Mr Nuttal's Turkey, and a defence of history on a Saturday

How so it possible for a party that claims to be pro academic selection to permit its education spokesman to come out with such drivel. Especially since he says he taught history at a university, according to Wikipedia. Lets just turn to his comment on Turkey; "I will say it again: Turkey is not culturally European and it should never be allowed to join the EU." Now over looking the irony of Ukip’s defence of ‘Europe’ which isn’t that ironic, on one level, the tweet refers to the idea that Turkish society is alien to European society, but how true is this? We know that historicaly, it has been at the forefront of the continents cultural identity well before 1483, being central to the Byzantium Empire, which our intrepid historian would surly claim is part of European history. Then there is the small thing of the fact that the Ottoman Empire was a major player in the diplomatic scene in late 19th, early 20th century Europe. Is our historian trying to deny BASIC empirical evidence on Turkey’s relations with its western neighbours, to advance a political point? Why does this matter? Well in one way it doesn’t, it’s ONE tweet from ONE politician. BUT in fact it DOES given that UKIP claims the third largest support of any political party, and yet its deputy leader, who contantly emphasises his background in history, can legitimately come out with a bastadised interpretation of history, and no one gives a toss. How serious this is can be gaged from the local election results in France this week. There, the populist Right’s re-emergence in Europe presents politicians with a situation where the use of history for the purposes of political argument is precarious at best. The fact is that within the history discipline, real practitioner’s work extremely hard for ages on a particular thesis. They certainly do not just ‘tweet’ a given historical argument as if it were law. Just slamming some conjectural narrative filled by a concern for a particular contemporary issue on to a historical explanation would fail at GCSE History level, so why does it pass for politics? The real role of the historian therefore today , must be to demonstrate the fundamental difference between academic discourse and political rhetoric. They need to show that the craft that they engage in is not just about adavancing any old argument, it is concerned with explaining how the apparent truth of historical facts in reality as reflecting a particular kind of logic.

Poppy Populism and the Militarisation of British Society

Over the last decade the celebrations surrounding Armistice day in Britain have been the subject of intense nationalist sentiment. Prior to this November the 11th was a day of reflection and marking of the end of WW1. Part of this change has been down to the nature of history itself, and the passing of ppl who served on the front line during the period. But a second reason is to be seen in the way the event is now being ‘managed’ by the Royal British Legion. In the process the RBL have sought to press home a quasi-nationalist interpretation of the event, with the poppy ceasing to be used in memory of the fallen of WW1, and more as a emblem of British patriotism and the socialisation of an idea of ‘Our Boys’ into public consciousness. As has been noted, the RBL’s recent conduct over Armistice Day has been characterised by a shift towards commercialisation and a authoritarian attitude in terns of how the poppy is worn, and how it deals with those who did not share it’s views on the act of Remembrance. It is this latter point which has resulted in RBL being accused of participating in the militarisation of the Poppy Appeal. Such a move has been even mooted by the RBL themselves in terms of their attempt to ‘embed’ themselves into ordinary society – making the Poppy Appeal part of everyday life. A significant context for this is that of the emergence in the last decade of a populist political discourse centred on ‘nationhood’ and identity. But it is also the case that the current economic model underpinning British capitalism, whilst atomising the individual, paradoxicaly formulates an account of ‘One Nation’ that draws on the instinct of both self sacrifice and self-interest simultaneously. The RBL is using this structural occurrence to refashion patriotism from a civic concept to one in which loyalty and commitment are conceived as ethics stemming from an individual’s choice. Thus Armistice Day has gone from being an act of collective memory, to a parade of the militarisation of solidarity, aimed at highlighting those ‘who do their bit’ in contrast to those who apparently do not. Good intentions founded the Poppy Appeal, but in 2015 it is in an existential crises. Stemming from how the RBL understand patriotism, Armistice Day has ushered in a military ethos into British society which is threatening to disrupt our very public sphere and our democracy which sustain are very way of life. Wear the poppy if you want, pay respect to the past, remember and honour the casualties of war. But do it as civilians - for that surely is what Remembrance Sunday is truly about.

Paddington: a review

The film adaptation of Micheal Bond’s Paddington sees a talking bear subsequently called Paddington, forced to leave ‘Deepest, Darkest Peru’, where he has been living with his aunt and uncle. Due to an earthquake his uncle is killed. Prior to his birth, they are visited by one Montgomery Clyde, an explorer from the Geographers Guild in London ( pretty much the Royal Geographers Society) who invites them to visit sometime. The film sees Paddington embark on an adventure in order to seek a new life in London. Once there he meets the Browns (a middle class family, consisting of amongst others Hugh Bonneville and Julie Walters,) who take him in. However on his arrival he is face with the threat of Millicent (Nicole Kidman), a taxidermist and the daughter of Clyde, who wishes to literally stuff Paddington in order to avenge her furthers reputation. Clyde’s refusal to document the talking bears lead to his mission being admitted from the records of the Geographers Guild. Thus this embarrassment for Millicent leads her to seek revenge against Paddington. Central to the films story is the idea of refuges, and the status of Paddington as a refugee. whilst this topic has already been covered from an asylum law perspective (see Colin Yeo, Dec, 2014), it is worth noting the way the film depicts London, and by extension Britain. Throughout the film London is shown to be bright, cosmopolitan a multicultural. Indeed the cameo of a calypso group every so often out to be read as a sustained defence of a progressive, liberal Britain. Indeed the Brown’s strange, withdrawn, neighbour of Mr Reginald Curry (Peter Calpaldi) is adamant that he has deep reservations about Paddington, he maybe just the start of a flood of bears into London. In this way the film functions as a parody of contemporary discussions around immigration. Yet what also interested me was that it also attempted to portray Britain as facing a dilemma in terms of understanding itself. Whilst the majority of London was depict in light bright colours, the exact opposite was the case in 2 instances, the Geographers Guild and the Natural History Museum. With regard to the former, its depiction was that of an conservative reactionary institution whose workings are show to be old and archaic. Somewhat interestingly the film was produced by Paul King, who did the Harry Potter series. This is significant in terms of how the scenes in the guild compare to the depiction of Diagonna Ally, with emphasis being placed on the elitist, mechanical nature of the organisation. Yet, in this context this is seen to it in opposition to the organic liberal 1cosmopolitan portrait of suburban London . Such a contrast is also on show in the depiction of the Natural History Museum. Like the seen in the Geographers Guild, dark colouring is used in the film. But here the emphasis is on the way in which the Museum represents British ideas of superiority and imperialism . But the fact that the villain (Kidman) is a taxidermist suggests that the film seeks to highlight the significance of colonial exploitation in Britain’s past. In the portable of the idea taxidermy, the film depicts activity as a way to justify and narrate historical progress . thus the museum and the idea of historical collections itself is portrayed as a relic of British imperialism. So is it any good? Yes. But its success is in part as a result of the fact that it not only defended and extols the idea of 21st century multicultural Britain, rooted in a liberal cosmopolitanism. but it highlights a paradox at the heart of contemporary British conservatism . That it, the fact that the colonial exploits and expeditions so central to the narrative of British history lay the ground for the multicultural society we have today, a point which gives certain political parties major headaches. In the end Paddington is superb because it is funny and delightful, but if I am honest it made me proud to live in a country that welcomes anyone and allows them to feel at home.