"Should national myths ever be 'allowed'? " Topic

There is a rather unpleasant / hate-filled debate raging on various FB pages / blogs here in South Africa, concerning a recently released / soon-to-be released book about the Anglo-Boer War:

link

This would seem to challenge the commonly-held views of the war here, and is thus ruffling a lot of feathers before any one has even bothered to read it. I was discussing it online and was interested when one lady said: 'we Afrikaners are allowed to have our myths because of the way we have been treated since 1994'.

So basically, keeping the myths of the ABW alive would seem to be important to some people, presumably because it makes them feel better about themselves / helps build a sense of community or something.

While I am more in favour of historical accuracy than in allowing national myths to be allowed to drag on, I would be interested to know if anyone agrees with the basic point she is making? Is it 'OK', for example, that the modern versions of Culloden or Gallipoli be allowed to take precedence over historical reality?

I don't know if this will come out quite as I want it to: for myself, it is always preferable to know history. That said, it is frequently more interesting to know the mythology that grows up around historical events and their influence over the people involved.

However, I have no difficulty keeping 'myth' and 'history' separate!

I suppose really it depends if you believe there is such a thing as objective history, and even amongst well researched, peer-reviewed history, opinions and fashions change. Just look at changing views on WW1.

I don't know who is or isn't allowing these opinions though, there isn't a central committee which decides these sorts of things. Well, maybe in North Korea…

Like langobard, I would prefer people know history in all its glorious complexity and ambiguity, but cultural identity goes beyond that.

Being 'allowed' is, of course, the sticking point. Who would be designated and able to enforce historical truth everywhere? Surely it would be impossible.

And what is the historical truth?

Some cultural myths are just starting and others go back centuries. Yes, I think it would be impossible.

Interesting question.

I don't think you can separate myth from historical truth. At the popular level, people just get emotional, and at the professional level historians need to create myths in order to be seen to be 'exploding' them as the USP of their product.

Sometimes myth is so deep seated as to actually preclude or diminish far more amazing and exalted realties. Try to tell average Aussies that there were British and French involved at Gallipoli, and that they suffered more casualties, is hard enough, and somehow seen as diluting the national legend, so its best not pursued beyond that initial look of incredulity. But the shame of it is that such ignorance means that there is no room for understanding of Australian contributions elsewhere, not least on the Western Front… And this is in a country with, I would say, above average interest in the media in its military legacy…

Not quite on the point I fear, but you have piqued my curiosity, – is there a modern myth about Culloden? How does it vary from the unmitigated military disaster that we have always known.

Myths can be very dangerous things; how much damage was caused (for example) in Ulster in the early days by the persistent view held in Republican areas that the British Army was shooting at people indiscriminately. Probably the greatest myth – albeit contemporary to the events it was about was that of the Amboyna massacres of 1742.. the myth that genocide was being perpetrated against the Chinese community led to unrest on such a scale that a massacre in the end took place in a rather dubious attempt to stop the violence!

Difficult subject.

Education is the tool that enables people to distinguish between historically credible interpretation and unsustainable national myth.

So we put our faith in the combination of academic freedom and an educated audience. Of course giving Mel Gibson lots of money with which he can make a movie demonstrates the limitations …

Phil

Good points so far. That's the reason I put "allowed" in inverted commas – I couldn't think of a better word, so forgive me.
The reason I say it though, is that there are calls for this book to be withdrawn from publication and personal threats against the author and his family – though these are probably just the usual hot-air one finds on the internet!
So – no – obviously there is no 'central committee' who dictates what is and is not allowed, but I would suggest there are certainly plenty of pressures put on authors to comply – whether this be by the forces of Political Correctness in the West, or by various volatile and out-spoken groups in a country like South Africa, where virtually everything (history, sport, even one's choice of 4x4 etc) becomes politicised and is held by one group over another.

I agree with the example a couple have made about Gallipoli: I have worked with lots of Aussies (and have lots of Aussie friends) but have yet to meet one who had any idea that there were far more British troops there than there were ANZACs. Part of me is sorry that this is the case, but another part of me admires the Aussies for the national pride such a 'myth' has created. You do not see coach loads of young British backpackers making a 'pilgrimage' to WW1 battlefields in the same way you see young Aussies making a point to get to Gallipoli.

The negative is that it sometimes leads to a strange 'anti-British' outlook, based on a flawed knowledge of the campaign.

Chokidar

I may well be wrong, but I would suggest that most people think that Culloden was fought between Scotland and England – indeed, if one visits the battlefield, there is even a (very small!) monument to 'the English' who died there.

Yes its a core part of my university's history curriculum to take tours of students to Gallipoli, and has been for quite some time. And I'm proud to say, now to the Western Front too. And don't get me wrong, the educated and militarily aware have a clear and balanced view of Australia's military legacy.

But I certainly can't mention Pozieres or the Somme to the more 'ocker' Irish side of the family, nor the Norfolk's and Hampshires mown down at Suvla Bay…

As far as they are concerned the only Brits at Gallipoli were the Generals sitting in their mansions (?) ordering the Aussies to their deaths in their millions whilst swilling champagne…

Dear Imperium et Libertas

Most myths are sustained by presentist ideologies of one sort of the other who require a "myth" to justify their actions which, in point of fact, have nothing to do with the ACTUAL facts of the case.

The problem is that when you study "the actual facts of the case" it Is easy to see how ALL myths, specially opposing ones can go back to point to "the actual facts" and find support verifying them.

Otto

Here in the US, the 'mythologizing' of the Civil War began almost before the last shot was fired.

National myths can be extremely dangerous. They are created to gloss over inconvenient facts that a nation/faction/etc. would rather didn't exist.

That's bad enough, but they can also be used to incite people into taking violent actions against "the enemy", especially if they are being pushed by a carefully orchestrated campaign of propaganda. The nazi vilification of the Jewish community is a classic example, and look how that one ended.

I live in Northern Ireland, and as Chokidar says, have seen how much suffering myths and lies (for that is what they are), can cause first hand.

the annotation strongly reminds of the battle between historians that is still raging in Russia after glasnost in regards to both Civil War and WWII.
Sensationalists (and this annotation sounds very like them) were specifically interested in upturning all existing legends/myths, in many ways creating their own.
For civil war reds turned into soulless monsters, while whites became the epitome of justice, nobility and patriotism. Even that there were works, that were taking into account all information to create a comprehensive picture, they were attacked from both sides. In the media you no longer see new films about passionate bolshevik, but you can see films about noble "white guard" or Kolchak, who actually wasn't called "siberian butcher" for nothing.
As always, the truth is somewhere in between….

Barin1

Yes – I think the truth is always in the middle somewhere, but I hope that this book might start re-dressing the current lop-sided way the ABW is viewed here, and perhaps even usher in a few similar tomes if it manages to slay the Sacred Cow, so to speak.

That said, it is going to be an uphill slog to overturn the popular image of the ABW and many here are simply not in anyway interested in so doing.

Cuchulainn

My apologies – Anglo-Boer War – basically, what everyone else knows as the Boer War.

Cuchulain,

Seconded. The Falklands War is a very good example of a war that was started by a country that completely fell for fairy-tales of a mythical land that they never, ever owned or had any right to in any way, shape or form… Yet complete lack of historical fact didn't stop them starting a war of aggression that claimed nearly 1,000 lives and it still doesn't stop them repeating the same falsehoods and indoctrinating their children even today.

From the blurb on your link

"Over a century of Leftist bleating and insidious, self-serving revisionism,"

It does not leap out as an example of historical objectivity. More the sort of thing used to promote a national myth really.

The thing about national myths is that they change to accomodate the dominant political narrative of the times.

So in pre WW1 England most people had a sense that the Germans were in a historical sense cousins of the English. Fast forward a few years and this national myth has been erradicated. The basis of the myth had not changed its political utility had and so it was no longer viable and was disgarded.

Good history is the antidote to national myths but historians cannot help but be influenced by their times and subjective loyalties. True objectivity is elusive.

Those who have political reasons for upholding or debunking national myths are often those with the power of patronage and preferment. They naturally prefer to patronise and prefer those who favour their agenda. In that sense national myths could indeed to be said to be allowed.

LOL… my fault Imperium et libertas. I twigged it just after posting my query. Guess who feels a bit of a dummy right now?

Yes indeed R Mark Davies, another fine example.

Oh

Yes – that does seem to be a little provocative!

He dedicates it to my father's old Regiment though (Imperial Light Horse – hence my nickname here), so I will overlook that…

It can be a dangerous thing to try to disabuse people of their national myths.
Though perhaps in some circumstances it's more dangerous not to.

The pre-WW2 Japanese view of themselves & their military certainly contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

As the ofm says, the curse of too many countries is the number of people who rember too much history. And what they remember is often wrong.

If you are allowed to get rid of mythologized history you are one step closer to getting rid of historiography, and then what will you use to torture graduate students?

There are some national myths/images that shape a sense of identity, and are harmless when based on events sufficiently far back to avoid upsets in the present day, such as the "Thin Red Line", or stout English longbowmen.And there is the romantic image that seems to form around the likes of English Royalists, the Confederacy, and Napoleon's army, as some sort of compensation for having lost.
There are some that irritate because they perpetuate historical inaccuracies, and give too much credit to some and devalue the efforts of others.
There are of course others that are more dangerous, and may lead to new conflicts to avenge past slights, or used to oppress "the others".These often go beyond mere historical fuzziness and can be fostered deliberately by those with an interest in keeping a particular pot bubbling.

All war history is written by the victors except the American Civil War where Southerners as my self wrote the history? :)

reeves lk

The ACW is a good example, but I think there are many other instances where it is the 'plucky loser', not the winner, who emerges from the war with the enhanced reputation: perhaps due to a mix of reconciliation, guilt and noblesse oblige on the part of the victor – plus a natural affinity most of us have for the underdog?

Who knows – maybe in 100 years people might even look at Hitler's Germany in that way: 'The whole world was against him – how could they be expected to win! they put up a good fight for 6 years' sort of thing.
I hope not, but would not rule it out.

My issue with "de-mythologizing" efforts is that they don't usually replace myth with fact, but rather then replace one myth with another.

One thing that 'myths' establish is how important history is to people, to their identity and the justification for all sorts of behavior. The need or desire to craft the past to suit their present predilections is powerful. We all do it with our own personal histories, creating myths that often don't stand the test of actual fact.

That being said, I don't think the past should be the at the mercy of individual and group prejudices. For instance,

Gallipoli: I have worked with lots of Aussies (and have lots of Aussie friends) but have yet to meet one who had any idea that there were far more British troops there than there were ANZACs. Part of me is sorry that this is the case, but another part of me admires the Aussies for the national pride such a 'myth' has created. You do not see coach loads of young British backpackers making a 'pilgrimage' to WW1 battlefields in the same way you see young Aussies making a point to get to Gallipoli.

The negative is that it sometimes leads to a strange 'anti-British' outlook, based on a flawed knowledge of the campaign.

Does the Australian pride in their performance at Gallipoli really need to have no other Allies fighting there? Is it really tarnishing their pride to say there were more French and British involved?

Whether the Aussies are more proud of their troops at Gallipoli than the French and British [making pilgrimages to the battlefields] doesn't justify ignoring those soldiers who weren't Aussies, but sacrificed as much or distorting history to bolster their 'uniqueness' in the campaign.

To say "'we Afrikaners are allowed to have our myths because of the way we have been treated since 1994'. is a rather weird thing to say:

Because we have been mistreated, we get to make up stories about our past, and knowing they aren't true, use them to justify our anger at being mistreated?

Is that really necessary? One thing that is evident after WWII was how historians pussy-footed around their craft after seeing how history was used by the Nazis and Japanese to justify any number of horrors.[Or the Allies for that matter with the internment camps and propaganda etc.] Page Smith, writing The Historian and History (1964)actually backs away from any 'use' of history because of that misuse.

The whole focus of the historian is to demystify history and honor all those who lived before honestly. That is a proud tradition, and not without serious opposition by those who want to use historical myths for their own ends or just those who are frightened by the facts.

Should national myths ever be 'allowed'? When has that produced positive results? And silence about the facts, about the truth, is the only way to allow it. Which means that with that silence, the sacrifices of many people will go unheard and deep misunderstanding of history will prevail.

We see that the preservation of myths [and silence] every day in wargaming… Friends just came back from a convention where a new Napoleonic game was being playtested. The designers insisted that the French chose to fight in columns in both the attack and defense… Nobody questioned that interpretation because… they were there for fun, not a historical debate, which is quite understandable.

It is also why many historians and others don't expose the myths.

In this country, in recent years there's been a well-funded, concerted and persistent (and widely successful) attempt on the part of governments at all levels, and of both the dominant political parties, to revive, promulgate, and enforce the Gallipoli myth (and its attendant militarism) as the exclusive national foundational narrative; witness the hordes of youthful pilgrims alluded to above.

This meticulously engineered social phenomenon has proved extremely valuable in deflecting valid questions about, and opposition to, a number of international military adventures undertaken entirely at the behest of the hitherto dominant global superpower.

History in many ways is itself a form of mythology. In Wikipedia the American Historian Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form".It goes on to say :"Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are used to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach."

History is and never will be a science but is an art of putting together available facts and data then pairing them with personal theories and creative writing to construct a story In other words a myth.

The first law in History is that to know history you must first know your historian.

I have tried to 'set folks straight' about history from time to time. I have learned to talk to those who I think will listen. Leave others to their fairy tales and other such nonsense.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

All war history is written by the victors except the American Civil War where Southerners as my self wrote the history? :)

From a British perspective, I would say we are not only having to put up nowadays with history written by the losers, but also with being told it is more "honest" than the alternative.

From reading the blurb for that book, I wonder if the somewhat vicious tone the publisher is using to publicize the book might not have a little something to do with the vitriolic reaction?

I visited the Quebec citadel twice, once in 1980 or so and again over 10 years later. Both times the Francophone guides said that Montcalm had 1,000 troops at the Plains of Abraham and Wolfe had 3,000. Both times I refrained from correcting them.

I recall Greek nationalists protesting that Alexander was straight after Stone's film was released. Whatever. We have a bunch of myths too.

One is that Black politicians during Reconstruction were all incompetent, corrupt or both. Contrast this with the pristine reputation that white politicians have compiled since the inception of the republic.

"Allowed?" By whom? The National Ministry of Information? The "Impartial World Nation-State of Truth Enforcement"
I don't think Nationalism and dishonesty are going away anytime soon… The fact that 'history books' are full of propaganda is rather obvious to most folks (or is it? I have a sneaking suspicion that most folks under the age of twenty will believe whatever they hear (maybe even read in a few exceptional cases)… After all, if it's on the interwebs, it must be true, especially if the authorities allowed it….)

As has been said above the key to 'myth containment' is education and public debate. 'Allow' the myths to stand but make sure that the majority of citizens recognise their mythic nature. To not 'allow' myths would be a mythcarriage of justice and a mythapplication of the law. They would be sorely mythed. Any society which roots out and denies its myths will soon find itself in a fine-myth; it's culture and essence mything in action. It is a mythconception to assume that myths don't play a vital role in forming national consciousness. But the moment they begin to shape national destiny or to define friends and enemies they become a dangerous source of mythunderstanding which threatens the peace, order and good governance of the state. We must not allow the darker sides of our national psyches to mythappropriate these powerful ideas and illusions. As long as myths remain benign, romantic notions they are fine but as they are mythused they can lead us amyth and send us down sinister roads towards a mythbegotten future. I apologise if I have mythpronounced or mythspelled anything in this post but this topic has really mythed me!

True or not, the 'myths' will always endure, whether there are attempts to suppress them or not. They are often different perspectives on the same events, and wars have propagandists and dissenters generations and centuries after the last soldier (or civilian) fell. The greatest myth out there is "orthodoxy".

Mythology is an integral part of national heritage. However, a national history based on make-believe is also vulnerable to manipulation of all kinds.

Look at the various attempts by vile holocaust-deniers to rehabilitate their ideology.

I don't know, myth can be a powerful thing. In the US for the Civil War we have the Lost Cause myth that is very much alive and kicking. There are people on TMP that are totally believers. Even with facts and research and primary sources it is still hard to defeat myth.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, I think the saying goes …

I hate to ask because I am Canadian, but despite having learned about this battle and the whole French contribution to early Canada in elementary school, I really don't know:

What were the correct numbers (I nearly said amounts)?

I think both sides had around 4,500, but the French were a mix of regulars and colonial troops while the British were all regulars.

At the Battle on the Plains of Abraham fought on Sept 13, 1759 Wolfe had about 4800 regulars including Provincials i.e. Americans. Montcalm had 2000 French Regulars,600 Colonial Infantry,and about 1800 militia and natives

For ignorance to triumph it is only necessary that those of us who do know remain silent.

But like all wise generals we must pick our battles.

Shortly we'll be subjected to Saving Private Ryan on TV again and pointing out all the errors is apt to make for some heated yet fruitless discussion.

But little by little we must chip chip away at the mountain.

The difficulty I used to find is dealing with people who exhibit a quasi-religious faith in what they 'know'.

It is testimony to the power of WW2 era British propaganda films that people know so much about WW2 that just isn't true.

But it will change – slowly. WW1 is getting 'reviewed' and some old myths are getting put to sleep. But it is a slow process.

Interesting topic. Bottom line is NO – myths must be replaced with the facts as far as they are known.

You can't stop the faithful believing if they insist but like religion (IMO) it is a waste of time at best and could be seriously dangerous at worst.

Not even the historians are sure but here is a good guess at the forces on the Plains of Abraham on Sept. 13, 1759.
link
Incidentally, a Scotsman from the Fraser Highlanders accepted the surrender from a Scotsman of the French Regiment Ecossais so it was all a highland plot! That's our local myth for what its worth!

History is and never will be a science but is an art of putting together available facts and data then pairing them with personal theories and creative writing to construct a story In other words a myth.

The first law in History is that to know history you must first know your historian.

Actually, I think that the first rule should be to know the qualities and shared characteristics of science and art.

What does the discoverer of DNA, Crick, the surgeon who did the first heart transplant and the builder of the Hubble spacecraft have in common?

They all said there is a great deal of art in the hard sciences.

True or not, the 'myths' will always endure, whether there are attempts to suppress them or not. They are often different perspectives on the same events, and wars have propagandists and dissenters generations and centuries after the last soldier (or civilian) fell. The greatest myth out there is "orthodoxy".

There is a great deal of difference between different perspectives on the same events, and ignoring inconvenient facts to promlugate stories based on no or inaccurate facts.

We can honestly hold different perspectives on the role and performance of the Australians at Gallipoli or how important their participation was, but can anyone believe that only the Australians fought there or that all the fighting or even all the significant fighting was done by them or that the Australians were the only ones to act heroically?

Is it "orthodoxy" to insist that more than just the Aussies fought at Gallipoli? Am I 'surpressing' myths to say so?

There will always be myths because folks will always want to believe, because history in any form is powerful and supports beliefs. Not a bad thing, however, there are those who find the believing far more important that wnat they believe in and what they believe in more important than any substantiated fact. The first thing any true beliver does is regulate all facts and evidence as support for either "My belief" or "for the opposition" rather than something that exists outside yours or my already formed beliefs.

That behavior is the definition of prejudice.

I doubt the US foundation myth is going away anytime soon!

:-)

For the most part, History is simply a codified and mutually agreed-upon myth…

Whenever I think of history, these days, I think of this work-safe clip from FAMILY GUY. Brian and Stewie are on a tour bus in Germany and…

link

I doubt the US foundation myth is going away anytime soon!

The founding fathers were all demi-gods and carved of marble.

The question was "Should national myths ever be 'allowed'? "

How does one dis-allow them? Blanket censorship and the thought police? People are free to believe what they want to believe and long may it continue so. IMHO.