Filter By

Drunkenness is a Britishness problem not an economic one

ResPublica researcher Dwayne Menezes enters the debate on curbing drunkenness in modern British culture

Oh, what a wonderful course this discussion on drunkenness in British culture has taken! Indeed the real problem with Britain today is the lack of self-respect in so many of its people and, as I have grown tired of repeating, one reason for this is that our history textbooks do such an appalling job at identity-formation among our youth, even though this, in most countries, is one of the main purposes behind including history in any national curriculum.

Having grown up in one of the last vestiges of empire in a land that used to be the jewel in its crown, I was, as most of my friends were, raised on a strict academic diet of British literature and history. Though British rule of India, having been deemed undesirable, had long been terminated, hardly anybody I knew wished to completely give up their cultural Britishness. The reason was not, as has often been supposed, the magic associated with adopting the culture of the ruling power and thus becoming 'like' the ruler, but a recognition that much of it was actually immensely rich and inherently valuable, something which we should forever cherish, even make our own.

What did we associate with Britain? "A host of golden daffodils...fluttering and dancing in the breeze"; rolling hills and meadows dotted with furry sheep and fluffy cows that makes one wonder, "What is this life if, full of care, We have no time to stand and stare"; and a very, very polite world of ladies and gentlemen, where drinking more than two pints of gin and tonic on a particular evening would mean you've only won the affections of a Lydia Bennet (in Simon's words, "make of that what you will"). Most importantly, Britain was a land of ingenuity, industry, great learning in and contributions to the arts and literature, the humanities and sciences, and above all, a land where at least some had the courage to stand up for what is right even when the powers of the world were against them (thank you, dearest Wilberforce).

The empire lasted as long as it did because even in its remotest parts, there were people who genuinely believed, on the basis of the last few points I mentioned above, that Britain was the epitome of civilisation that had something to offer even to a land as rich, glorious, ancient and in no way inferior as India. This tiny island off the coast of Europe continues to exercise disproportionate influence across the world (though certainly not as much as it once did) primarily because it still produces now and then a Baroness Cox and because of people like my family and friends, who, living far, far away, continue to sigh as my favourite Indian poet Michael Madhusudan Dutt did over a century ago:

“Where man in all his truest glory lives,
And nature's face is exquisitely sweet;
For those fair climes I heave impatient sigh,
There let me live and there let me die.”

Why do we view Britain with such respect? Go and ask any random person on the street of Mumbai who has been to an English school (there is nothing elite about going to an English language school there) if they've heard of Jane Austen, Enid Blyton and Percy Shelley, and take a guess what their response would be. Many might even have read their works in school. Some might even give you an hours-long discourse on British history, their favourite British monarchs and the most well-fought British wars. And yet, in the country where it all started or happened, in the country where many of the figures I venerate lived, there are ever so many who don't even know who they are. In the town by the English Channel in which I first lived after moving to Britain, many white British boys thought Shelley was how an Indian like me mispronounced "shell", Austen lived in a "stuck-up" world, "Blyton... who is he? or she?", and that the good old first Duke of Wellington I revere so much was only the name of a pub. Grievous, I say; grievous!

What is even worse is the changing perceptions of Britain in the world. When I was recently touring a certain part of the former empire, I asked people what came to their mind when they first thought of the British, and all I heard was, "beer and football". Ask someone living on the coasts of Spain and Portugal what comes to their mind when they first think of an Englishman, and let me know if you get a different response. How ever did the image of the English gentleman that seemed so prevalent in the early-1900s be replaced by the image of an English drunkard by the turn of the century, I have no idea. Who is to blame? I don't know.

As part of an Indian family that has struggled against many odds to preserve some sort of pre-1947 Britishness, I find it a complete betrayal of my trust, the trust of my family, and the trust of the many people like me in the Commonwealth, that instead of teaching Britain about Britain, preserving Britain, and offering us the Britain we seek when we come to it, the British governments seem intent on engaging in the vain and endless pursuit of pruning the odd branches through punitive measures, rather than dealing with the root problem. Schools in every town and village of this country must educate Britain about the Britain my school in India educated me about. Once Britain perceives itself right, and expects the right things from itself, even if its problems are not eradicated at once, it will make the soil far more fertile for policies like those Adam suggested to work.

To weave my longwinded story into the fabric of the debate: Raising minimum prices on alcohol won't, in my opinion, for reasons already mentioned in previous posts, reduce the incidence of binge-drinking among those who often find themselves binge-drinking. It will instead be more likely to stop people like me who don't care too much about alcohol anyway from buying alcohol or even that second pint at a pub, which I guess would affect the industry as a whole (presuming there are many like me). I do think drinking is much more of a social problem and we need to urgently rethink our understanding of our own history, historic behaviours and national traditions, i.e. address the issue of self-respect, which, as I have expressed earlier, I see as a direct outcome of shabbily designed history lessons.

To go on another tangent once again, how should we fix our history syllabus? Remind people that defeating Hitler, as great as it was, was not Britain's finest hour. Sorry, Churchill. Remind people that this was the land of the Magna Carta. This was the land where the son of a butcher rose up to be one of its most important cardinals. This was the land where a man from Hull, despite his frail health, led the first successful campaign against slavery. This was the land where, even in its prime, a 24-year old became the Prime Minister. Remind people that this was the land where even recently, the daughter of a grocer and the son of a circus-manager could become Prime Ministers. This is NOT the land of drunkards. This is the land of ingenuity, industry, moral courage and class mobility. Remind your people of your history, or let the Indians remind your people of your history. The British, rich and poor, have repeatedly overcome the odds against them in the past and have been successful and certainly can do it again.

Comments on: Drunkenness is a Britishness problem not an economic one

Gravatar John Murphy 25 April 2011
By way of seconding some things that Charles has said, I'd propose that there's a way in which one can't have teleological virtues of Alasdair MacIntyre's Aristotelean type without a certain degree of hypocrisy, in that aiming for moral excellences over and above one's present practices always leaves one open, of necessity, to the charge that one has failed to "walk" one's "talk." By the same token, one can't really root out and cut out hypocrisy -- the way a great deal of modern culture in Britain and elsewhere has been aiming to do for a long time now -- without also pulling down and throwing out those teleological virtues or moral excellences in terms of which hypocrisy is understood as such, and, which, in some sense, produce hypocrisy as a side-effect. Take for example the very emblematic project of British modernity represented by Lytton Strachey's biographical sketches of "Eminent Victorians" like Florence Nightingale and Henry Edward Manning. There's a sense in which, because figures like Nightingale and Manning failed to clear the moral-teleological bars which they tried to leap, then the bar should be lowered to whatever height it is that "we" -- or the observer, in this case Strachey -- are presently able to leap. The "logic" tends to be that because the Nightingales or Mannings of the past failed to bring their practices in line with their stated ideals, because they failed to "walk" their "talk," it is therefore incumbent on observers today to bring our stated ideals in line with our present practices, which generally means lowering the bar for ourselves in terms of teleological virtue and moral excellence. In order to avoid being hypocrites, we are encouraged not to aspire to better than we presently are. There's a decrease in moral hypocrisy, yes -- but a decrease in moral progress as well, a decrease that leads to the very real possibility of not just moral stasis but moral decline. As both an American and -- full disclosure -- a friend of Charles's, I should note in conclusion that while the phenomenon I describe is certainly apparent in contemporary Britain, which I've visited from time to time, it is also apparent in different ways and/or to different degrees in many parts of the United States.
Reply
Gravatar Charles Twombly 21 April 2011
John, your remarks make perfect sense to me, 'though as an outsider, the guy with his nose pressed to the glass, while the party goes on inside, I'd hestitate to say it by myself. Thanks.
Reply
Gravatar John Bailey 21 April 2011
Dwayne, as you suggest, the issue is largely to do with the fact that modern Britain is a symbolic wasteland. After generations of learning a British history based on kings and noblemen, we have precisely as you say an identity crisis. Modern Britons have lost touch with (or worse still, been conditioned to scorn) all the symbols of national or social identity. Hat I grew up with. Even where there is a vestige of respect (as there is in some quarters for the flag and the crown) this respect has been distorted into something tribal and xenophobic (as in the case of the flag) or voyeuristic (as in the case of the Royals).
Part of this is indeed related to the decline of the national Church, which has become such a pawn in the hands of this or that pressure group that people have forgotten its value (quite apart from its status as a community of faith) as a further symbol of broad social consensus.
In a Facebook post the other day, I described modern British society as "little more than a.loose federation of sub-cultures". At the time of writing, my conscience was slightly nagging me that I was being a "pseud". With hindsight, however, I am more confident that the diagnosis was correct. I fear that what we see in group drunkenness and vandalism is a symptom of this - not destructiveness for it's own sake but as the symbolic bonding rituals of the only clear sense of identity and belonging the perpetrators are left with.
Reply
Gravatar Charles Twombly 21 April 2011
An add-on to all the great conversation upbove:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8162693/Lincoln-Cathedral-chief-binge-drinking-has-replaced-Christianity-in-vulgar-modern-Britain.html
Reply
Gravatar William Dunn 28 October 2010
My life was a continuous binge from 18-25, and forty years later I still drink everyday and often binge drink. I've binge-drunk around the world, diluted my arak with vodka in, and now live in China where the baijou (white spirit) binge-drinkers make today's British youth look like dilettanti. There is no shortage of historical binge drinkers, as several people here have pointed out, from Noah to the 'three-bottle-men' of 18th Century Cambridge - when drinking capacity seems to have been a test of academic ability as good as any other, given the results - to Churchill (who said "Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me").

I fail to see the connection between this and empire, or education for that matter. There are plenty of explanations for the fall of empire. But can it be a coincidence that the rise of the three largest empires, British, Mongol and Russia, was partly driven by Dutch courage (or in the case of the first, Glaswegian courage)?

As for education and history, I read philosophy with several binge-drinking professors (one very famous), have written several books on historical matters, and have always sought deep historical causes for events. Lincoln has been mentioned, but let's also remember Benjamin Franklin, surely the cleverest man to have been born in America, who observed that "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Reply
Gravatar Charles Twombly 27 October 2010

Good comments and questions, Geoff.

Regarding your "only one imagined narrative of the nation as a way of building a future": not sure how to respond to this. Note my disclaimer above about "history as propoganda" (whether in the service of this or that social class or ideology or for some other purpose). In the early school years, history and myth have frequently been blended. In the US, for instance, little children hear about the "nice" Pilgrims eating with the "nice" Indians/Native Americans. Good history? Not really. An outright lie? No. But the American myth(s) speaks directly to the peculiarity of American idealism. What frequently looks to insiders and outsiders alike as a (frankly self-congratulatory) "this is who we are" story is in fact a story of "what we aspire to be." Both Lincoln (in his Second Inaugural Address") and Martin Luther King Jr (in his "I Have a Dream" speech) picked up on this. Less sophisticated folks often miss this and go on and on about national virtues that only exist as ideals, not true accomplishments.

But the weird thing is, that Americans of whatever level of historical sophistication actually embrace these ideals as goals and think we should always be working to bring our ideals in line with our practice. They also think we should extend them to others (something we've often attempted with incredible ignorance of other cultures). In short,we have an identifiable national purpose, an amazing fact for a geographically huge and diverse nation.

But national purposes are more than just words and school stories. They have to become embedded in a culture through "rituals" and other practices. Lacking a monarch and lacking a national church, we Americans don't have a ready stock of rituals at hand. Even our dominant religious groups tend to be of the "free church" (non-liturgical) variety. But nature abhors a vacuum, so other practices have had to be invented to fill in. Hence, our "strange" practice of having school children "pledge allegiance" to the flag every day, an act often accompanied with a verse or two of "America" ("My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty....") sung to the tune of "God Save the Queen" (irony noted). The same goes with "The Star-Spangled Banner" (our national anthem) which gets played at all major sporting events. E Pluribus Unam (out of many, one) is a drum we've had to bang on over and over lest we forget our "purpose" and our union shatters into regional divisions.

America has, of course, its own unique history, a history very much shaped by having had tons of space and an ever-opening frontier. How our experience relates to the UK, with its much longer and quite different historical journey, is beyond me. As two nations "divided by a common language," we are miles apart in many ways. Maybe all that needs to be said here is that a nation can strive to be a family or else be content merely to be a group of strangers living under the same roof.


Reply
Gravatar Geoff Roberts 26 October 2010
This is one of the most incredible blogs I have ever read. I have two sets of questions related to the question of binge drinking and the meaning behind this as a social action, and to the idea of Britishness and history.

Firstly, there are questions that need to be asked about why people binge drink, why pubs are simply places to buy alcohol, why there is a pressure to drink from a young age, etc. We should also ask why others see drinking as a problem.

In some replies here, however, it seems that drinking and violence and being generally 'uneducated' are viewed as fascinating new problems. As has been mentioned before, drinking is nothing new in Britain. The way people drink has changed, and the meaning attached to alcohol consumption has certainly evolved but these things have not suddenly appeared from nowhere.

Secondly, I would like to concentrate on the idea of teaching history and the various conceptions of Britishness that are being thrown about with great aplomb.

I agree to a certain degree that history and education play a role in the self-perception of many in Britain today. But it seems that many replyers are being purposely selective of particular social groups from a specific historical moment, taking this to be absolute and representative of all Britons from all time. By basing complaints that Britain has lost its pride in Britishness on such reasoning is equivalent to saying that Britain has actually lost your Britishness. Rather than ignoring elements of British society that you find uncomfortable try engaging with football hooligans, mods, rockers, punks. These movements also had something to say about Britain and their Britishness.

On the one hand, positing a sense of who we are in Britain requires coming to terms with these potentially uncomfortable truths and accepting a diverse range of understandings of what it means to be a British citizen. On the other hand, putting contemporary problems in their historical context can help us understand better their causes. Either way, let's not just fallback on only one imagined narrative of the nation as a way of building a future.
Reply
Gravatar Charles Twombly 26 October 2010
Would love to attend a conference (or perhaps a house party) centered on Phillip Blond's RED TORY and (the recently lamented) Tony Judt's ILL FARES THE LAND (and perhaps a book or two by the late Christopher Lasch). Just more talk talk talk? Well, perhaps. But those two books need to "converse" with each other.

A new vision appears to be emerging in which exciting convergences seem to be taking place. (I can't believe how "Hegelian" I'm talking and thinking these days--not in a strict sense [merely grabbing on to a watered-down version], but the old guy seems to keep popping up in our so-called post-Marxist world, even after Kierkegaard pulled the rug out from under his feet 170 years ago.)
Reply
Gravatar Dwayne Menezes 25 October 2010
To Felecia and Charles:

I totally agree with what you have said. I think I need to make one point clear though about my argument. I am not saying that focussing on history textbooks can itself rid Britain of this menace. What I am saying instead is that focussing on history textbooks can create the right atmosphere in which other policies will work.

There is little I can add to what you have already said. Yes, my parents did play a very important part in why I refrained in my youth from alcohol. My mum, an Evangelical Christian teetotaller, referred to alcohol with many nasty-to-the-point-of-funny names, which put me off it completely... until, of course, I moved to Blighty! Why I started drinking is fortunately not what this discussion is about.

Anyway, the perception in traditional Indian society as well was that drinking is an inherently inferior ("low class") habit, and drinking until recently was one way of ensuring you didn't find yourself a good bride. The questions usually asked were, "Do you drink? Do you smoke? Have you taken drugs?" If you ticked all three, you ruined your future. I am not suggesting that Britain go so far as to adopt the extreme dispositions of my Puritanical mum or my Brahmanical society, but to encourage, even privilege, drinking with moderation is certainly not asking too much, is it? As mentioned in my first post, which now feels like a decade ago, drinking too much in England as well was regarded historically in many quarters as a vice, even if, as with many other elements of their history, many in the isles may have chosen to forget this.

Just to put it out there, I once read in an anthropological study on the English that one reason why they drink so much is because it permits them to temporarily escape the expectation on them to be reserved by culture without simultaneously threatening them with a loss of their Englishness. By appropriating drinking as a part of Englishness, the stiff upper-lipped Englishman is thus permitted to get as drunk as he can and do as many "unEnglish things" as he can without ceasing to be regarded as English. A bit crazy, I know, but very interesting nonetheless. What do you think? Have you not noticed how the English (rather, anybody and everybody) do things when they're drunk that they pretend they cannot remember the next day, when clearly nobody, however drunk, cannot entirely forget everything they did in their state of drunkenness the previous day? Drinking offers people, particularly in this country, a chance to break free from something, often themselves and their own expectations on themselves. What are your thoughts? What other reasons could there be?
Reply
Gravatar alison.meldrum 26 October 2010
As one who spent a decade plus in New York City (and in the '80s, when things were a lot less convivial than they are now), I'd have to absolutely agree with Charles's post about the level of drink-related unprovoked aggression one sees this side of the Atlantic. Is it because Americans walk the Big Society talk without actually - unlike us - just banging on about how desirable such communitarianism would be? It's certainly true that Americans' church attendance is considerably higher than our own - there's an interesting debate to be had about if - and to what extent - that impacts on their attitudes towards their fellow citizens. And, who knows, perhaps all that pledging allegiance to the US and flag for which it stands in their childhood classrooms has some subliminal influence?

I frequently ask myself (and I should own up at this point that I'm a Glaswegian) what it is about the psyche in certain parts of the world that impels so many younger people in particular to believe that their Friday night has been a dud if it fails to end in either an emergency room or a police cell. I noted exactly the same kamikaze attitude to booze in New Zealand and Australia, where I also spent several years. Repression? Beats me. What I do know is that during my 6 year-stint in Barcelona, I detected a much saner, paced approach to drinking by people, the young especially. My summer holiday in Sardinina this year was also untroubled by the sight of violent, puking locals...

Thoughts?
Reply
Gravatar Charles Twombly 25 October 2010
"The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road."

The Russians, with their propensity for vodka, will be glad to learn that they may have competition for top honors/honours.

As a fairly frequent visitor to the UK from the US, what increasingly startles me are two things: the day-time (work-time) public drinking and openly aggressive behavior, provoked and unprovoked. Coming from a land where "substance abuse" and crime are sky high, these observations may seem really strange and more than a little hypocritical. Perhaps not. Even in the Bronx and Harlem, I rarely encounter the kind of rowdiness and discourteousness I've seen too often on British trains, and some of my worst experiences have occured in broad daylight in "nice" parts of a town.

What's the problem? School books? I doubt it. As a theologian, my "quick and snappy" answer is that the moral capital built up over a few centuries by events like the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century is quickly running out. It was funded by our ancestors but is dangerously close to an overdraft/draught. My "secular humanist" friends laugh at such an idea and point out how they and others manage to lead very moral lives indeed without the crutch of religious belief. Yes, they often do. Let's see if their children and grand-children do.

An added point: As a fellow who has spent most of his forty-year working life dealing with American adolescents (many of them black and many of them poor), I'm struck by the sullenness I see on British kids faces. I rarely see the same in the US (not that we don't have our own gigantic problems). True, there are forms of religiosity here in the States that often seem pervasive and are frankly disgusting and off-putting. But I've seen countless times those very "disgusting" people jump to assist others in trouble and cross racial lines and other barriers, just out of genuine concern for another human being. But isn't that the case in the UK as well? Perhaps so. Others may wish to address this.
Reply
Gravatar Felecia McCray 23 October 2010
Yes, this certainly is a thoughtful and entertaining discussion!

I agree with the notion that history can be used as a meaningful tool to inspire and awaken both a collective and individual sense of agency and potential. Further, I agree that intentionally teaching more of Britain’s rich history in school may be a part of the solution for curbing the binge drinking problem. Still, I think what is taught at home about alcohol/alcohol abuse may be a more important piece of the equation.

When we speak of a binge drinking problem in the UK, I assume we are mostly speaking of young people under the age of 30. Is this an accurate assumption? (Here in the US, there are binge drinkers across age groups, but a higher proportion among young adults.) If so, it would be interesting to hear how young binge drinkers explain their motivation for engaging in this clearly risky behavior. I imagine that many would say they drink excessively because that’s what people in their age group are expected to do, especially at universities. As Jason pointed out earlier, kids arrive at universities with drinking and partying at the forefront of their minds. This is also true in the US. There is a great deal of societal pressure and peer pressure to raise a glass (or 4, 5, 6…) when you’re a teen or twenty-something and craving to fit in and find your place.

Those who choose not to binge drink are exposed to the same media-driven expectations, but if polled I imagine they would say that their counter-cultural attitudes about alcohol consumption were primarily shaped by parents/influential adults long before the age of 16. Non-binge drinkers likely have parents who don’t expect their children to binge drink. On the other hand, parents who expect young adulthood to be characterized by wild, foolish, and risky behaviors probably don’t warn their children about alcohol abuse and consequently reinforce the social expectation to excessively drink.

Personally, I never desired to get wasted while in high school or college because my parents clearly discouraged the behavior and consistently communicated its dangers throughout my childhood and adolescence. What do others think? How much influence did your parents have in your decision to get drunk or not?
Reply
Gravatar Allie S. 18 October 2010
Such an interesting post! I loved this comment:

"we need to urgently rethink our understanding of our own history, historic behaviours and national traditions, i.e. address the issue of self-respect, which, as I have expressed earlier, I see as a direct outcome of shabbily designed history lessons"

Coming from an American public school classroom, a campaign that used American historical traditions and behaviors to inform the current generation's self-respect would end in disaster. Despite the unabashed idolatry of the founding fathers that is passed along as patriotism these days, I think any rational review of the methods and values of early American war heroes, political figures and celebrities would definitely not be the stuff of poetry or inspirational literature (Longfellow's romanticized work excluded, of course).

Unfortunately, our national credo goes something like, "Us Against Them," with "them" being reassigned every two decades. We are a people who, like children of avaricious parents, enjoy the benefits of exploitation but conveniently deny involvement in the process.

This probably accounts for the reason our schools focus on American inventors when we want to bolster our self-image. We are Americans, we can do anything we want to (any way we want to). Lots of real problems with that foundation, of course.

I look forward to listening in on more of your conversations!
Reply
Gravatar Dwayne Menezes 25 October 2010

Thanks for your comments, Allie. Would I prescribe my solution about re-focussing on history textbooks as one that would be appropriate for the US? Absolutely not. I think the unabashed patriotism of many present-day Americans is more than sufficient, to say the least :)

The converse, however, is true in Britain, where society seems to be more polarised. On the one hand, there seems to be those who continue to bear delusions of grandeur that is hardly warranted. "How can you compare the UK with India?", they say, as if the squalor and economic disparity of India makes it incomparable on the scale of development with Britain. Little do they seem to realise that if they are still better off, it is rarely because of what they have done, but because of what they have inherited from their forebears who indeed did very much.

For a much fairer assessment of development in the two countries, randomly select 10 Englishmen and 10 Indians and put them on two islands with equal resources in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Which island do you think would develop first? Now, let us make it even more dramatic. Despatch thirty cartfuls of beer cans to both islands. Which island would stoop to savagery first? It is likely that while Island No. 1 will have drunken people brawling with each other, those in Island No. 2 would have built houses from themselves, then boats, then would have found a way to use the beer as fuel and start factories, and within months, may even have established maritime trade routes with Britain. Now, a hundred years ago, Island No. 2 would most certainly have been Britain, but would it be Britain today? Or India? For Britain to get its act together, it needs to proceed with 2110 AD and not 2010 AD in mind. Will its status in 2010 AD be better than countries in the Third World today, if it continues declining at this rate?

On the other hand, in Britain, you have the many who don't appreciate their history at all. To them, it is only a tale of a bunch of white people running helter-skelter in the world calling people 'savages', destroying their former cultures by converting them to Christianity, shipping many of them as slaves to the New World, triggering waves of exploitation that depleted formerly rich countries of all their resources, and telling people that because they had a different colour, they were inferior and hence needed to be subjugated and civilised by the white man. This is generally true, but it is not the whole story. The problem with this view is that it conflates empire with racism, with brutality, with oppression, with exploitation. This is incorrect. While racism, oppression and exploitation are in no ways justifiable, are they prerequisites of the imperial enterprise? Can you not have empire without these evils? The funny thing is that long after the empire has been lost, and even the flames of Christianity in these isles nearly extinguished, many of the evils once associated with empire persist, manifesting themselves through the new processes at work.

Furthermore, along with empire, the memories of truly great men these isles have produced and the truly great works they did have also been forgotten. All of empire is viewed as a chapter that has rightfully been deleted, as if it were one from which there arose no good, and this harms both the former metropole and the former colonies - the first, because it makes history one that people must be ashamed off, rather than one filled with good examples from which people can learn; the second, because it grants native governments, however, corrupt greater moral legitimacy than a less-corrupt foreign government. Worse still, it takes away the precedents of good and efficient administration which native nationalist leaders could learn from or compare their own administrations with. Thus, it permits them the freedom to rule however they might, because their being native counts more than their being good and efficient.

Shifting the discussion to the US, the current heir to the British empire, a position I believe shall pass on to Indian shoulders soon, what do I propose? That history textbooks re-think the interpretations of widely-accepted historical truths.

1. The Right to Bear Arms: How did it come about? What was its historical basis? How was it interpreted in the British Isles prior to the migrations?

2. The Pursuit of Happiness: Does it mean having large supermarkets that have absolutely everything, and that will enable the average American to more conveniently buy more than he can afford and even that which he does not need? I don't know. Is the conflation of consumerism with this noble pursuit healthy? Can history not be used to correct it?

3. Race Relations in America: History books should teach Americans that racism in the world was not a white problem. There were white slaves in the Ottoman Empire, and a number of affluent families in India where, even when the British Empire was at its zenith, a number of whites were employed in domestic service. Also, textbooks could focus on the pre-migration history of Africans - the many kingdoms, the rich culture - this should be taught not only to African-Americans, but also to white Americans. I have noticed that many white Americans seem to be blissfully ignorant of the less elite history of white people in the world - should they, for instance, not be taught how in the ancient Indian civilisations, most gods were black and most demons were white? This will serve 3 purposes:
i. Help certain white people in the US realise that the notion so many of them believe to be true - that white people were never enslaved or oppressed or lower in class than coloured people - is actually untrue
ii. Help white people realise that Africans too had a rich history with princes and princesses, and help non-white people in America realise the same rather than focus only on their history as slaves
iii. Help African-Americans realise that racism was not just a white issue, and that there were coloured peoples across the world who were equally, if not more, racist against whites, and that the fight against racism must hence be broadened by focussing even on those lands where the lack of knowledge of a language prevents us from detecting the racism which may be far more acute than in America.

History is a great tool in identity-formation, as I hopefully have illustrated, but must be wielded with care. In Britain, there has never been a time where the need to use this tool has been as urgent, and so use it we must.



Reply
Gravatar Sophia Parkinson 18 October 2010
Hi Dwayne,

I liked your article, and thought it very well written, but have to disagree with some of the points you've made.

Firstly I think that a comparison between the drive and motivation of some of those living in the slums of India with the apparent laziness of some of the poorer people in Britain may be unfair. Apart from the fact that this is somewhat of a sweeping generalisation and perhaps unfairly steroetypes both groups, I think that the lack of incentive to work in Great Britain arises from the safety net of the welfare state. Personally I would rather live in a country where even the poorest are guaranteed a minimum standard of living, even if this does reduce the work incentive for some.

Secondly I'm not convinced that history education holds the key to reducing binge drinking. One problem with history education, especially amongst some of the poorer communities to which you refer, is that British history (especially that focussed on some of our great leaders) is dominated by white, middle class men. Although there are obvious exceptions to this, I'm not sure that young people from impoverished areas, especially those from ethnic minority backgrounds, would be particularly inspired by learning more about such figures. And even if they were I think that an interest and pride in our national history and culture, and a taste for drinking are not entirely uncompatible. Young people drink in order to relax and have fun with their friends. Binge drinking is most certainly not the preserve of the poor and uninspired, as can be seen on a week night in Cambridge city centre. In order to reduce binge drinking, the image of drinking as being cool needs to be tackled, and I'm just not convinced that any top-down intervention can achieve this. Maybe increasing drinks prices is just the next best option??

Anyway - I hoope this all makes sense. I'm really not very up-to-date with the debates on this issue, but these were just some of my thoughts reading your blog.

Sophia
Reply
Gravatar Dwayne Menezes 21 October 2010

Thanks for your comments, Sophia. Yes, I do agree that the lack of incentive to work in Great Britain arises from the safety net provided by the welfare state, but I am not quite sure if the only two alternatives we have before us is to scrap the welfare state and thus make people more independent by forcing them to work or keep the welfare state because it guarantees even the poorest a minimum standard of living. I do think the debate should be more along the lines of how best to alter the current welfare state so it achieves the positive goals you outlined, while preventing people from growing over- and ever-dependent on it. I, therefore, think that the best course we can take is to gradually minimise dependence by encouraging positive behaviours in people, while discouraging negative ones. I was hence very much in favour of the asset-based welfare policies that have very unfortunately been scrapped. To me, it appeared that such policies would encourage people to save and think about the long-term.

I also think, however, that creating the right atmosphere in which people will choose to do what is right because they identify it is the best option is also important. That is why I suggest a re-designing of history lessons in a manner that positive behaviours are encouraged as a result. Many of the most important lessons I, and surely my friends, learned from the days when we ourselves sat on the benches of an Indian private school classroom were acquired during history lessons. One that comes to mind is an exercise in which we had to correctly identify who the person spoken about in the following para was and then to discuss further his/her life.
-----------------------------------------
He lost his job in one year. He was defeated in his run for the State Legislature in the next. He failed in business in the next year, and, though was elected to the State Legislature in the year that followed, he lost his sweetheart in the year thereafter. Over the next years, he had a nervous breakdown, was then defeated in his run for House Speaker, then defeated in his run for nomination for US Congress; after finally getting elected, he didn't get re-nominated; he was then rejected for the land officer position, then defeated in his run for the US Senate; then defeated in his run for nomination for Vice-President, and then defeated again in his run for the US Senate. Yet he then achieved something out of the ordinary two years later. Who was that man?
-----------------------------------------

I remember how curious we were as young boys to know the answer to that question, and how shocked we were that the US President, Abraham Lincoln, we studied about for two weeks in our study on the American Civil War, that hero who appeared so mighty to us, who spoke so confidently and with whose life we thought we were very familiar, had such a past before which even our own histories, at least then, seemed much less fraught with failure. I clearly remember how my friends and I rejoiced that day as if, though we may not have done very well in our previous exam, the next exam could be the one in which we would strike gold. I remember how we clung to the message that if we stuck in long enough when the going got tough, and tried well enough, and kept ourselves from quitting, and kept our focus on all that was for us as opposed to all that was against us, then we too may find ourselves someday as the next Lincolns. This simple story that I can picture some of my English friends brush off as "ah all that American dream nonsense" had a huge impact on us, given that we were never taught about a welfare state or even encouraged to think about the possibility that such might exist somewhere, a state that was expected to ensure certain outcomes in our life irrespective of what we did. We were taught that we were the makers of our own destiny, even if everything we worked for may not bear fruit in our lives but in the lives of our children or grandchildren. We never read stories about good people who failed, but good people who succeeded despite the odds, because the first most children would learn naturally in life, but the second, many might never hear of if they grew up in less-privileged homes. The duty of the school was to ensure every child knew that equal opportunities did not exist in our world, nor could it be expected to exist in our world, but that there would always be possibilities that children with the least opportunities could rise up to achieve more than the ones with the most, that where you begin in life, irrespective of what the statistics show, has nothing to do with where you finish. It is not the duty of the school to equip us with statistics that show us how great the chances are in our unjust society that we will fail, but to highlight the few exceptions that successfully overcame the injustices and succeeded. Do you see what I mean? There were many workshops and seminars I attended that constantly drove home the message that "impossible is a word only in the dictionary of fools", and seriously, every time I would say that something was impossible, I knew I was already a failure, and that if I uttered it aloud, I would be recognised as such by others as well. To prevent myself from being made fun of in this way, I was forced to constantly think of ways in which I could make opportunities for myself in a land where hardly any seemed to exist in comparison to this country (UK). Yet, it seems to me ever so often that saying things are impossible is fashionable here, regarded as a sign of maturity and wisdom, which comes back to my earlier point about how cynicism is privileged, but why such privileging of cynicism must be discouraged because the state of Britain today shows that it has clearly failed.

To address your point about people from ethnic minorities not being able to relate to white men from the middle ages, I personally, as a migrant, do not understand. If I have chosen to come to your country, why must I not learn about the heroes of your past, most of whom would obviously, for demographic reasons, be white. My heroes are a child were William Wilberforce and Arthur Wellesley, both of whom were quite the opposite in colour to me. I understand many in the West were historically not mature enough to realise that it was not the colour of one's skin, but what lay beneath that made some good people great, but why should the white people of these isles think today that non-white people are equally unwise and incapable of understanding that Wilberforce was great because of what he did and not what colour he was. Do you see what I mean? The real problem, I believe, is in the realm of the expectation. We expect people in this country to be offended by Enid Blyton's works and so we ban them or discourage them, even though many children in India and Africa cannot imagine a childhood without her works and pity their English friends who sometimes don't even know who Enid Blyton is. If you want to help people from ethnic minorities feel like they belong to this country, while also preserving the culture many among those communities came seeking, what I suggest (really, recommend) is encouraging the BBC to produce historical TV series without an all-white cast. Why can't you have an Indian play Mr. Darcy? Mr. Darcy was really not a rich, white man. He was a rich man who happened to be white. It is more likely today that a Mr. Darcy roams the streets of Mumbai than London, so it would be historically correct to let an Indian (or British Indian) play the part. Appropriate British culture in a way that it becomes relevant to everybody, rather than omit it because of the popular fear that it is inapplicable and irrelevant.
Reply
Gravatar Simon Jones 16 October 2010
Habitual drunkenness is the preserve of the idle bored and decadent and our post industrial,benefit dependent society is the perfect environment for such a malaise to take hold.
As a society we have no sense of a common purpose that pulls us together and binds our everyday
behaviour.We need to rediscover our sense of responsibility to each other and realise there is consequences to all of our actions.
It is the role of our leaders,writers,artists,religious,teachers,parents to once again inspire a sense of the common good.
What other choice do we have?
Reply
Gravatar Simon Beard 14 October 2010
'How ever did the image of the English gentleman that seemed so prevalent in the early-1900s be replaced by the image of an English drunkard by the turn of the century, I have no idea. Who is to blame?'

I fear his demise was quite deliberate Dwayne. Somebody with a strong sense of duty and self respect doesn't fit well in a society that believes everything should be 'incentivised' and that all public figures are fair game for the public press. Somehow people imagined that exposing the faults of those in high office would make them better, instead it just made them seam like more acceptable faults and meant that people who cared most about their reputation (which is usually those who actually lived up to it) kept out of public life. They also imagined that if only people could profit from doing good they would be more likely to do so, however as Adam Smith pointed out himself the problem with profit was that it interfered with our natural human sentiments, and that it was only be divine providence (the real nature of his 'invisible hand') that the interest of society would still be served in these situations. (Given that he wrote about this whilst inventing modern economics in the 1770s it really shouldn't have been so surprising to us when it was raised in several books in the 2010s).

The history question is a tougher one. Clearly it became very unfashionable and politically incorrect to take a whiggish view of history in the 1960s and 70s, but I cannot say I agree with the reasons behind this. Whilst it could be taken to extremes the sort of history you where taught in school is basically a combination of 1) taking pride in the historical and cultural achievements of a particular group who you chose to identify with and 2) using this identity as a means of promoting certain moral characteristics through the study of history. Nowadays we like to practice historical based policy making, which although it can be taken to extremes is basically a combination of 1) making judgments about the success and failure of previous decisions made in situations you believe to be comparable with present ones and 2) using this identification and these judgments to make better decisions in the future.

There are two clear differences here of course. In one you are dealing with issues of policy, in the other issues of personal morality and in one you are dealing with public affairs whilst the other is dealing with education. However both are essentially recognizing the fact that history is not just a set of facts about what happened in the past, but a means of changing the present for the better.

Indeed there is perhaps an anti-whigish view in schools now where children are taught to be ashamed of their past, no doubt with the hope that this to will make them better people, though in my experience pride is a much better way to improve character then shame. I certainly want people of all religions and nationalities to be able to take pride in their heritage and to use it as a means of learning about and improving their own lives and character, so I really think I should do the same thing for my own heritage.

Reading your post reminded me of a parts of the last chapter from jeremy Paxman's book The English. He argues that 'Because the English do not consume significantly more alcohol than other European peoples this booziness must be something to do with the way in which they drink' and that 'part of the English population ... see fighting and drunkenness as part of their birthright. It is the way they proclaim their identity'. Your case that this is because they are no longer offered an alternative identity to proclaim deserves serious consideration. It is something all to easy to miss in todays world, but no less important for that.
Reply
Gravatar Nigel Britto 13 October 2010
This is such a good read. I tend to agree with you on most points, but I wouldn't take too seriously the perception that the British are drunkards. There are stereotypes about all cultures and nationalities. Don't we think that Americans are a bunch of obese retards who don't know how many sides a triangle has? Or that Indians wear lungis and go to work riding elephants? Or that Goans (my state in India) spend their time sleeping and drinking 'feni' (our local cashew brew)? Perceptions will always prevail among the partially-ignorant, and it's an integral part of the world. To go on a tangent, these perceptions might eventually give rise to prejudices, but I doubt any amount of classroom instruction can change a mindset that has taken root over decades (in an individual's formative years). Even in the Bible, didn't Nathanael say, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" when he heard about Jesus?

On another note, since you mentioned India, I think the fact that India got its independence as early as 1947 speaks volumes about the fact the British ARE, essentially, gentlemen. I doubt Gandhi's non-violence strategy would have succeeded against a more oppressive colonial power such as Portugal or Spain. The poor would probably have been shot dead.

Alcoholism, throughout the world, thrives because right from the time you're an impressionable adolescent, you're spoonfed the idea that alcohol is cool, and drinking and passing out are symptoms of a good life. That's the culture we live in. I doubt the raising of prices of alcohol will help anything.
Reply
Gravatar Jason R 13 October 2010
I must mention that the article is extremely well put. I certainly agree with almost everything you have said. However, I have to add that I think it is very unlikely that you will see binge-drinking disappearing as a result of higher sin taxes on alcohol. I recall reading in one of Simon Beard's articles that relative price of alcohol matters more than the absolute, and that is true. The only probable way that binge-drinking is going to stop by economic measures is to make a pint at least as expensive as a premier league football ticket. But hey, people buy season tickets for that and stadiums still fill up, who knows what the pubs might come up with to make the price not seem too great. That leads us to your point, Dwayne, the problem has to be dealt with from the grass-roots - from younger Britons' perceptions of their own culture. Unfortunately, one of the first questions that high school students ask university students on visits these days is if they are allowed to get drunk at university. Sad.
Reply
Gravatar Christopher Wilford 13 October 2010
Very stimulating article, Britain is indeed a land of ingenuity, industry, moral courage and class mobility. However, I would have to say it is also a land of booze. From Norman conquerors deriding the habit of the Saxons congregating for a drink to the blistering window on Georgian Britain provided by the works of Hogarth, this nation has drunk: and drunk itself senseless. Gin palaces, pubs, Navy rum, G&T-- alcohol is woven into the national tapestry. With the latest round of binge drinking souring the national reputation the issue of self-respect is a pressing one. Our approach to history does need to be evaluated. I believe there is hope though, as Churchill used to gurgle through his whisky mouthwash, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it". Cheers!
Reply
Gravatar Robin 15 October 2010
Britain is the land of class mobility? That is news to me. According to a recent report published by the OECD Britain's record on social mobility is among the worst in the 30-odd industrialised countries that are part of the OECD.

According to the report, "What your parents earned when you were a child has much more effect on your own earnings than in more mobile countries".

I love this country, but looking at some of the comments on this page I think people are either a bit deluded or they are commenting on a country other than the UK. Time to be realistic!
Reply
Gravatar Simon Beard 12 October 2010
I once attended a debate on the proposal that "the British empire is the greatest institution ever to have existed". The opposition quite rightly pointed to its many shortfallings, but in my opinion they failed utterly because they never came up with any institution that had done better!

Still D two pints of G&T? These must have been some hardy colonials.
Reply
Gravatar Robin 15 October 2010
That is a ludicrous comment, as the perception of whether an institution is 'good' is highly subjective. Catholics might put forward the Church. I put forward the EU, which has opened up the European economy to free trade, free movement and, above all, PEACE.

The British Empire, on the other hand, subjected people to what is essentially tyranny, while exploiting their resources. Further, it nurtured racist attitudes of superiority as well as inferiority who have persist to this day. In short, the British Empire is not something to be proud of. It is something we Brits should be ashamed of an learn from: 'never again...'

Anything else is nostalgia and, put in simple terms, wrong.

As to the premise of this article: how come Germany does not have this problem, despite the fact that they have opted, as a nation, to show remorse for the German 'third' Empire rather than being proud of it?

I reckon that the opposite of this article's premise is true: if Britain came to terms with the fact that the Empire was an evil mistake, we would be able to move on and carved a new identity, in the same way Germany has done.

By harking back to our troublesome history we are constantly reminded that we are no longer as influential or powerful as we used to be. All of which makes it impossible to build a positive national identity. That is the true problem.
Reply
Gravatar Nigel Britto 13 October 2010
Is it really the greatest institution ever to have existed? From my limited knowledge of history, I think the British Empire plays second fiddle to the Roman Catholic Church. The sheer intensity, power and influence that that institution wielded throughout the ages is unmatchable. At the height of its power, the Church could make or break Kings. Of course, when it comes to conquest in the literal sense of the word, the British Empire is the greatest, but if you expand the scope of the term institution, I think the Church wins by a whisker.
Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.

Detailed Summary

About The Authors

Dwayne Menezes

Dwayne Menezes is a former researcher at ResPublica. He is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of History at the University o...