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

I think the further back we go in history the harder it is to seperated fact from myth.

Every country indulges in it. Lionising and emphasising their inventors, soldiers, victories and ignoring and doing down their rivals and allies. I think they tend to pump up their enemies skills, but demonize them as bad guys.

So Waterloo is a "British victory" as far as the common man is taught, if it's mentioned at all.
Gallipoli is where tough working class Aussies were betrayed by bumbling British aristocrats.
Culloden is England vs Scotland
Etc etc.

That's as deep as most people, (ie not the sort on this forum) want to go.
History makes good fodder for movies and books, so needs to be kept simple. If Waterloo the movie had tried to accurately depict every nationality on the battlefield, it would have been glorious to behold and a bigger flop than it was. Red vs Blue is so much easier to show. So is having "bad" enemies. So myths get perpetrated. And will endure for a lot longer.

It goes like this, once many years ago in Pretoria I set up a ABW game with a bunch of guys who were historically from stock from both side of the conflict. Strange to tell but an Afrikaans guy ended up chasing a Boer unit into oblivion with his unit of lancers while the guy with the Boers (who was of English extraction) did his best to mitigate this local disaster, well there was definitely a smirk of satisfaction on the owner of the lancer unit over these turn of events, myth or no myth you play as the myth when gaming I think and yes the Boers won in the end _they bloody shot the Brits to hell finally. so what do you take from all the myths?
Even if I know the truth I take sense of "Uber history" from them its what fires up the imagination and a book revealing the "facts" here and there certainly will not change anything, and luckily we here on TMP as much as we tend to blow the trumpet to our personal favorite myths have the intelligence to know (read and learn)truth when it is revealed. Cheers and once more unto the breach?

Interesting topic and one that still continues to manifest even with todays conflicts. For me its simple – ignorance is never an excuse, but… you have to know better to do better. So if someone is ignorant of the truth (lets call it truth meaning as close as history allows us to get – given that there is never an honest truth spoken, because everyone sees it from their own point of view and memory has a way of changing truth) then they don't know what they don't know. If they only read that Louis Riel was an honest friendly guy who loved everyone, then why would they ever think the Canadian Government had any reason to send an army to capture him? (I use the Canadian story only for example purpose – many other obviously exist). Someone said education is the key and I agree, but it is difficult for many people to comfortably read something that bursts their mythological bubble – so they remain ignorant. Slow and steady leading the proverbial horse to water may help, but it may not. Lets hope that the majority can look at two differing view points and understand that the truth (back to my first comment on truth) is usually somewhere in the middle.

Great topic :)

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

So, let's see: Lincoln being the President of the United States during the Civil War and his assasination is simply agreed-upon myth? The Norman Invasion of 1066 and the WWI… simply myths that some folks decided to 'codify'?. My Great-Great Grandfather lived in Durango, CO isn't fact, but a myth that I've got enough people to agree to?

Some people want to believe that no one has landed on the moon and Obama is a practicing Muslim born in Keyna and there was no Holocust. Are those just myths or simply uncodified history? Who knows? It may become fact if enough believe. Right?

Come on. That is a drifting into absurdity canyon. I think the word 'myth' has gotten smeared all out of propotion and applied in far too universal manner. People have the right to believe what they want to, but that doesn't make the evidence morph into something else if we can get enough folks to agree upon it.

The basis of the word Myth is 'fictitious, fagulous, legendary, apocryphal, imaginary.'

It's a myth that all history is agreed-upon and codified myth.

Ooh, there's a brain-twister for someone. Historians have worked hard for many, many decades dedicated to recording and describing something wholly unrelated to myth. We can question their success, but the fact that they are committed to evidence and establishing something diametrically opposed to myth is not simply someone's imagination or codified agreement.

From my perspective, there are two different kinds of historic myths: the "what" myth and the "why" myth. The "what" myths are like Gallipoli, that there was nobody beyond the ANZAC and the Ottomans in that campaign. That type of myth can and should be easy to dispel as it is based on specific fact -- nobody could argue that the Civil War didn't happen. Likewise the myth of the Chinese discovering America in 1421 falls apart because there is no legitimate evidence supporting that statement.

The "why" myths are like the States Rights and Lost Cause myths -- they represent issues of ideology, not history. There are debates and changes in the interpretation of "why" something happened (which is the basis for historiography and the very meat of history), but there are absolutes based upon what can be proven with the facts. The States Rights and Lost Cause myths fall apart because the facts do not support the arguments. But to disabuse people of those notions requires understanding why people want to believe those myths.

And since we are on the topic of historic myths…

Interesting story Zargon. I guess one good thing about wargaming any conflict is that, assuming people will adopt all sides at need, you are forced into the other person's shoes as you observed…

Strange to tell, whilst I am happy to portray pretty much anyone in any game or period apart from ACW, I am reluctant to play on the Confederate side in an ACW game, and to this point never have. Its not been an issue as I think most players are quite happy to play on the dashing and aggresive Southern side. Nothing political or moralistic or anything on my part, I just totally identify with the Union for some reason. Maybe because the first account I read was Coddington, who very decently makes his bias clear, and does give the Confederates credit where its due, particularly in their respect for Northern civilians and their property, but nevertheless is so clearly assured of the right and fitness of the Union cause. Interesting…

It is not simply a case of education . The Nazis certainly educated their population as to their interpretation of history and the Soviet Historians were all well educated Marxist Determinists .

It is not simply a case of education . The Nazis certainly educated their population as to their interpretation of history and the Soviet Historians were all well educated Marxist Determinists .

Indoctrination does not equal education. One tells people what and how to think, the other provides the tools necessary to find and reason out answers.

I'm pretty new here, so not sure if it is normal to read through all the posts, or simply to offer an opinion at the end – so, though I have stated it before, let me confirm once again that I used the word 'allowed' simply because I could not think of a better one, and that is why I put it in quotation marks. In hindsight, 'tolerated' or 'allowed to go unchallenged' would have been better, perhaps.

I think there have been some great points made so far. In terms of the rather confrontational write-up that the publisher gives of the book in question, I have been thinking about that and agree it is a bit 'in your face', but on the other hand, is no more aggressive than the write-ups you see on dozens of other books which show the other side of the war – maybe its just more 'shockíng' to us as we are not used to it?

The problem I have with tolerating such myths is that they can sometimes be used to justify pretty much anything. I am old enough to remember the 'old' South Africa very well, and the carefully constructed legends around the Concentration Camps were trotted out to excuse pretty much anything the Apartheid Government did – and were amazingly successful at stifling all criticism. (this is not to say that thousands of people did not die in the camps, but only to point out that a myth grew up around the whole experience).

I was chatting to a friend about this last night, and he said that it was better to let sleeping dogs lie, and that a lot of humble pie had been eaten by a lot of people in an effort to keep harmony in South Africa – ie. the myths of the Boer War should be allowed to go unchallenged for the sake of peace and reconciliation.
I see his point, but I cannot agree that it is right for historians ever to keep quiet just to placate a few extremists.

History is like custard.

its only when you poke at it that you find out its fluid

"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."

- Judging from recent releases by Warlord and Battlefront, it's already started…

Myths are an unfortunate byproduct of the limitation of human cognition. Our brains can only process so much information before we have to start cutting corners. Add to that the vagaries of everyday life, and myths will arise and take hold (from racial, class prejudices, to national myths). Education will only help you resist but seldom overcome. But we must strive to become more educated and we must strive to impart to others a perspective they may not have considered. Just do not assume they will be persuaded, and do not assume you your self are not operating with your own prejudices. The wise person knows the subjects of one's study are flawed, the recipients of his or her tutalage are flawed and himself or herself are also flawed.

Myths are an unfortunate byproduct of the limitation of human cognition. Our brains can only process so much information before we have to start cutting corners.

I think it is more than that. Folks want myths and will actively develop them and then defend them in the face of at times huge amounts of contradictory evidence.

As you say, it cuts corners, makes life easier, decisions simpler, justifications so less messy and complicated.

Myths are simply a tool for making life easier to deal with.

MYTH:

1a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

b: parable, allegory

2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially: one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
b: an unfounded or false notion

3 a: person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

From many of the comments in this thread it appears the definition of "myth" has become anything that one disagrees with.

Wait a minute! The Battle of Culloden Moor was fought between a Jacobite army composed of Highland Scots reinforced by Irish and other mercenaries from France on the one side; and a British Army under Cumberland which was for the most part English with a sizable minority of Lowland Scots and an assortment of other loyalists. Thus, the Battle of Culloden Moor was, in many ways, an English vs. Scottish conflict. So what's the myth here? Should it be a British vs. Scottish conflict?
Confused.

I think it was a HIGHLANDERS against English/Lowland Scots battle in reality and the myth has at as a united Scottish force cruelly beaten down by an oppressive English force.

Just as Rod I Robertson says above.

One thing we must bear in mind is that we count as 'experts' in the field of military history and the myths are peddled by crooks and believed by masses of ignorant sheeple.

A bit harsh perhaps but true at a basic level.

Maybe we should have a thread with candidates for a top ten myths to be shot down on sight…..

As you say, it cuts corners, makes life easier, decisions simpler, justifications so less messy and complicated.

Myths are also a great coping mechanism for people who do not want to admit that they/their ancestors were wrong or fairly lost. The alleged betrayal of Germany after World War I is clear example of this: the Germans fairly lost, and deserved to lose, but instead of admitting to that they claimed that the leadership, the people back home, and the Jews and Communists all worked together to ensure a German defeat. The Lost Cause is a way for Southerners to avoid admitting the significance of slavery for Secession and the war. They do not want to accept the fact that the Confederacy was (1) wrong and (2) a failure. I have said it before, and I will say it until I die, but history is ugly and humanity has to realize that and move on.

As Skarper says, Culloden saw a rebel army defeated by a British government army, which included plenty of Scotsmen in its ranks. The Jacobites enjoyed support in areas of England, not just the Highlands or even just Scotland, whereas some Highland clans (eg. the Campbells, the Sutherlands) remained loyal. This from wiki:
At the Battle of Culloden in 1746 where the Jacobites were finally defeated, involved in the fighting on the government side were four companies from the Campbell of Argyll militia, 3 companies from Loudon's Highlanders under the command of Lieutenant Colonel John Campbell and one company from the 43rd Highlanders under the command of Captain Dugald Campbell of Auchrossan

When the Jacobites had earlier invaded England, they fully expected many of their English supporters to join their ranks. Indeed, the French planned to land men in Essex as this was considered to be pro-Jacobite territory.
I would suggest a myth has grown up around it being a case of the plucky Scots against the oppressive English, rather than it being much more of a Protestant / Catholic struggle.

In terms of what is and what isn't a myth, Hans Gruber makes a valid point. However, their are plenty of myths which are factually completely incorrect, not just being a point of view / opinion.

Taking the much-used example of Gallipoli again, the fact is that the ANZACs made up a relatively small part of the Imperial forces in that campaign – from memory, they were 3.5 Divisions out of a total Imperial commitment of 12 Divisions (plus one small French division), not to mention all the Royal Navy personal who served and died there. This, I would suggest, is not known by the layman in either Australia or the UK.

Something like the numbers of Divisions deployed in a campaign is a verifiable fact, and not something one can really have an opinion on as such (though one could always say that this one was only there for a month, or that one only performed rear-echelon duties, I suppose).

Where disagreement / differences of opinions might come in are when someone supports the 'myth' by saying: 'well, yeah – but we did all the hard fighting' or 'all the attacking was done by our fellas'. These sort of, rather more subjective, statements are harder to deal with, and when myth-busting (or not) might come down to a personal take on the conflict.

Where disagreement / differences of opinions might come in are when someone supports the 'myth' by saying: 'well, yeah – but we did all the hard fighting' or 'all the attacking was done by our fellas'. These sort of, rather more subjective, statements are harder to deal with, and when myth-busting (or not) might come down to a personal take on the conflict.

That should be easy to handle as well: just look at casualty rates, yards gained, munitions expenditures and resupply, etc. That should give an idea of how hard someone fought.

My job is to deconstruct other people's myths using documents, testimony and other facts, and to use those same documents, testimony and other facts to convince others of a different reality. Yes I am a trial lawyer. However as much as I rely on documents, testimony and other facts, I am not revealing the TRUTH. I am simply advancing another MYTH which is better supported by the evidence.

TRUTH can be quite messy. The reason is because we seldom have an intact puzzle where it is simply a matter of taking the time to put the pieces together properly. What we usually have is a puzzle with a number of pieces missing, other pieces altered and pieces from another puzzle mixed in. At some point pieces are going to be placed or discarded based on what you believe or want the finished puzzle to look like, and not based on how it truthfully should look.

Historians do this process too. While their decisions may not be driven by the interests of their clients, they may be influenced by their ideologies or just plain laziness.

Part of the reason myths persist is that there are usually some elements of truth to them. The "Stab in the Back" myth is a good example of this. The German army was losing the war, but they had not lost it yet. The government that they returned to was not one that had lead them in the war, and there was revolution in the streets. It would not be that difficult for a soldier who had been able to keep fighting through November 11, and who marched back with his unit intact, to believe if the country had continued to support him, maybe a miracle would have occurred. Never mind that all their allies had been knocked out of the war and the Entente armies were advancing everywhere with plenty of supplies to sustain them.

At University I studied maths and while it was interesting the idea of 'mathematical proof' which was our daily bread and butter does not seem to exist anywhere else.

Certainly in history you have 'evidence' for and against and in the end you must jump one way or the other.

I think a 'myth' for our purposes is defined as an assumption or belief arrived at without regard to the evidence or to only a very slanted part of the evidence.

We are as someone above says VERY prone to mythologies as they explain the universe in simple ways when the reality is too complex.

They are IMO extremely dangerous and politicians are very good at building and exploiting them. Hitler is the extreme archetype but I think all leaders good and bad make use of this pervading human weakness – among others like greed, xenophobia, etc.

When some previous knowledge/ belief is destroyed or modified by new research, properly grounded, then honesty should order the use of the new found truth, just like in any science.

The pb with history lies in its use by politicians, demagogues, and all sorts of people with agenda to manipulate others.

If by myth one defines the word as idealised concepts about the person or events or collective "geist" then one merely needs to ask who and why has the person, events or geist been idealised and for what purpose. We idealise sportsmen for their sporting prowess, we idealise our parents (well when we are very young at least) we idealise various political ideologies and moral systems. Is it wrong to hold something or someone or a set of someone's in high esteem. I personally feel its not a bad, thing, role models, heroes etc. However when used for promoting negatives such as hate, isolationism, superiority and so on the answer is the ideals have been subverted to their baser goals of bad propaganda. When one looks at history if it is only through the tint of rose coloured glasses and not to seek the truth, however unpleasant or serendipitous on the other it may be then the role of history is destroyed. Just like Science and Scientism there is history and "historism" to coin a word! Just my two cents worth :)

You know what, maybe this will help

In quantitative political science we have a saying "all models are wrong, some are less wrong than others". If we see myths as models of reality (which is what they are), so will be more wrong then others, but none will be "true".

Ultimately we all are just struggling to decrease the stochastic factor :p

To an extent myth making is also the act of creating stories that fit the conclusion you want.

The "Stab in the back" was popular because if you start from the conclusion that German military power and national pride was superior, the war couldn't have been lost on the battlefields. Hence, the stab in the back.

Myths about the american civil war arise because we know slavery is bad, so it can't have been fought about slavery.

etc etc etc.

It's like religious fundamentalists chopping up a science book to find evidence for their specific god. They have an answer and now they're looking for evidence for that specific answer.

Of course, you can always do what Putin has just done and enact a law making it illegal for anyone to challenge the accepted government-sponsored National Myth about World War Two.

The over-used adage, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", is equally applied. Which version are we supposed to learn from? We have so many….

GWA:
You asked, "Which version are we supposed to learn from?". The answer might be "all of them"! Read them, weigh them, discuss them, debate them, argue them,and come to your own conclusions; but never believe them without much contemplation!

Well said Rod! Its about the weight of evidence. Understanding a specific writers or commentators bias and so on. At uni History and Classical history students who do honours or higher learn all about this. Bias, purpose behind the writing and so on. Everyone does it. Socialists do it. Nationalists do it. Conservatives do it. Atheists do it. deistic religions do it, evolutionists do it, greenies do it, corporations certainly do it. Everyone cannot help but add bias to their writings. Even Shakespeare did it for his patrons! However we must never fall into the trap, in my opinion, of believing that all history is as relative and lets say political science. There is and underlying set of fundamental truths that cross through all history otherwise so many different lawmakers, from Solon, Moses and Hammurabi would not have all talked about stealing, murder, etc. The details may have ben different but all had an idea on stealing etc. Ford is wrong, history is not bunk! We certainly can learn from it. History is basically one great big statistics tale. Once you begin to understand the patterns the patterns of human behaviour and cause and consequence become readable. As the saying goes those that do not learn from history will repeat it is a very true saying!

What about the reverse myth?

For instance, the myth of Fess Park…I mean Davy Crockett as the last man, smacking Mexican after Mexican on the head with rifle butt, as they attack in single file, finally overcome but not before taking out dozens,

verus some more recent myths,

Davy dressing up as a woman and trying to sneak out of the Alamo, Davy surrendering and trying to make a deal, Davy jumping the palisade and trying to hide in the marsh, etc.

kevanG wrote:

History is like custard.

It's only when you poke at it that you find out it's fluid.

Excellent. I intend to steal this.

All the best,

John.

So, let's see: Lincoln being the President of the United States during the Civil War and his assasination is simply agreed-upon myth?

I completely agree with what McLaddie is saying. Well said.

No, any myth takes folks down a highway w/o an exit to facts. The past and present are full of such examples. A myth here, and a myth there leads to millions of needless deaths. The world needs more facts and a lot of distance from any myth.

I also agree with Dan 055.

Sorry I am late to this party. The 2nd Boer War is a major gaming interest of mine. I have read everything about it that I could get my hands on and now will read this book.

I think this author or the book reviewer has the 1st and 2nd Boer Wars confused.

…red-jacketed Tommies advanced under orders of bumptious, incompetent British generals they were mowed down in their thousands.

Red jackets. That would be the 2nd war.

There are many myths about this war. Starting with who won?

Myth: The Boers won.

The British won big time.

Myth, well partly: British was led by incompetent Generals.

I would say General Sir Redvers Henry Buller was incompetent. But for the most part British Generals were very competent (they did win after all.) Lord Roberts, Kitchener and French spring to mind.

Myth: The Boers used hit and run tactics the whole war.

Actually no, that came later. What I call the second phase of the war consisted of many big battles. I could list them but anyone can search on the internet for them. I have played almost all of them. There was hit and run attacks going on throughout the conflict but most of it took place late in the war.

Myth, sort of: The British employed brutal tactics.

That also came latter in what I call the Third Phase. Boers conducting hit and run tactics. With most of the huge British army gone (Roberts declared victory and left.) Kitchener took another page out of the ACW book and proceeded to go after what supported the Boers. Their farms and families.

This is when you get to the concentration camps (nothing like the Nazi camps in WWII.) The Boers committed their share of "Brutal" tactics too.

Myth: The Boers were all farmers and crack shots.

Many of the Boers were from the larger cities in South Africa and were not as skilled as their Farmer Compatriots.

As for national myths. I believe in letting real history speak for itself. It's not just the Afrikaners, but the Japanese have always banned books chronicling there atrocities in WWII. I like disproving myths! Shine the light of truth and all myths crawl away to die.

RALLYNOW SAID "Shine the light of truth and all myths crawl away to die."

Up to a point yes – but some are stubborn and the light of facts only seems to make them stronger. Such is human nature up to a point.

It's a guerrilla war – you have to be in it for the long haul.

Re the Japanese – there have been periods in post war Japan when they were more willing to face the facts about WW2 – then due to extreme political parties/groups they dig in and deny deny deny…

They are not alone but they are a particularly unpleasant case. Germans do a fair bit of myth perpetuation re-WW2.

- No – it was all the SS/GESTAPO – the honorable HEER and civilians never did any of that – when in fact as I hope we all know there were many SS conscripts who were less guilty of war-crimes than many Wehrmacht conscripts. [just to forestall any backlash I'm no apologist for the SS – plenty of evidence that it was a thoroughly amoral organization that committed a vast amount of war-crimes – just that not everyone in it wanted to be in it or took part in war-crimes with enthusiasm]

The US will never seem to stop mythologizing their horrific misadventures in South East Asia.

The British Empire is remembered by older and some younger generations as a 'jolly good thing all round' when in fact it was a monstrous crime [though everyone did it who could do it has some merits as a defense it does not make the whole think 'OK' – surely this much is obvious]

The worst people – and by this I mean the power hungry be they democraticly elected or dictators – have massive interest in fostering and exploiting myths of all types. This is why they attack any real education that may equip young people to think for themselves and stifle debate in the media and public life in general.

There was that myth about WWI British with the mad minute shooting. The Germans thought it was machine gun fire because they were so rapid at aiming and shooting with the Enfield.

However I have seen numerous references that discredit this view and it was actually supposed to be a myth. Yes they were a good shot but it was not clear if there was ever a real German reference about it. You never know though, it could be true…

Having said that I like the myths, they add colour and fun to a game. So I think yes to including some ideas to add fun, especially if the author is candid about the use of them in the game mechanics.

Rallynow

I can assure you that many people in South Africa will tell you that the British wore red in the Second Boer War. I think the other points you make are excellent and very valid, though I think Buller actually did a lot better than he is generally given credit for. Breaking through the Tugela Line was no mean feat.

Skarper

It is not a 'fact' that the British Empire was a 'monstrous crime' – that is your opinion.

inrepose

Yes – I have read lots of revisions of the whole mad-minute thing at Mons recently. Max Hastings gives a rather different version of it in his recent 'Catastrophe', for example.

Queen Catherine

Yes – that's sort of what I was meant in my comment to Skarper about the British Empire. Whether one approves or disapproves of the Empire, one cannot say for a 'fact' that it was a 'monstrous crime' any more than you can say for a 'fact' that Rommel was a better general than Hannibal, the SAS are better than the SBS or rugby is better than cricket.

A chap told me the other day that the 'old' South African army was the best in the world – 'and that's a fact'. I said that I agreed that it was indeed a very well-trained and effective army, but it cannot be a 'fact' that it was the best in the world – I mean, how does one prove or disprove that?

Was the American Civil War / The War of Northern Aggression about slavery or about "States Rights"?

If you read declarations of independence written by the various rebel states and the vice president of the Confederacy where they state the reasons they were seceding from the Union, THEY give both as reasons…it was a state's right to have slaves in their states.

It is established fact that the states gave those reasons for seceding based on the written evidence. If anyone believes the declarations are wrong or the writers actually had undeclared alterior motives, that is a sad state of affairs, but that doesn't make those declarations myths.

The original question was

'Should national myths ever be 'allowed?'

How do you 'allow' natioinal myths? By not speaking up, by not presenting the evidence that establishes they are myths. What possible good can come from 'allowing' them?
Is self-deception a positive trait if it makes people feel better about themselves and justifies their actions--simply because those people were mistreated?

It that really a serious argument? Could it be that the facts/evidence/truth won't make them feel better or jusify their actions.

Hmmn – ok – I guess you got me on a slip with a rather lawyerly interpretation of 'in fact'.

I think it's generally accepted as 'true' that the British Empire and indeed all Empires were monstrous crimes – anybody claiming otherwise usually has some kind of sinister right wing agenda.

I have my own agenda too – of course – my slant and take on the history. Some may think I'm a dangerous leftie liberal and I would be glad of the praise if I were actually 'dangerous'. Harmless and irrelevant is more accurate.

I think the British Empire was inevitable given the mind set of the people who carved it out and the balance of technology and power. But inevitability does not make something 'alright'. Allowing this myth to go unchallenged is wrong – in my opinion.

But – yeah – it is a opinion or an interpretation of the facts perhaps. Like 'the Nazis were evil.' Is it a fact or an opinion? An opinion of course but so universally held as to be almost a fact. And therein lies our issue – myths are generally held opinions taken to be 'facts' but which are for the most part false – either because the facts were wrong or twisted in such a way as to lead to false conclusions.

Well, Skarper, you yourself admitted that 'The British Empire is remembered by older [ie. people who actually experienced it] and some younger generations as a 'jolly good thing all round'', and it is still remembered in awards like the OBE, MBE etc, so I think the idea that it is 'generally accepted as true' that it was a 'monstrous crime' is not really the case. When someone refuses to accept an OBE because of its imperial connotations, this makes the news because they are the exception – the thousands who proudly accept them are the rule (not that this means anyone who accepts an OBE approves of the Empire, of course, but I think you see the point I am making, and neither Labour nor the Conservatives have considered it necessary to 'rebrand' the award).

I agree that many people are ashamed of Britain's colonial past, but equally many are not. I could not tell you what the majority view is – nor, I suspect, could you tell me. Perhaps more instructively still, however, I can assure you that many in the former Empire – both black and white – (I have lived and worked in Africa all my life) talk of it with great fondness – whether rightly or wrongly, but that is my experience.

As for ALL Empires being considered monstrous crimes – do people really think the Roman Empire was a monstrous crime? Or the Zulu Empire? Or the Matabele Empire? Or the empire Kruger tried to build in southern Africa? I have never heard people speak of them in that way. And far from those who have a fondness of the Zulu Empire (or whose sympathies are with the Boers rather than the British) having a sinister right wing agenda, they usually strike me as being of the opposite persuasion.

The statement 'the Nazis were evil' is rather more difficult as that one – as you rightly say – certainly is pretty much widely agreed to be true, though that is still not the same as it being a quantifiable fact. Indeed, had they (heaven forbid) won, I imagine a very different set of 'facts' would be accepted today – the RAF would be the evil killers of women and children, the Soviets would be the evil murderers of millions etc.

The reason many of the older people remember it fondly is that they are – in my opinion at least – pretty ill-informed about the details, even if they lived through it as you say they got fed a pretty whitewashed version of events.

The British Empire – all Empires – are about stealing resources and enslaving the population colonized. There may be positive aspects, I'll not pretend there are not, but they don't absolve the colonizers of their crimes.

Those who are not ashamed* probably would be if they were better informed or had any conscience. I contend that it's a myth that the British Empire was anything other than a huge criminal enterprise.

*As an aside I think anyone alive today has no reason to feel ashamed of the British Empire (or proud of it) since it was none of their doing. Even the people in their 70-80s now who lived through the last few years were only children or at best minors.

I also blame Empires [including the British] for the chaos, disorder and corruption that inevitably seems to follow their dissolution. This is perhaps what makes many people hark back to the days of Empire with fondness because at least they were better than what came after.

I picked the British Empire as an example because being British myself I felt it was fairer than going after another easier target.

One of the issues with Empires is of course they are 'glorious'. They make us feel proud or inspired in some way even if we have no connection with the Empire in question.

My point really is that pretty much every county/society has skeletons in the closet and prefers to believe in myths rather than face the truth. In Britain we dare not even have the discussion.

Hence the myths persist.

Like the Myth of socialism being actually about the welfare of the people, myths like that do you mean?

Oh dear, I think I might have started something :)

And of course you are very welcome to your opinion, Skarper – I don't think there are any right and wrong answers on the subject. Its simply a case of weighing up whether all the good that came from it was enough to counter-balance the bad, and that can really only ever be a subjective call and opinions will continue to change and adjust over time. Two recent studies on the subject – one by Jeremy Paxman, the other by Prof Niall Ferguson (neither a shaven-headed right wing thug) – came to rather different conclusions on the matter. At least in Britain there would seem to be a fairly open debate on the subject.

I only wish there was a similar openness in South Africa on our history.

Culloden…Jacobites versus Hanoverians…the Jacs were mostly Highland guys, but I think the blokes recruited for the Jacs from northern England might not have liked being described as Scots of any description and I'm not sure that highland troops in the Hanoverian army would have liked being described as 'lowland Scots'.
Paxman or Ferguson as a historian? I think we can safely go for Ferguson for scholarship, but Paxman is an entertaining writer which is more than one can say for a great many scholars.

I think part of the problem with the past is the desire to judge its inhabitants by the mores of the present – usually to fit some PC agenda (eg making white Europeans look bad). One example is that we now talk in Britain of the TRANSATLANTIC Slave Trade, rather than THE Slave Trade, because that way we can ignore the awkward facts of African – and later Arab/Muslim – involvement in setting the whole thing up in the first place, running it, and abducting 2/3 of the estimated total victims.

As a result of this arrogance towards the past, we tend to also lose the context of an act, or attitude, but more importantly we forget that history is the story of progress by humanity. The Romans were not stupid because they failed to put a man on the Moon, despite living on the same planet, with the same resources, as our fathers and grandfathers. Similarly, is an Empire "inherently evil" irrespective of what it replaces, or because without the wealth it generated the colonisers would themselves have become part of someone else's empire?

Anyone building a 19th Century style empire today should be rightly condemned; however, 200 years ago, different rules applied and people lived by those, not ones invented long after they were dead.

Supercilius Maximus

Excellent points!

I remember (about a million years ago) a history teacher telling us that the British 'invented slavery', with no mention that slavery had been practiced all over the world and for thousands of years before the British Empire came about, or that it was the 'evil' British Empire which moved heaven and earth to stamp out the slave trade.

Almost as bad (though seemingly unlikely in today's UK) would be for a teacher to only point out Britain's part in ending the slave trade, while not also mentioning her role in it before that (a role which, though shameful, was far from unique and which is very different from 'inventing' it).

I would suggest that this another way myths can start.

Well said Supercilious Maximus. Imperious et Iberian you are dead right, what was said earlier, deconstructing the past to fit present political agendas is exactly how myths are started. Facts gentlemen, always the facts. Sifting through the propaganda for the truth is a key point if one wished to respect history. Even Suetonius can be enlightening if you are conscious of the propaganda! :)

Rallynow

One other Boer War myth which you did not cover in your post, but which this book examines in some depth, is that of who started the war, and what was it about.