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

Or what about the WWII French Underground being the greatest thing since sliced baguette. Some say they were ineffective compared to say Russian partisans except for isolated incidents.

I agree it's unfair to judge the people of the past by the standards of today or tomorrow.

My personal feeling about the British Empire is that on balance it was pretty neutral overall. Some countries did better or worse than others under the yoke and some individuals prospered while others suffered.

Had the British not seized 'half the world' then some other power would have grabbed it and more than likely been even more rapacious.

The core of my argument is that while the British Empire brought many benefits to the colonized it was not its primary purpose – which was exploitation of resources (or denying those to some other power).

The truth and facts are complicated and conflicting.

Imperium et libertas said "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." which is pretty much were I stand.

But if some mild criticism of the British Empire can raise hackles is it any wonder the Japanese go off the deep end of denial when someone mentions theirs?

Skarper,

I would tend to agree that the BE was neutral in intent – the principal aim was trading rights (a surprising number of colonies were acquired through treaties, rather than conquest), but paradoxically many good things came out of it (eg abolition of suttee in India) which were not cost-beneficial and often sprang from a growing sense of morality. It it is still surprisingly well regarded in many former colonies (as Victoria Wood discovered when she embarked on a tour of them expecting to have to apologise for everything), which I think is probably not the case with the Japanese.

You are also right to say that a lot of the benefits came from a desire to ensure more efficient governance, rather than improve life for the natives; but again, there were often people involved in implementing these things who ended up championing something slightly better than the bare essentials for benign reasons. And clearly you are right that many – maybe all – parts would have ended up as a piece of some other empire (or already were), and would have been less well/humanely run.

Nations fall into their opportunities. The USA is criticized for being neo imperialistic, having assumed much of the control of resources once in the control of the BE et al. former "colonizing Europeans". But the only reliable way to determine whether an "empire" is/was good or bad is to take the opinions of the denizens of the exploited territories/nations. Especially after the influence of the occupying nation/empire is removed. This is not wholly reliable, given the passage of time coloring everything. E.g. if you ask a French person and an English person their opinion of Wm the Conqueror and the Norman conquest of England, you'll likely get quite different responses, and the French pov will tend toward the admirable and "great man", while the English pov will tend toward viewing the Normans and their duke as invaders who interrupted English progress with little or no actual benefit accruing from the conquest….

Supercilius Maximus

"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'

I fear I must vociferously object to that! This only holds if there was not one voice of opposition to the practice during the era it was practiced in. But if someone of those times damned the practice, we have every right to say they were right and those who did it wrong by the standards of that era. Seneca damns Rome and Edmund Burke (and many more) damns the British Empire. No need to judge by today's norms, since people made the case for their immorality back then.

Wasn't Burke all for Empire. He certainly did not condemn it, he just did not like the abuse of it on the subject peoples! I do not think that is hardly the same as many PC agendas regards the way they deconstruct the British Empire today. The two I feel are not compatible comparisons. While Seneca damned Rome for no longing being much of a Republic, not because they were as modern deconstructed society. In fact he damned them because they were probably more in morally in keeping with a modern society than what they had been previously! Perhaps again not the same thing!

Most people who condemn the British empire today do so for the same reasons Burke did. He thought it morally wrong (expect were the Irish are concerned). At least this is what is indicated by his writings as presented in Pitt's "A Turn to Empire: the rise of imperial liberalism in Britain and France"

The Seneca part has more to do with my opposition to the general principle expounded that we as moderns cannot judge the past by our moral standards. It refers to his moral condemnation of the gladiatorial games, as a reaction to those who say we cannot condemn the Romans over the games because of our modern sensibilities. Well Seneca did so for us during that era. But no I was not refering to his stance on empires. I should had expanded on that a bit more.

A few decades back now I had an old friend who was one of the last serving District Commissioners in Africa from the Colonial Office. That old entity was actually wound up about when I was born so we're back to the immediate post-War (WWII) era and into the Fifties. Anyway, this old chap – no longer with us – was a fellow attendee of the local Western Front Assoc., lectures and over a period of years, we got to know him quite well.

His 'tour of duty' over 28 years sounded like a Livingstone/Stanley expedition, and all at the time when Britain was paring back it's overseas presence. So many fascinating short stories, I think now if only we'd asked him to record them all.

Anyway, my point is that for him he believed in the benign influences that the British Empire left behind. He was all for home-rule and self-determination, and was the first person to really open my eyes to the fact that tribal boundaries differed so much to the political boundaries the governing powers had imposed upon the map of Africa. He accepted totally that Britain had benefitted best from any trade relationship, but he always said "better us than some nations I could mention."

I remember finishing the last pint of beer of the evening, while he had one more G&T, just after an excellent evening hearing about Trench Defences & Night Patrols, and he summed up his and his counterparts attitudes perfectly:

"You could never be a petty dictator in these places, like some other countries I could mention. You see, it was just second nature – you fell in love with the posting – the place, the weather and the people. It was always so utterly charming – no wonder so many of our chaps went 'native'."

Silly me, from the thread title I expected this to be about national myths in wargaming, where the question might not be moot. In the real world it is not a question of "allowing" national myths. The best we can do is to be consciously aware of them and their influence.

If wargames followed national myths all Scots would be screaming mad Celts in plaid skirts always charging at the first opportunity; the French would always run away, except when led by Napoleon then they would always win; all American riflemen would be crack shots; all CSA troops would be courageous and led by noble officers… I have seen wargames rules that follow some of these myths too closely.

KTravalos,Agreed! I always thought it a little ironic that the Romans condemned Carthage for human sacrifice, and yet Rome was highly religious and the games were as much a part of the celebration of Roman religion which means the games, by default was a form of human sacrifice.

Not that was why Seneca condemned the games :)

I was going to make the same comment re Burke's qualification of his criticism. Was he not also in opposition at the time? That can certainly colour a man's views on what his political opponents are doing.

It's an interesting point, Travlos, but it was hardly a common view at the time, let alone a widespread one as it would be today. The same could be said of slavery: it was considered the norm across the entire world until, little by little, a dissenting attitude evolved.

On Burke, I must re-read my Pitts. But generaly speaking he opposed the imposition of foreign mores on societies, because of his organic conservatism. I think that is a belief he held for life.

On the broader question!

But Supercilius morality is only partly a question of numbers. If we agree with the moral condemnations of things like slavery and empire made by people of those times, however small a minority, than we are a agreeing with a moral point made then, not imposing our morality on the past. You see the point I am making? Abolitionism, opposition to the treatment of women, opposition to empire, these things are as old as society. Just because they were minority views it does not make them wrong (as numbers only partly decide morality) and just because we say today that those minority views were right (because they partly became majority views nowdays) does not mean we are imposing our morality on them.

Only in the case where no contemporary condemned the practice, or the condemnations ascribed to moral principles that do not map to extant ones, can one fairly say that we are imposing our moral views on the past. A taxing principle, but a fair one I dare say!

KTRavalos, good points, but I feel that its not morality that is the issue but intent of ideology to transfix one generation with moral condemnation based upon direct and modern ideological persuasion. The reasons why the left may attack the past for example are not for the same ideological reasons that the players of their day attacked institutions or people or actions, for I am absolutely sure that Burke was not a leftist liberal, politically correct agent provocateur, as an example. I think that is the difference – intent of the modern appraisal of a past era!

No Burke was not, but I bet you can find some anarchists, marxists, proudhonists, godwinians etc who made what are thought modern left-wing attacks on such institutions making those attacks in the 13th, 16th, 18th, 19th century. It can be surprising how how old are supposed contemporary criticisms of past instituions.

Also friend, all criticisms have an ideological point. Burke's enmity to empire was directly tied to his organic conservative ideology (that the norms and prejudices of a society are the result of a long process which should not be tampered with).

Silly me, from the thread title I expected this to be about national myths in wargaming, where the question might not be moot. In the real world it is not a question of "allowing" national myths. The best we can do is to be consciously aware of them and their influence.

Yes, me too. However, being aware of national myths and their influence is pointless unless that puts the brakes on their influence, which does constitute not 'allowing' them to hold sway.

Wargame designers can be seen making conscious choices in design [and speak of them]: Do they cater to the prevailing opinions [and myths] or do they follow the historical and military evidence as the template for their creation.

Any number of designers consciously decide to perpetuate the myths [national or otherwise] rather than the evidence because they believe it sells more games.

badda-boom, badda-bing.

Re. whether this thread is about perpetuating myths in wargaming or real life, I think that the two are slightly linked – wargames are a way (albeit a very minor one) of spreading and keeping these myths alive. Not quite as influential as Hollywood, though, I grant you!
Taking the Boer War as an example, I imagine that pretty much every wargame of (eg) Modder River would see the Boer Commander (de la Rey in effect, though Cronje was nominally in charge) given a very high command rating, or morale bonus or command radius or the ability to activate a lot of units each turn or whatever mechanisms the rules used. I would suggest that the British Commander (Lord Methuen) would in contrast be depicted as a much weaker / less effective commander.
Why would this happen? Well, I would suggest it is because most players / scenario designers would think to themselves: "de la Rey was a far, far better commander than Methuen – everyone knows that", a perception which is one of the commonly held ideas of the war, perpetuated by Pakenham and others and unquestioningly accepted by most. I mean, de la Rey was one of the Greats, was he not, and all British generals are bumbling buffoons, surely?

But are these perceptions valid in the case of Modder River? When the attacking British troops went to ground under Boer rifle fire, and the 9th Brigade started working their way round on the left (ie. the Boer right), de la Rey was completely unable to counter this as he had not thought to keep a reserve, and was unable / unwilling to reposition his artillery (most of which was, rather strangely, away on the other flank, despite this being the more secure one due to an unfordable tributary of the Modder River). Worse still, when Boer units started fleeing in the face of the British move on their flank, de la Rey proved unable to stem this flight.
In stark contrast, and despite being caught in the open in a giant ambush for many hours, Lord Methuen's men showed no inclination to run, and instead, while the Guards held their positions, the 9th Infantry busied themselves in turning the Boer flank and fighting their way over a river and through the enemy positions. Methuen himself was credited as being in the thick of the action, inspiring and cajoling his men.
So who was really the more effective commander at Modder River? The one who failed to keep a reserve (surely one of the most basic fundamentals in warfare), who proved completely unable to re-position his forces when his plan started unravelling, and then was unable to prevent half of them running away? Or the one who kept his men in the fight, and who ultimately won the day?

So how should they be represented in a wargame of the action? I would suggest that the Boer player (without perhaps being told this beforehand) should actually not be able to do very much at all – maybe he can only activate units he personally attaches himself to? And he learns this only after discovering his orders are being ignored? Frustrating, sure – but then imagine how de la Rey must have felt.

Botha – another of the Greats, if Pakenham and popular perception are to be believed – found himself in a similar position at Colenso. Though ultimately victorious, his orders that Hlangwane be occupied were initially ignored by his men, and it took an eleventh hour telegram from President Kruger to make this happen. Worse still, Botha's men ignored his orders to hold their fire until the British infantry were across the river, and instead sprung the ambush early, meaning it was nothing like as effective as had been planned. And when Botha ordered one Commando to move and cut off Hart's Irish Brigade in the loop of the Tugela River, they simply refused to leave their trenches, letting the Irishmen retreat to safety. So though he won the day, in many ways Botha actually proved to be quite ineffective during the battle. But would this impotence be reflected in many wargames of the action? I would suggest not.

That is not to say that de la Rey and Botha did not prove to be formidable commanders in other actions, but just to illustrate that it is simplistic to simply say 'commander A was great and commander B was an idiot' based largely / partly on, I would suggest, national myths.

One man's myth is another man's memories and a third man's monuments.

I'm not even going to try and sort this tangled conversation out save in the theoretical.

Something happened. If you were there you have memories of it. You're a primary source. However, once you write it down you translate it from the emotional and mental recollections that you have of it into a linear sequence of events which automatically imposes a cause and effect upon the event which might not be what really happened, but only what you saw happened, and which you have translated from the emotional and experiential to the linear.

At this point even though you were THERE, no matter what academia thinks, you are no longer a primary source. You have changed the event to fit the page. If someone who was not there comes along and uses your written record and makes a synthesis with other recollections written down, (or even transmitted orally) he's already a secondary source. He does not know the emotion and sensations no matter how eloquent or demonstrative you may be. They are as artificial to him.

No doubt there is a "truth" in what actually happened, and we can get very close to this in the sense of telling the overarching narrative but there is no guarantee that the tale IS the truth.

The tale we read is often a composite, a collage of many accounts.

The original experiencer is no different from the synoptic narrator. As a species we are mentally programmed, and trained all our life to take phenominational sensations and put them in some order to "make sense of them" to find cause and effect, meaning and purpose to what they experienced, and there may be none. This isn't a bad thing. If we don't do this habitually, that is out of habit, we would loose a great survival skill which allows us so much.

But again, all things are not the same. Some things we can apprehend and put into a satisfactory order. Some things we cannot and must make do. People supply the facts and knit them together, often -- with myth. This is not a bad thing, it makes the world more knowable and rational, even if in strict verisimilitude, inaccurate.

That the myths can change, that the stories can change in some parts) is not always a bad thing. Many have noted the presentist pressur to use the past for often vile and criminal purposes in the present- a sort of intellectual con-game and sleight of hand.

But the myth may often be necessary for people to surmount the past and move on.

Just Sunday I was at a Civil War Re-enactment where over a hundred people recreated the world of yesteryear and staged a small skirmish. Many many myths have grown up around the Civil War. Some of them are erroneous. However no one at this re-enactment was shooting real bullets at each other which shows that the "myths" that have accrued around it have in some way allowed people to get on with their lives rather than fixating on the wars of yesteryear, like the Muslims fixate on the crusades.

Myths can be quite useful.

Of course it gets even more complicated when we realize that memory is a strange thing. There's been studies where people are shown movies or documentaries of events they experienced first hand and they end up remembering parts of the movies instead of their own experiences.

Same reason we seem to fairly constantly get cases where this or that old veteran talks about his experiences in WW2 (for example) and says he was at Monte Cassino (for example).

Well, except his unit wasn't. It was fighting on the other side of Italy and never went anywhere near. He just remembers that he was fighting for some place in Italy and Monte Cassino is the battle everyone talks about.

So his memories start becoming muddled.

Weasel

Very interesting point.

I remember reading about an old man who fought in the Second Boer War and told a researcher he had knocked over dozens of 'red coats' with his Mauser, and how their jackets made it easy. Great first hand account – the sort of primary source a historian dreams of.

Except the British didn't wear red in that war.

So was he confused with something he did in the First Boer War? Or muddling up a story someone else had told him? Or, to put it another way, simply lying?

I think the point of 'plastic memory' is a very good one. We are often talking about highly traumatic events – or indeed incredibly dull and tedious periods in someone's life – war is 99% boredom and 1% terror or something like that someon said – and I think it's right.

Memories get blurred, people improve them/edit them to make a better story and so on. And people often are asked to write down/record their stories decades later when they are old and losing their faculties. Add in PTSD and they might remember all kinds of things that are inconsistent or just 'wrong'. I'd hesitate to say these people are lying – but you have to allow for this 'plasticity'.

Also – if you're dealing with private soldiers they often have no idea where they are or even what the correct date is when in the front lines – they have more immediate concerns than keeping a diary of events.

There is also an issue with conflating the experiences of an individual with the professional competence of his commanders. Many civilians – even some who have studied military history and should no better – simply assume that if "Great Uncle Bert" was killed or wounded in WW1, it automatically follows that the supreme commander on the Western Front was a callous butcher. The fact that he became a casualty in a German attack, or that he himself might have been careless, never occurs to them.

all the fault of Haig (or whoever).

True and that is only human nature. When a tragedy occurs everyone wants a culprit to blame and is unwilling to accept that 'stuff' just happens (even more so in war) and people will get killed/maimed no matter how careful/humane/professional their commanders are. This is something numerous US presidents seem unable to grasp and their UK lapdog counterparts are getting just as bad.

But historians should know better for sure. So should we when we design/play games.

Another myth that is getting revisited at long last is that of WW2 Italian cowardice/incompetence. More the fault of their leadership, logistics and a lack of commitment to their cause than a national characteristic. A clear case of Britprop(aganda) that has long legs and just won't die off.

WW2 French being cowards/defeatist in 1940 is equally erroneous and for many of the same reasons.

I have to say that I hadn't noticed the Italian thing resurfacing (it was a playground joke when I was at school 40 years ago); I certainly have never seen any serious British historian saying anything other than that the idea was a myth and the Italians often fought bravely and tenaciously.

OTOH, the French performance in 1940 usually gets a pretty good panning from British writers – and, within reason, quite rightly so IMO. At the same time, the impact of the Resistance often gets overplayed I feel (although one can never overstate their courage).

I was thinking more in popular culture – where myths have their greatest currency.

If you look at the French performance in context their defeat was very much at a C3 level and not on the battlefield where the courage and skill of the soldiers has an impact. The BEF did not do outstandingly well either – and they were fielding their best units against the German feint while the French had to meet the most modern and best equipped German units with 2nd and 3rd line troops. Somebody had blundered and ought to be blamed but you can't blame the ordinary poilus for the debacle.

Again – I think people take the propaganda and myths of 1940 as gospel even today.

I agree that it was a command issue, not a "sharp end" one. The BEF didn't do too badly when it as able to determine its own fate – it was being outflanked continuously (and a lack of radios) that caused the problems. That said, it's fair to say if all divisions had been up to Montgomery's standards things might have been a little different.