Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s recent statement suggesting Britain should be less embarrassed about its culture and history sparks a critical question: Has Britain ever truly been compelled to confront its past? Unlike Germany’s Vergangenheitsbewältigung, a post-WWII process of ‘overcoming the past’ born from the guilt of the Holocaust and denazification, Britain’s historical reflection appears markedly different. Germany’s proactive approach, embedding ‘Never Forget’ into their national consciousness and commemorating lost Jewish life with Stolpersteine, offers a stark contrast to Britain’s more reserved engagement with its own complex history.
However, the comparison falters on two key points. Vergangenheitsbewältigung is inherently about ‘recent history,’ a public reckoning with a nation’s immediate past traumas. More crucially, it wasn’t voluntary; it arose from the ashes of defeat in WWII. This highlights a critical aspect of national accountability: acceptance of responsibility often follows negative repercussions. Nations largely untouched by invasion or major wartime defeat may continue their trajectory, regardless of historical losses inflicted elsewhere. The last invasion of Britain, the Battle of Fishguard in 1797, serves as a distant marker in national memory.
But what does this have to do with the iconic Rule Britannia song?
Penned in 1740, Rule Britannia emerged when Britain was deeply entrenched in the transatlantic slave trade, almost a century before the Slavery Abolition Act. For over 170 years prior, Britain had been a major player in this brutal system, trafficking millions of Africans to the Americas and exploiting resources from its colonies. The song, undeniably, is a product of its time – a celebration of British power and dominion during peak colonial expansion. While figures like Nigel Farage may assert Britain’s historical commitment to liberty, a crucial question arises: liberty for whom?
Just 37 years after Rule Britannia, the American Declaration of Independence (1776) painted a different picture of British rule, accusing King George III of ‘plundering our seas, ravaging our coasts, burning our towns, and destroying the lives of our people.’ The declaration further condemns the King for forcing captured American citizens to fight against their own countrymen. This hardly resonates with a narrative of universal liberty.
The Slavery Abolition Act of 1834 is often presented as a turning point, suggesting Britain shed its imperial sins, freed the enslaved, and ascended to a position of moral leadership. This narrative implies a neat closure to centuries of imperial history, with Britain controlling a quarter of the globe.
However, the reality is more complex. Fast forward to 1899, and we find a children’s book by Ernst Ames, revealing a persistent colonial mindset decades after abolition. This book, published 159 years after Rule Britannia’s creation, reinforces rather than refutes the song’s underlying imperial message.
When Rule Britannia was first performed at the Proms in 1905, just six years after this book’s publication, it solidified the song’s association with these enduring colonial ideals. Closing a celebration of British musical culture with a 165-year-old song inherently perpetuates these historical narratives. The continued performance suggests an unbroken line of imperial self-perception: Britain, the moral arbiter, the nation that abolished slavery (a somewhat embellished claim), and the savior of Europe from Nazism. This narrative conveniently overlooks historical complexities and inconvenient truths.
Yet, even this carefully constructed narrative falters. Was Britain never invaded after 1066? The French invasion of Fishguard in 1797, albeit brief (February 22nd to 24th), serves as a factual counterpoint. Two days of foreign invasion, however short, disrupt the myth of invincibility.
The point isn’t to wish for British defeat or invasion, nor to erase or ban Rule Britannia. There’s no need for national embarrassment or contemporary shame regarding Britain’s colonial past. What is needed is a British Vergangenheitsbewältigung – a national process of self-reflection and transparent understanding of the Empire. This shouldn’t be triggered by defeat, but by a genuine desire to comprehend our shared histories and empathize with those globally impacted by British colonialism. This involves understanding and teaching the socio-historical context of songs like Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory, exploring colonial influences on our present-day society, professions, and intercultural relationships. It’s about equipping future generations to understand the historical forces that have shaped their world.
The issue isn’t the songs or statues themselves, but the unchallenged attitudes towards history, people, contexts, and traditions that have persisted for centuries. Understanding Rule Britannia in its full historical context is a crucial step in this necessary process of national self-reflection.
P.S. Handel’s Messiah was composed in 1741, contemporaneous with the rise of Rule Britannia, offering a contrasting cultural artifact of the same era.
