I am reminded somewhat of the grotesque and revisionist portrayal of history in Orwell's 1984, (though of course in that text, the politcal ideology under 'critique' is that propelling Ferguson's judgement.)

Described is a text for school children, outlining the politcal adjustments contributing to the status quo of the novel:

"These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page..."

Most history taught at school these days concentrates on the last 100 years - like The History Channel.
This is seen as easier than anything older, as the resources available include many more docudramas, bad TV shows and the like.
If we really want a sensible History curriculum, then it must at the very least span the ages from Romano- Britain onwards.
Empire, when the subject is broached, is couched in terms of righteous condemnation. This is bad history, as a truer picture of, say the Raj, would at least mention that Clive was funded in large part by Indian Banking clans, such as the Seths, for example.

The problem with Fergusson is that, as the poster boy for conservative history, he has no time for other points of view. Remember, this is the man who said that the 1973 coup in Chile, and football stadiums full of dissidents was a price with paying for economic liberalisation!

But history should deal with facts, things for which there is no such thing as balance.

In this case, teaching children that the British Empire was all good is just as wrong as teaching them it was all bad. Both are examples of ruling classes imposing their own value judgements on children

Arguments about redressing the balance are really just arguments that two wrongs will make a right.

The aim of history teaching should be to show that there are several ways of looking at the past. Emphasizing "Traditional" history means denying this, and heading in the direction Stalin's Russia did on history. Democratic values require that we emphasize the variety of possible views and voices.

@Bob: 'Cheering on the British is natural if you're British. And really was there anything wrong with the British Empire given the circumstances at the time?'

So is cheering the Germans on, during the period of the Third Reich, natural if one is German? I don't think so at all. And there was everything wrong with the British Empire in so many respects - look at the mass starvations and killings in India in the 19th century, the genocide of the Tasmanian aboriginals, or the mass murder of Mau-Mau members in Kenya as recently as the 1950s. Or the Bengal famine (during WW2) which deserves comparison with that famine in Ukraine under Stalin (but is far less known about).

This is a brilliant forum.

These posts are some of the most informed and intelligent comment I have read on the school history debate through the 20 years I have been publishing books and resources for the school history curriculum (from John Murray and then from Hodder Education) through the various incarnations of the History curriculum.

What I really worry about is that the government's plans will be based on ideology not on evidence - that they will legislate based on a very ill-informed view of what is actually happening in schools. Will Ferguson et al first go into a variety of schools for a couple of weeks to observe some lessons - maybe even to teach a few?

I think I know the answer already!

I don't think the study of history is just about one thing. There are facts to be learnt, there are different opinions to be weighed, There are your own judgements to be made. And if you want to cheer on one side, well what's the problem? Cheering on the British is natural if you're British. And really was there anything wrong with the British Empire given the circumstances at the time? You could even say that the Empire was merely a product of it time., nothing right or nothing wrong about it. History is extremely interesting as people did some fascinating things.

In fact the more you read about history the more you realise that so much of it is governed by money, although not always. Lord Cardigan, for instance, was a marvelous show off and reading about his life has been one of my greatest pleasures. If you ever get the chance to read his biography, do so, and it will make you laugh like you've never laughed before. The leader of the charge of the light brigade lived at the height of the British Empire and symbolised at one time all that was great about Britain. Yet when you read about him you realise just how fickle we can all be.

The history I was taught at school was unashamedly "Traditionalist" anyway ...(Archduke Ferdinand?)... at least Ferguson would teach that wars are waged for economic reasons instead of the fairy tales I 'compared and contrasted' so assiduously.
Nice to see your doing well Laurie

Reading this has made me feel quite ill. Is this why the government is closing the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency so that it can come up with its own syllabus to fit its ideology?
But, history teachers tend to be a wise and enlightened lot. I'm sure they will manage whatever they are sent to teach with skill engendering young people with enlightened inquisitiveness to look at all angles.

Perhaps Laurie Kenny should do some independent research before repeating Hari's wild claims willy nilly. The Boers in the South African camps were not "murdered": they died from dysentery and other illnesses. And even the Boer soldiers preferred to see their women and children in British camps rather than fending for themselves on the veld.

In the context of the times, imperialism was not a bad thing. But that's not the argument I want to get into. I am a yr 13 student, and found it sickening to be sprayed with a fine mist of politically correct, health-and-safety, socialist clap trap during many hours of my New Labour education. The curriculum needs re-BALANCING, and I for one, wouldn't mind a bit of traditionalism.

the battlegrounds for ideas are many and varied

Hobsbawm is our man

@Des

'Michael Gove, like most tories, looks like a swot finally getting his revenge on the kids who gave him wedgies at school, and for that alone I'm suspicious of his choice'

Stick a fork in it, it's done lol!!!

Good points all round.

I think what we are leaning towards is the idea that historical teaching of an event should go as thus:

Here are the facts surrounding the event,
Here is evidence supporting those facts,
Here is a balanced set of *opinions* (emphasis there) of people who support different interpretations of the event.
Now what are your interpretations.

With respect to the British Empire this is an argument against the biased views Ferguson will no doubt introduce to the curriculum, but it isn't an argument for children to be told how awful the empire was either. It is an argument for children to be told the facts and opinions and left to make their own mind up. There is a tendency for people taught in this way to come to the conclusion that the empire was more bad than good, and this is often misinterpreted as evidence that those people must be being taught in a biased way.

Serious historians only celebrate things in their free time. I'm not against celebration and I'm happy to watch Simon Schama or Andrew Marr celebrating British history as a form of entertainment on TV, but I wouldn't ever base my views entirely on what I see there.

I have read 4 of Niall Fergusons books. I have many problems with him, and like many historians his view is coloured by his perspective. History is a war of ideas and competing perspectives, as is economics- which is the area Niall Ferguson has covered. He is ultimately an economic historian, concerned with the story of capitalism-and what he says on the subject has a great deal of value. He offers interesting perspective on how our markets have become so distorted, and while I disagree with a lot his perspective, the level of vitriol in the press about his work has surprised me.

In addition, Conservative Home is a website run by Tim Montgomery- and he skilfully runs a site which plays to every mad bad and christian right wing tendency there is- I don't know what current situation is exactly- but it appears from his appearances on television, and the content of the blog- that he is finding himself increasingly frozen out of the loop in the Conservative party, and this has been reflected in the output of his site.

There is a very real faultline under the Conservative party, wiith the people Tim Montgomery represents being seen as a faction Cameron and Clegg have to deal with.

I don't think the history curriculum should be rewritten- the core of the history currlculum at all levels is about learning how to interpret evidence, and rather than being taught narrative by rote- the skill the study of history gives us is the ability to disseminate what we know.

That said- it is not beyond what we know about Micheal Gove to want some sort of rewrite.

I don't think Niall Ferguson was doing that. If you read what he writes- he is primarily an economic historian. He hasn't suggested others don't- his focus is just on the growth of capitalism as the force which does, whether we like it or not- drive the world at present. While I agree he may not give due attention to certain areas- every historian focuses their energies on their focus.

Like I say, Micheal Gove would agree is a mentalist. Would also agree that Niall Ferguson comes from a right wing perspective- but his focus is economics- and he is by no means a historian who from what I can see, is uncritical of the way the Empire operated, nor is he uncritical of our current economic situation, and the way that capitalism and 'free market economics' manifests itself.
I don't believe that the level of criticism levelled at him, is warranted.

The key issue here, as stated in the main article isn't so much Ferguson's or the Torys' pro-empire views as a whole. It is the very notion that the teaching of history should have an agenda.

Education, if it really is to be considered education and not brainwashing must be agenda-less. In using phrases such as 'a traditionalist curriculum' and (as Laurie has excellently drawn our attention to) 'celebrating Britain's achievements' Gove has shown himself to be a fan of prescriptive teaching methods, putting him in the same sort of company as Stalin, Hitler and the wingnuts currently rewriting history in Texas.

I'm all for celebrating Britain's achievements, but that should be left to those who run civic events, and kept out of the classroom.

Another worrying precedent is this idea that one person should have such a key role in setting the curriculum. Last time I checked Ferguson was not a teacher and therefore setting a curriculum should be considered outside of his area of expertise. This kind of appointment is as ridiculous as appointing a biologist to tell surgeons how to perform surgery.

The first thing I was taught on my first day of high school history was to know the difference between fact and opinion. I have hope that history teachers as a whole are as excellent as mine was. If kids are still taught this distinction at an early age then they should see through most of what Ferguson wishes the be told about history.

For the record though, I do agree with Ferguson on one point. That history should be taught as the big picture, and not as a set of isolated events. It is both important and fascinating to consider the chains of cause and effect that lead from one event to another. How, for example, did the growth of the Austro-Hungarian empire bring about the Cold War?

Answers on a postcard.

Pax Britannia Gloria

"History, properly taught, should lead young people to question and challenge their cultural inheritance rather than simply 'celebrating' it."

Essentially then, a model of progressiveness which defines itself through opposition to the past in order to reaffirm itself... Or rather exactly as dangerous, and far more distorting, than the alternative.

Gove is a deeply scary individual. If you've had the misfortune to read his deranged book, Celsius 7/7, you'll know just how twisted his views are. He really is the male version of Melanie Phillips. He's a supporter of the Henry Jackson Society and along with Alan Dershowitz is on the advisory board of NGO Monitor. This is not somebody any sane person would want overseeing the education of their children.

And as for Johann Hari, his writing reminds me of JCR debating societies. A hysteric, and worse, an ill-informed hysteric.