faith schools is because such schools, having their own agenda, will only minimally pander to the Ministry's current idolatry. The same point can be made about the popularity of Schools teaching to a foreign curricula. In this context, multi-culturalism in Education represents the best hope of the beleagured middle-class (or aspirationally middle-class) parent. 2) Greater choice- Schelling has shown how the free market yields 'ghettoisation' even in the absence of prejudice. More generally, economic theory predicts clustering on the basis of external economies in consumption. In a Society with good transport, this increases choice for all. Furthermore, there are dynamic benefits not just to the Economy but also Culturally and Politically. 3)Cultures which define themselves as a minority- e.g. diaspora communities, schismatics political or religious, self-consious elites of various sorts- should not be forced- against their constituting logic- to claim fealty to the official mono-culture because, history shows, this has the most unfortunate counterintuitive consequences- the breeding of hybrid chauvinisms more evil than would have otherwise obtained. 4) the danger of turning cranks into martyrs. Even if the danger of Islamic terrorism really has created an unprecedented Emergency requiring a sacrifice of liberties won and enjoyed in palmier days, the question remains- is there an incentive compatible way to enforce this mono-culture which nobody can define but which many of us feel a nostalgia for? Vivek Iyer

25 Feb 2008
Norman Berdichevsky
A carefulk reading of my article will bear out that I firmly supported faith based and ethnic schools in the UK both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of my pracitcal experience as a teacher so long as they affirm the historical, sacred and emotional bonds of citizens and residents of an  identity originating outside the country or in the Celtic regions AS LONG as this is not divisive or, antagonistic or aggressive. In these schools, the MAJOR goal must still be, as elsewhere, the preparation of young people to take part in the social, economic, professional AND cultural life of the country. As long as it meets this goal, multi-culturalism is to be welcomed. As I noted, thousands of graduates of JFS can look back with pride on their education in a school that has been able to preserve its Jewish as well as British character.       

18 May 2010
Amer

You said Saudi Arabia is funding, "Muslim schools are partially funded by Saudi Arabia and make use of Saudi texts (also used by Hamas in Gaza)". Can you approve that Saudi texts are used by Hams please. Or you aimed to overshadow on the general reader. I am sure nowadays every reader has the abilities to distinguish between right and wrong. So Please next time don't say any thing with no a sufficient evidence.