Oddly enough I blogged about something similar at the beginning of the month.

http://quietmanmyblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/rewriting-history.html

The state knows that if it prevents us knowing where we came from and how we got here then it can destroy us as a people. Leaving us as nothing other than pliable drones.

This is crucially important to creating a sense of national identity. I do some voluntary work in a local museum where very good work is done in generating a knowledge of local history. Talking to visiting parties of school children convinces me that they have a strong interest in history as a subject but possibly too little curriculum time to pursue interests in detail. The museums are to be congratulated for the support they give to the history syllabus in schools and to keeping alive a national memory.

History should be taught in my opinion, the problem is we need the teachers to do it. The knowledge about British history has always, at least in my lifetime, been slanted to the negative side and by that I mean subjects that show the English in the worst possible light. In the past few years I have studied the history of the British Isles, America, the "Celts" and now India. I am amazed how at the distorted way all of these subjects have been treated.
An example is the "Balfour Declaration". The text says,
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.".

The part always quoted is,
"..view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...".

Nothing is said about,
"...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..".

This in my opinion is a gross distortion of history. Simply put Balfour and his government are often criticized for the declaration saying that this paved the way for a Jewish state in Palestine. Nobody ever quotes the second part about the rights of others. In fact the document, in my opinion, clearly anticipates the problems in the region today and had other countries particularly the Americans (and Atlee for that matter) read the document it may (but I doubt) have made them think twice in recognizing Israel. It could also have saved many thousands of lives in the past 60 years, particulary the terrorist campaign by the Jewish urgun group. If people had also been taught that the Palestinians lived with quite large numbers of Jews in Palestine for centuries without harming them then maybe the subject could be dealt with in a way that is fairer today. I could go on about Jewish settlements in Iran (yes Iran) where Jews live quite comfortably without fear even today.

This is just an example of the distortions, created by misquotes, partial quotes and outright lies which the politicians, media and other pressure groups use to distort history and therefore distort the present and future. It makes me realize that I and many others have been living in a false world. Since studying history I am more comfortable as an Englishman because I know that the Irish, Scots, Welsh and most other countries are actively engaged in distorting the history of my country.

Bobby Boyce's comment is excellent - I would like to see History taught in a wider more comprehensive manner rather than in a narrow fashion designed to mould thinking rather than stimulate it.

Norman Davies is the kind of historian I am thinking of, (e.g. "The Isles" and "Europe at War 1939-1945").

Basically I would prefer to see History painted "warts and all" with consideration and analysis given to all viewpoints. If nothing else, the critical analysis skills pupils would develop would be invaluable when examining the actions of our current crop of political rulers.

Norman Davies is an interesting choice. He certainly ruffled a few esbtablishment feathers with his history of the isles. I can't imagine his narrative of British history being welcomed by the traditionalists and/or New Labour.

I agree with you David... I have read The Isles by Norman Davies, an excellent book and I also like what he says, "English by birth, Welsh by conviction, Lancastrian by choice, British by chance".

Your reference to "Warts and All". You can only be referring to Cromwell our Chief of Men by Antonia Fraser? She is an excellent author IMHO and given her aristocratic background I expected a biased view of Cromwell instead I got something that allowed me, as far as I can see, to look at Cromwell in a new and unbiased light. It reminds me of a conversation I had a couple of years ago with an acquaintance of an Irish friend, who was also Irish. We were discussing British history and Cromwell reared his head. I was quite positive about him and he was very negative. I had clearly read more and I recommend that he should read a bit more on the subject and gave a few hints as to where I thought Cromwell had been treated badly by some in history.
I met the guy again a few months ago and he had read up on the subject, and although we only had a few minutes to talk he said that he had not realized what an important figure Cromwell was in world history and was very enthusiastic. Clearly he had read about Cromwell and now judges him in a completely different way. I believe he probably had the same thoughts as me. Antonia Fraser, Aristocrat, Catholic what good can she say about the man?
So as the great man Churchill said, "It's better to jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war.".

In general I would like to see a far greater emphasis on England as a nation and its place in Europe and the world.

It occurs to me that I voted for more emphasis on English National history, but of course local history is important so they both get my vote.

I think a greater emphasis should be put on local history, and by that I mean actually about us not about the Romans and Welsh/Brythons who seem to be all we are taught about despite the fact hey pre-date English culture. I think we should be taught about our cultural origins on the continent including the list of kings of the English while in Jutland, and about the finds such as the Trondholm helmet which is connected to our ancestral culture more than Hadrian's Wall and the various Neolithic monuments (which we should learn a bit about but not as much as now, or at least from what I hear as I have been out of school for some years). And I don't think they should continue to teach that the "Anglo-Saxon" are foreigners when they are much more like the modern English than the ancient Brythons or Pre-Indo-European farmers in language and culture, I am fed up of all this racialisation of our history; we are still "Anglo-Saxons" whether out ancestors where Welsh, Norman or Pakistani. That is we are English.

I would also like the bairns to learn more about European history as we are certainly European, and World history as we certainly inhabit the good green earth. I am also not against learning about newer immigrant cultures to be honest as newer immigrants are helping to shape a modern England whether we like it or not (and I can't say I mind as long as they consider themselves English before British like all Englishmen should in my mind.).