Michael Gove attacks "left-wing" views of WW I

[klr]

A somewhat predictable move by the UK education secretary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25612369

Blackadder star Sir Tony Robinson in Michael Gove WW1 row

A row has erupted between Sir Tony Robinson and Michael Gove after the education secretary claimed "left-wing academics" were using Blackadder "to feed myths" about World War One.

Sir Tony, who played Baldrick in the BBC series, said Mr Gove was essentially "slagging off teachers".

But Mr Gove said Sir Tony - a left wing activist - was "wrong" and he had not been attacking teachers, just "myths".

The row comes ahead of centenary commemorations for the outbreak of WW1.

The final series of Blackadder - set in the trenches of WW1 - depicts Britain's military leaders as cowards and buffoons, in common with earlier fictional accounts of the conflict such as the 1960s musical farce Oh, What a Lovely War!

'Catastrophic mistakes'

Mr Gove told the Daily Mail on Thursday, that people's understanding of the war had been overlaid by "misrepresentations" which at worst reflected "an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage".

"The war was, of course, an unspeakable tragedy, which robbed this nation of our bravest and best," wrote Mr Gove.

"But even as we recall that loss and commemorate the bravery of those who fought, it's important that we don't succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict."

He added: "The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh, What a Lovely War!, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles - a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite.

"Even to this day there are left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths."

Some scenes in Oh, What a Lovely War! were based on historian and Conservative politician Alan Clark's revisionist history of WW1, The Donkeys, which is credited with starting the trend for unflattering portrayals of WW1 top brass.

Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Sir Tony, a former member of Labour's ruling National Executive Committee, said: "I think Mr Gove has just made a very silly mistake; it's not that Blackadder teaches children the First World War.

"When imaginative teachers bring it in, it's simply another teaching tool; they probably take them over to Flanders to have a look at the sights out there, have them marching around the playground, read the poems of Wilfred Owen to them. And one of the things that they'll do is show them Blackadder.

"And I think to make this mistake, to categorise teachers who would introduce something like Blackadder as left-wing and introducing left-wing propaganda is very, very unhelpful. And I think it's particularly unhelpful and irresponsible for a minister in charge of education."

The actor and Labour activist said it was "just another example of slagging off teachers," adding: "I don't think that's professional or appropriate."

But a spokesman for Michael Gove hit back at his comments.

"Tony Robinson is wrong. Michael wasn't attacking teachers, he was attacking the myths perpetuated in Blackadder and elsewhere," said the spokesman.

"Michael thinks it is important not to denigrate the patriotism, honour and courage demonstrated by ordinary British soldiers in the First World War."

Paxman comments

Earlier, shadow education secretary and TV historian Tristram Hunt also criticised Mr Gove's "crass" comments.

In an article in The Observer, the Labour MP wrote: "The reality is clear: the government is using what should be a moment for national reflection and respectful debate to rewrite the historical record and sow political division."

In October, BBC Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman, who has written a book to tie in with the centenary of the start of WW1, criticised schools for relying on episodes of Blackadder Goes Forth to teach pupils about the conflict.

The following month, Conservative defence minister Andrew Murrison, a former Royal Navy surgeon, said: "We risk disconnection from a defining event of our time and an opportunity, perhaps, to balance the Oh! What A Lovely War/Blackadder take on history, that has sadly been in the ascendant for the past 50 years."

Maybe he ought to read somemore history instead of telling people what to think.

[mistermack]

That dickhead Gove would like you to think that ''patriotism, honour and courage'' are virtues to be applauded.

Well they are, if you are an officer, thinking of sending people to their deaths, while you relax miles behind the front lines.

But if YOU are the one doing the fighting, patriotism, honour and courage are a sure sign of stupidity.

[rainbow]

[cronus]

Germans don't change.

[JimC]

There were certainly elements of the British Army of the time that deserved the sarcastic attacks already mentioned. However, populist views of the war and the era itself have become totally and utterly a simplistic caricature, which does history of the war and the people who fought in it a grave disservice.

[klr]

True, but Gove is just triying to substitute his own simplistic view of history. Not too clever coming from an education minister.

[rainbow]

There were certainly elements of the British Army of the time that deserved the sarcastic attacks already mentioned. However, populist views of the war and the era itself have become totally and utterly a simplistic caricature, which does history of the war and the people who fought in it a grave disservice.

What actually was the point of WW1?

[Rum]

What's the point of any war? There was an assassination, an invasion, a treaty which required intervention if its terms were to be met and bingo. Lots of wars started that way. The difference was that this was the first industriaslised war.

However Jim is right. While the saying 'lions led by donkeys' which was coined then is partially true it is also true that huge numbers of lower commissioned officers were killed. The young men of the upper classes were the first 'over the top', whistle and pistol in hand, leading hundreds of thousands to their deaths and often being the first in line for the slaughtering machine.

The dreadful nature of the war was a systemic one. It is too easy just to blame the posh toff officers.

[colubridae]

What's the point of any war? There was an assassination, an invasion, a treaty which required intervention if its terms were to be met and bingo. Lots of wars started that way. The difference was that this was the first industriaslised war.

However Jim is right. While the saying 'lions led by donkeys' which was coined then is partially true it is also true that huge numbers of lower commissioned officers were killed. The young men of the upper classes were the first 'over the top', whistle and pistol in hand, leading hundreds of thousands to their deaths and often being the first in line for the slaughtering machine.

The dreadful nature of the war was a systemic one. It is too easy just to blame the posh toff officers.

According to wiki by end of jan 1915 1 million men had volunteered. This fact alone makes any analysis complicated.
It begs the question 'why did they volunteer?'.
Any answer to that question simply begs further questions. Et cetera.
Leading eventually to ‘why do human beings... ?’


(god I'm a pompous prat)

[Rum]

Well I think there are answers available to the questions you raise there. However we aren't running an Open University course here and I for one can't be arsed.

[colubridae]

Well I think there are answers available to the questions you raise there.

As per wiki:-

By the end of September, over 750,000 men had enlisted; by January 1915, a million. the government was in pieces. The reasons for their enlistment cannot be pinned down to a single factor; enthusiasm and a war spirit certainly drove some, while for others unemployment prompted enlistment. Some employers forced men to join up, while occasionally Poor Law Guardians would also refuse to pay support for fit military-aged men. The timing of the recruiting boom in the wake of the news from Mons, though, suggests that men joined knowing that the war was dangerous and indeed many joined precisely because it seemed to be a threat to their home, district and country.

However each one of the (probably limited number espoused by wiki) reasons quoted, simply begs further questions.

As in e.g. ‘why did they have “enthusiasm and a war spirit”’? – each and every answer to that begs further questions.

However we aren't running an Open University course here and I for one can't be arsed.

I’m a graduate of the OU. I can’t praise them highly enough. I studied with them whilst semi-retired without offspring encumbrances. I was in awe of other students especially women holding down a full time job and running a family. Awesome.

Stop short at the answers which satisfy you by all means. I do the same.

Gove is being politically naive or shrewd. Depending on where your/his questions end. “left-wingers” are being shrewd or naïve, again depending on where they (or you) choose to stop questioning.

Sorry I blah-blah too much.

[Audley Strange]

The sons of the rich and the poor were both torn to bits. The First International Murder festival was not a class struggle, it was the inevitable end of modern industry fading empire and jingoism. The men signed up because of a populist myth that deluded the young into thinking war was a great adventure by men who should've known better but didn't.

Gove needs to spend a few weeks in a trench under constant shelling. Not for any reason other than it would amuse me. Fucking idiot.

[cronus]

Gove would blame the Germans though with him being Jewish? He'd like to see Berlin turned to rubble even today. You'd be called a anti-semite if you pointed out the true driving motivations for his stance. He'll be denying the Samson Option exists next and you realise which country is gonna get half'o' Israels nukes on the day with that?

[mistermack]

Just going on memory, the first world war may have started with the death of an Arch Duke, and the following up of various treaties, but everybody knew that there was going to be a war, long before those things happened.
If they hadn't occurred, it's pretty certain that the war would have started in some other fashion.
So the causes of the war were the intentions of the big powers.

This was a time when empire was the name of the game, and so it was that state of mind, right across Europe, that was the cause of the war.

And the Empire and it's history was the reason that so many people volunteered. People were brought up on a diet of stories of the mighty British Army and Navy. If you are fed that stuff from the day you're born, it's hard not to soak it up.
And of course, the romantic notions of fame through courageous exploits on the battlefield were fed to kids by the media of the time.

The amazing thing is that Michael Gove still has that stupid mindset. A hundred years ago, it was understandable, but he hasn't learn't a thing from what actually happened, which is why he should never have been in any government of any description.

[Rum]

WW1 aside Gove has an agenda for education. He takes the view that the curriculum has been hijacked by politically correct, left wing revisionists who have re-written history, made everything of equal value and promoted moral relativism. And you know what? He is right (remember who is typing this!), even if his own analysis of history is right wing and jingoistic.

I worked with the teaching profession much of the last 15 years of my career, ultimately in a senior position where I was dealing now and again with union objections to this or that government initiative. A more lazily left wing/protect out arse and fuck any changes anyone suggests group of people I have rarely come across. It is one of the reasons out education outcomes are so crap these days compared to other countries. The teaching profession in the UK is shit despite individually brilliant teachers - most of who just get battered down to forced to join the lowest common denominator.