Multiculturalism has turned patriotism into a dirty word

On 14 September 2009, an unnamed teacher was quoted thus in a Melanie Philips’ Mail on Sunday article:

“PATRIOTISM ABOUT BEING BRITISH DIVIDES GROUPS ALONG RACIAL LINES WHEN WE AIM TO BRING PUPILS TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT MAKES US THE SAME.”

Melanie Philips, herself, responded:

“NATIVE-BORN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN LEFT… BEREFT OF ANYTHING IN THEIR COUNTRY WITH WHICH THEY CAN FEEL A PROUD SENSE OF IDENTIFICATION. THESE TEACHERS HAVE PRODUCED EQUALITY, ALL RIGHT: AN EQUALITY OF ROOTLESSNESS. THEY HAVE ALSO PRODUCED WIDESPREAD IGNORANCE...

People are usually desperate if they cannot root themselves. Yet FOR IDEOLOGICAL REASONS, THE TEACHING WORLD DECIDED UNILATERALLY TO DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THE ABILITY TO DO SO.

THE PROMOTION OF MULTICULTURALISM... HAS TURNED PATRIOTISM INTO A DIRTY WORD… WITHOUT PATRIOTISM, A SOCIETY STARTS TO DIE. If the core purpose of education is to transmit a culture down through the generations, IT IS NOT PATRIOTISM THAT IS A MENACE TO THIS COUNTRY, BUT THE TEACHERS WHOSE REAL TARGET IS BRITAIN'S IDENTITY ITSELF.”

Those who educate our children have a track record in the anti-patriotic department.

On 31 January 2008, Michael Hand, of the Institute of Education, was quoted thus by The Daily Mail:

“THE CASE FOR PROMOTING PATRIOTISM IN SCHOOLS IS WEAK. PATRIOTISM IS LOVE OF ONE'S COUNTRY, BUT ARE COUNTRIES REALLY APPROPRIATE OBJECTS OF LOVE? LOVING THINGS CAN BE BAD FOR US!'... Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION WHETHER CITIZENS SHOULD LOVE THEIR COUNTRIES!"

The Mail added:

“Moral failings in Britain's past mean PUPILS SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT PATRIOTISM, teachers said in a survey. Nearly 90 PER CENT OPPOSED PLANS FOR HISTORY AND CITIZENSHIP LESSONS AIMED AT FOSTERING NATIONAL IDENTITY AND PRIDE... PATRIOTISM SHOULD BE COVERED AS A 'CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE' ONLY.

The Left-leaning institute polled 47 teachers and 299 students at secondary schools in the capital. THREE-QUARTERS OF THE STAFF SAID THEY FELT OBLIGED TO ALERT THEIR PUPILS TO THE DANGERS OF PATRIOTIC SENTIMENTS.

'PRAISING PATRIOTISM EXCLUDES NON-BRITISH PUPILS,' said one. 'PATRIOTISM ABOUT BEING BRITISH IN MY EXPERIENCE TENDS TO BE A WHITE PRESERVE SO DIVIDES GROUPS ALONG RACIAL LINES, WHEN WHAT WE AIM TO DO IS BRING PUPILS TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT MAKES US ALL THE SAME.'

Another said: 'It can be quite divisive. THERE IS A PROPENSITY FOR THAT SORT OF BNP-TYPE THINKING TO COME THROUGH.'

A third said: 'LEFT TO MY OWN DEVICES I WOULDN'T DREAM OF COVERING IT REALLY, EXPLICITLY. TO ME IT SORT OF REEKS OF THE OLD BRITISH EMPIRE’.”

So, the Institute of Education thinks:

PATRIOTISM = CONTROVERSIAL! OUR HISTORY = MORALLY AMBIGUOUS!

The Author of the report thinks:

PATRIOTISM = CASE FOR IT WEAK!
LOVE OF COUNTRY = INAPPROPRIATE!
LOVING THINGS = BAD FOR US!

And those who teach our children think:

BRITAIN'S PAST = MORALLY DUBIOUS!
PATRIOTISM = DANGEROUS!
PATRIOTISM = EXCLUDES NON-BRITS!
PATRIOTISM = DIVISIVE!
PATRIOTISM = BNP THINKING!

What do I think?

I think those who think a love of one's history and country is dangerous should not be teaching our children or compiling Brit-bashing reports. I think they should be charged with treason. found guilty and dealt with.

What do you think?