Books I have read – Page 6 – How it really was

Dancing with Strangers

18 February 2006

‘Dancing with Strangers’ by Inga Clendinnen,
(Cambridge University Press, 2005), describes an encounter between two
different worlds, the first contacts between Europeans and native (aboriginal)
Australians.

Inga Clendinnen starts the book in South
America and retells the story of Charles Darwin meeting the native inhabitants
of Tierra del Fuego. She quotes Darwin saying, in contrast with modern
assumptions of a universal shared humanity: “I could not have believed how
wide was the difference between savage and civilised man; it is greater than
between a wild and domesticated animal.” Only after going ashore and
meeting the Fuegans face to face, did Darwin and his party establish some kind
of rapport, by dancing with the natives.

She then describes a similar event,
recorded by Lieutenant William Bradley, when the British fleet, of soldiers, sailors, settlers and convicts, landed at Sydney Cove in Australia on
29th January 1788 and met the local inhabitants: “these people
mixed with ours and all hands danced together.” Bradley later painted a
picture of Broken Bay, with the British sailors and native Australians dancing
hand in hand, reminiscent of children playing Ring a Ring of Roses, and his
picture is reproduced on the cover of the book.

The theme of ‘Dancing with Strangers’ is
the experience of a common shared humanity and how two very different societies
tried, unsuccessfully, to come to terms with each other.

I was interested in this book, not only for
the subject, which is fascinating in its own right, but as an example of
historical sources speaking for themselves. Inga Clendinnen is no advocate of
‘scissors and paste’ history; writing, as she describes others in her field
have done, by: “piecing together snippets derived from a range of
narratives, perspectives and sensibilities in chronological order, and calling
the resulting ribbon patchwork ‘objective history.” Much of the fascination of her book is her
interpretation of the actions and motivation of the native Australians, who,
unlike the British, left no written records of their own. But she does tell a
story, she introduces the reader to the characters who have written the
accounts which have survived and she helps us see the events through their
eyes. Her reference to Darwin, her retelling of the two stories of Dancing with
Strangers, the contemporary illustration on the cover and the title of the book
itself, all help convey the vividness and reality of the past. As she relates
in the introduction, her own personal experience of a visit to a derelict
settlement at the northern tip of Australia first showed her “that the past
… had once been as real as the present, which is always an electrifying
realisation.”

As Graham Swift’s fictional history teacher
says in his novel ‘Waterland’:“what history teaches us is to avoid illusion
and make believe, to lay aside dreams, moonshine, cure-alls, wonder workings,
pie-in-the-sky – to be realistic.”

Victor Gollancz – In Darkest Germany

28th October 2005

I came across this book, first published in January 1947, some years ago, in the 10p box at my children’s school Christmas fair.

Victor Gollancz, the publisher and creator of the Left Book Club, had decided to visit the British Zone in occupied Germany for six weeks from October 2^nd to November 15^th 1946, to see for himself what conditions were like.

The book comprises various letters and articles he wrote when he returned to England, and which were published in the press – The Times, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Herald and the New Statesman, among others – describing the condition of the German people under British occupation – the famine, disease, lack of clothing and places to live and the overcrowded, ruined cities.

Of course, this was not entirely unexpected after the war. But what impressed me was the tremendous humanity shown by someone who could write, in the foreword to the book, about why he had decided to “help suffering Germans” instead of other people and nations, whom many people, especially in Britain immediately after the war, would consider more deserving.

To me three propositions seem self-evident. The first is that nothing can save the world but a general act of repentance in place of the present self-righteous insistence on the wickedness of others; for we have all sinned, and continue to sin most horribly. The second is that good treatment and not bad treatment makes men good. And the third is – to drop into the hideous collective language which is now the mode – that unless you treat a man well when he has treated you ill you just get nowhere, or rather you give further impetus to evil and head straight for human annihilation.

Peggy Duff, later to be well known as Secretary of the CND, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, worked for Victor Gollancz on “Save Europe Now” – the campaign he organised in late 1945 to try to persuade the British Government to permit British people to send food parcels to Germany. At the time this was forbidden.

Save Europe Now finally won the argument twelve months later, when the government relaxed the rules. “People were to be allowed to send a parcel a month. They had to get a permit from a Food Office and the post the parcel off.”

In her book Left, Left Left, Peggy Duff wrote of Victor Gollancz:

He was not in my view a great thinker, nor yet a great writer. His books suffered from the fact than he was a publisher and nobody ever dared to edit them. But he had his instincts which made him react to situations passionately, often violently, but always positively. That is why so many were prepared to work with him and why so many loved him He was aggressively good. And he knew it.

Clement Attlee – The Labour Party in Perspective

23 October 2005

My special interest is the period from 1945-1951.

As an introduction to the period, I recently read my father’s Left Book Club edition of Clement Attlee’s “The Labour Party in Perspective” published in 1937, when Attlee was leader of the Party, well before he became prime minister in 1945.

It contains a superbly clear expression of his political aims and ideals at the time.

Two themes stand out in the book:

Attlee’s view of the Labour Party, its policies and methods. The policies of the Labour Party at the time were fully socialist. The differences between Labour and the Communist Party lay in their methods, not their aims.

The distinctiveness of the British road to socialism. In Britain, so Attlee believed, socialism could be achieved by democratic means, not violent revolution.

Here are a few extracts from the book. How different the Labour Party then was from “New Labour” of today!

On Socialism:

The dominant issue of the twentieth century is Socialism. The Labour Party is the expression in Great Britain of a world-wide movement. In every country in the world where modern Capitalism has developed, there is to be found in some form or another a revolt of those who suffer from its conditions and reject its assumptions. Wherever the economic system has developed in such a way that the instruments of production are in the hands of a possessing class, while the workers own little or nothing but their labour, a Socialist movement will be found. The form of the revolt will differ in every country. There is no sealed pattern for the social revolution.

Socialism is not the invention of an individual. It is essentially the outcome of economic and social conditions. The evils that Capitalism brings differ in intensity in different countries, but, the root cause of the trouble once discerned, the remedy is seen to be the same by thoughtful men and women. The cause is the private ownership of the means of life; the remedy is public ownership. The essentials of Socialism have been well stated by Bertrand Russell:

‘Socialism means the common ownership of land and capital together with a democratic form of government. It involves production for use not profit, and distribution of the product whether equally to all or, at any rate, with only such inequalities as are definitely in the public interest. It involves the abolition of all unearned wealth and of all private control over the means of livelihood of the workers, To be fully realised it must be international.’

On the Labour Party as the inheritors of the British Liberal tradition:

The immediate predecessors of the Labour Party were the Liberals. They sought to free the individual from the power of the State. They believed that economic liberty meant political freedom. Realising that British liberty was essentially the liberty of the man of property, they thought that under free competition, and with a wide distribution of individual property, this could be achieved.

The dominant issue throughout the nineteenth century, as it seemed to most thinking men and women, was political liberty. The issue of the twentieth century is economic freedom and social equality.

On the influence of religion and Christianity on the development of Socialism:

Leaving aside Owen and the early pioneers, I think that the first place in the influences that built up the Socialist movement must be given to religion. England in the nineteenth century was still a nation of Bible readers. To put the Bible into the hands of an Englishman is to do a very dangerous thing. He will find the material there which may send him out as a preacher of some religious, social or economic doctrine. The large number of religious sects in this country, and the various tenets that many of them hold, illustrate this.

The Bible is full of revolutionary teachings, and it is not surprising that, in a country where thought is free, many men and women have drawn from it the support which they needed for their instinctive revolt against the inhuman conditions which Capitalism brings.

On the distinctive characteristics of British socialism:

It naturally follows, however, from the heterogeneity of the sources from which the movement drew its inspiration, that the Labour Party has always comprised people of very various outlooks, and that its note has always been one of comprehensiveness. The natural British tendency to heresy and dissent has prevented the formation of a code of rigid Socialist orthodoxy. Those who have sought to impose one have always failed to make real headway and have remained sects rather than political parties. As in religion, so in politics, the Briton claims the right to think for himself.

A further characteristic of the British movement has been its practicality. It has never consisted of a body of theorists or of revolutionaries who were so absorbed in utopian dreams that they were unwilling to deal with the actualities of everyday life. From the first, British Socialists have taken their share wherever possible in the responsibility of government.

The last few years have seen the overthrow of democracy in many countries and the development of Fascism, which is only a cloak for Capitalism. It is, however, unwise to argue from the experience of one country to that of another. There is nothing more misleading than to try to apply to all countries a cast-iron theory of historical necessity and to argue that Britain must go the Moscow road unless she follows the example of Berlin or Rome.

His view of the British national temperament:

In this country there have always been small sections who advocated a forcible revolution, but they have found little favour with the majority of the people because such methods are alien to our national temperament.

I believe the people of this country are as unlikely to accept Communism and Fascism. Both systems appear to the politically immature. Both are distasteful to peoples like the British and French, who have had years of experience of personal freedom and political democracy.

On the Labour Party:

The Labour Party has deliberately adopted the methods of constitutional action and has rejected the tactics of revolution.

The Labour Party believes that, when it has obtained the support of a majority of the electors for its policy, it will secure the acquiescence of the greater number of its opponents in the changes which will be brought about.

[The Labour Party] accepts the will of the majority, which has decided that the country shall be governed by a Capitalist Government, and it expects its opponents to do the same when it is returned to power.

On Nationalism and Imperialism:

National Socialism is a contradiction in terms. A true Socialist cannot allow his sympathies to be bounded by anything so narrow as a nation, for nationalism is only egotism writ large.

While, on the one hand, [the Labour Party] is the protagonist at home of the struggle of the workers against the Capitalists, it is, in relation to the less developed peoples of the world, part of a dominant race which collectively exploits them.

The great difficulty in consolidating the British Commonwealth is that it is essentially a moneylenders’ empire.

The history of colonial expansion is a terrible record of cruelty to, and exploitation of, backward peoples by the advanced races. Great Britain must take her full share of blame.

On Ramsey MacDonald, his predecessor as leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister from 1929 – 1931, and on the formation of the National Government, with MacDonald remaining a Prime Minster, in a government led by the Conservatives.

[MacDonald] had for some time been more and more attracted by the social environment of the well-to-do classes. He had got more and more out of touch with the rank and file of the Party, while the adulation which is almost inseparable from the necessary publicity given to the leader of a great movement had gone to his head and increased his natural vanity. The philosophy of gradualness which he had always maintained became almost indistinguishable from Conservatism, while his innate disinclination to take the necessary executive decision made him readily accept the impossibility of any serious challenge to the powers that be.

One feature of MacDonaldism needs to be specially emphasised. The attempt was made to make people believe that there was really no need for the existence of separate parties, as all good men were working for a common end. MacDonaldism is, in fact, in its philosophy essentially Fascist. MacDonald himself uses the same phrases that may be found in the mouth of Hitler and Mussolini. He constantly draws a distinction between party and national interests, the theory being that there is really some ideal course to be followed for the good of the country and that party policies are deflections caused by mere factiousness. If MacDonald had succeeded in seducing any large proportion of the Labour Party, it is quite possible that the country might have swallowed this doctrine. The steadfastness of the rank and file of the Labour Party, in fact, saved British democracy.

The Fascist danger in this country does not come from the crude activities of Sir Oswald Mosley, but from the clever propaganda which has been actively disseminated ever since the formation or the National Government in favour of what is called national unity. There has been a deliberate attempt made to suggest that after all there are no real political differences in this country, and everybody is really in agreement. The increasing danger of the international situation affords an opportunity for pressing this point. The speeches of Mr Ramsey MacDonald are full of Fascist ideas and even fascist phraseology. The essentials of the Corporate State without any coloured shirts might be introduced in this country in a period of international tension.

And finally, on his personal character and ideals:

Socialism to me is not just a piece of machinery or an economic system, but a living faith translated into action.

I am not prepared to arrogate to myself a superiority to the rest of the movement. I am prepared to submit to their will, even if I disagree. I shall do all I can to get my views accepted, but, unless acquiescence in the views of the majority conflicts with my conscience, I shall fall into line, for I have faith in the wisdom of the rank and file.

But the future of the Labour Party depends, first and foremost on the idealism, the devotion, and the intelligence of the rank and file of its adherents.

It is this army of active Socialists which will in due time achieve power and create the Britain which they desire. The deciding factor, to my mind, will not be leadership or the exact theories which are held to be orthodox Socialism. It will not be the brilliance of particular individuals. The thing which will secure the triumph of Labour will be the demonstration by Socialists in their lives that they have a high ideal and live up to it. People are converted more by what they see Socialists are than by what they hear them say.

Hidden Lives

8th October 2005

Letting the sources speak for themselves (with selection and guidance from the historian) can be a powerful form of historical writing.

A recent work where, to my mind, this has been done with great success is Simon Garfield’s “Hidden Lives, the remarkable diaries of post-war Britain.”

Rather than state his own views or interpretation, Simon Garfield interweaves extracts from the post-war diaries of five individuals who contributed to the Mass Observation project from 1 May 1945, immediately before VE day, to 7 July 1948. Apart from a brief prologue and epilogue there is no commentary and no explicit interpretation. He lets the diarists tell their own story, with careful selection and juxtaposition of entries to bring out common themes.

Anthony Aldgate in his survey of British Cinema in the Second World War (Britain Can Take It, Basil Blackwell 1986) says of the Mass Observation studies:

“The information they provided was often born of random sampling and unsystematic techniques. But for all their limitations these reports are indispensable. They are, as Paul Addison comments ‘a source for which there is no parallel or substitute in understanding wartime Britain,’ and as Angus Calder concurs, ‘probably the richest source of material available to the social historian of the period.’” (Paul Addison The British People and World War II: Home Intelligence Reports on Opinion and Morale, 1940 – 1944 Brighton Sussex, 1983 and Angus Calder The Peoples’ War)

“Hidden Lives”, is history “as it really was” told by five very different people. None of them could be said to be typical of society of the times, and collectively they can not be said to be representative. But they all tell a very human, and very moving, story of what they did, what they thought, and their observations of other people around them.

Leopold von Ranke said: “the role, commonly attributed to History, is to judge the Past, to instruct the Present, for the benefit of the Future; such a high and noble role is not claimed for this essay: it aims simply to show how it really was.”

Education lies not in telling people what to think, but in helping them to think for themselves.

Perhaps history is not the historian’s interpretation; its role is simply, insofar as we can, to help the reader see for themselves, how it really was.

The reader (or listener, or TV watcher) living in the present, and not the historian, can interpret and judge the past, if they wish. Maybe some readers will even learn something, for the benefit of the future.