Saturday, 7th November 2009
Yet another candidate for national day choice
I'm afraid I fail to find any argument appearing in the correspondence pages in support of a national day other than Independence Day convincingly satisfying. Malta's insular society, it would appear, is vigorously and inimitably delighted in discreetly boasting five such major moments of national glory, a distinct peculiarity perhaps too firmly ingrained in its psyche, in its own marvellous identity. If this attitude or mindset, which I wouldn't ever dare dismiss as narrow or naïve, appeals to the appetites of the Maltese or "flatters their vanities", why deny them this eloquent sense of elation? After all, they have never been offered a direct say in the choice. Why shouldn't they be allowed to feel different, to create and sustain an innocent image of themselves that innocuously distinguished them from any other sovereign State in the civilised world?
Indeed, may I go a step further and propose a sixth moment of grandeur, which on hard historical evidence ranks much higher, in my scale of values, than at least three of the current ones? I'm referring to the glorious revolution of September 2, 1798, when the Maltese rose up against the French in protest against the more vexatious aspects of General Vaubois's government and succeeded in driving the invaders safely out of the island.
It was a splendid achievement, no doubt, but one which I cannot recall to have ever been celebrated or commemorated. In all modesty, the present proposal deserves serious reflection not only by historians, sociologists and anthropologists in a multidisciplinary exercise, but even by our representatives in any future parliamentary debate on the issue.
In his France 1848-1945: Ambition and Love, Theodore Zeldin defines history as "an essential part of the constant process of re-assessment that every generation makes of itself, and of the constant debate about what is worth keeping of the past and what is not". Can't we really "do differently" from what our "ancestors have done" in the past and "learn from their mistakes"? There is nothing extraordinary in this; or is there?
RSS
Comments
"The subsequent relationships of the British Colonial administration with the Church administration in Malta has the mark of statecraft and diplomacy;"
I agree with you totally, especially so when diplomacy is defined as "the art of sending someone to hell and actually having him look forward to the trip."
Each year Maltese Nobility and VIP, journalists throng their way to drink for the health of the French Revolution
Why they do it ? Because La Bastille was the symbol of tyrannies. And in Malta we condemn what some call the blackest day when the paper, symbol of old colonialism was violated, a paper that seemingly went always against the grain of what was popular. Its writing was attacked by the P.N. in its time and the MLP in theirs. It was often called anti nationalist, anti GWU and anti-Labour always.
Should people continue to accept calling that violent day “black Monday”? History will judge things differently as in France.
In France even the descendants of royalties and nobles celebrate the national day.
To blame the Church exclusively for the uprising in Malta against the French is an over simplification. It is true that some clergy men like Canon Caruana ( who had previously served on the French Government Commission) provided leadership; but there were also non clerics among the Maltese leaders - men like Vincent Borg (Braret), Engineer Michele Caruana and Notary Vitale. The fact that prominent clergymen supported the people does not diminish the people's magnificent role in the revolt. .
The subsequent relationships of the British Colonial administration with the Church administration in Malta has the mark of statecraft and diplomacy; but it is not relevant here. The relevant point is that the Maltese people made up a united front against the French government and selected their own provisional government. When one considers the unpopularity of the French in Malta , one should not overlook the rapacity of the French administration its arrogance to the Maltese, some of whom had previously acclaimed them as liberators. The events in Malta mirror the nationalist and liberal reaction which started building up in Europe and which culminated in the final defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo.
The British were shrewder and they exploited the religious gullibility of the Maltese to take over the island. This cosy relationship with the local Curia remained till the very end. Archbishop Michael Gonzi was made Knight of the British Empire in 1946 in recognotion for his efforts to keep the people's resentment in check during the terrible hardships of WWII.
Professor Malia Milanes has made a good suggestion. It is encouraging to note that the Faculty of History at our University is actively promoting our national identity, even though some people in prominent places may not be so keen on the study of history.
The uprising of the Maltese against the French occupying forces has all the characteristics of a national event. It shows the political determination of the Maltese to manifest their identity as a nation stand for political liberty and exercise their sovereign political rights. Subsequent historians and political commentators , like Mgr Mifsud ( Sovranita` Inglese ) refers to those events in glowing terms as an unmistakable proof of the Maltese people's exercise of the right of self determination .
It is perhaps too much to add an additional candidate to the number of national days we already have but the event of the Maltese uprising deserves to be commemorated.