To think this was an inappropriate school task

[Lalalabrador]

My year 8 daughter was asked to write an essay today on the question How did India benefit from colonialism and how was it harmed by it? I’m pretty gobsmacked. I’m a professional historian and sad that something so intellectually bankrupt is being taught to young people.

I’ve not read it all but surely the point of history is to be challenging and to get students to critically appraise sources, texts, issues etc. There will always be people that benefit from terrible periods of time. I think it’s crucial actually that young people realise that often people’s experience is not the same and to think about inequalities, power imbalances, influence etc.

I'm not sure that I agree that history should contain no value judgments. I absolutely want my dd to make value judgments on things like slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, apartheid etc. Yes, they should be her own judgments, and not those just handed down by the teacher, but I certainly don't want her to have a neutral response to past atrocities. I want her to know that they were wrong.

My problem with the OP's dd's essay title is that there are value judgments implicit in the question.

The entire of world history features colonialism - every war, every invasion is essentially about colonialism.

Would it be seen as terrible to ask whether the pilgrims going to America was a good thing? Or whether Alexander the Great had some redeeming features? Or Genghis Khan? The situations in Scotland and Ireland? The Iraq War, the Gulf War?

Sometimes I feel like English people think that since they have stopped colonising, everyone else should do so too and realise it was wrong. It's honestly a weirdly insular viewpoint. Human beings attempt to conquer and colonise. Whether it's just human nature or not, I am not sure, but it doesn't seem to change much. With the growing influence of China, I really wonder what will happen if the boot ends up on the other foot and the English end up being the colonised ones.

"I want her to know that they were wrong."

To say that is to imply that there is absolute morality and any scholar knows that that is difficult to argue.

Children should be allowed to come to their own conclusions. Doing anything else is why, in my opinion, white nationalism and right wing populism flourishes these days.

Yes, I did. I don't get why it matters that 'only' older Indians think this.

Because Emily was making the point about internalised biases, and saying that, in her experience, you would be hard pressed to find Indians born in the post-colonial era who would agree with the statements quoted by a previous poster. I was agreeing with that.

As for the comparison with rape, you're obviously entitled to your views, but that analogy was first drawn for me by someone from a formerly colonised country, and I know many people who feel that it is a very apt comparison. You say it's too emotive, but colonialism is a very emotive topic for some as well.

It's inevitable that there will be diverse views on these issues in former colonies. In most British colonies, there was typically a small elite of local people who did very well under British rule. Sadly, it often wasn't the same story for the rest of the population.

Children should be allowed to come to their own conclusions

I have already made that point. This is why I object to the leading nature of the essay question. A more neutral question about the impact of British rule would have been better.

As for absolute morality, I'm familiar with the philosophical arguments, but personally, I think it would be strange indeed to study things like the holocaust without any emotional response to it. I would not want that for my dc, and I'd wonder what kind of human being I raised if she started going down the route of moral relativism instead of having a normal human response.

Plenty of people in India think there were benefits to colonialism, so there's that.

Really, this is not that different from asking what benefits might have come from the Normal invasion.

I can't imagine how a historian could be so unable to look at things historically. But then, universities are really going to shit these days.

I would agree it might not be a great subject for an eight year old. Not developmentally appropriate - there are too many nuances, including moral ones, that aren't easy for a child that age to appreciate, even if they parrot the right answers to you.

Hmm, should be Norman invasion above.

More specifically, I have only heard these views from high caste older Indians. They seem to resent the fact that there are low caste Indians sitting in the Lok Sabha ruling over them. I have also heard such people express the view that poor people don’t need to be educated.

Hmm. So, had India not had it's social order interrupted, what kind of social arrangements do you think would prevail now? Where would those low caste Indians be in the social hierarchy?

Of course there is no good answer to that as it's an alternate history scenario.

But the problem with deciding for ideological reasons that nothing good can have come out of the tides of history is you get into this crazy bind where you can't talk about cause and effect at all. What history of what people are you going to look at, and see that conflicts over politics, land, resources, and whatever, haven't shaped them profoundly - including in many instances for good.

If you look at history and imagine that saying something was a positive development justifies some unsavoury act that led to it, and therefor you can't do it, you really can't make any sense of history at all. All of us, even the worst off, are in some sense the descendants of the winners - the people who lived long enough to reproduce. We've all benefited from the suppression and demise of others, people no longer in existence, their DNA snuffed out so we don't have to compete with it.

Every society is covered in blood, both the good things and the bad. This idea that anyone can judge historical connections or effects without dirtying their minds with that is crazy.

As an Indian who grew up in India, in my opinion, one benefit has been the language itself. It is possible to find people all across the country who know English while you can't say the same for any other Indian language except perhaps Hindi these days. That does make communication a great deal easier.

"having a normal human response."

Again, you're being absolutist. There is no "normal human response" to anything.

Impact/costs vs benefits- semantics, especially for 12 year olds.

All of this is rather moot anyway. I see a lot of hand wringing but in the end, I wonder if those arguing the question is awful actually do anything practical to right the wrongs of colonialism.

Meh. I had an Economics professor at my University that taught the US had a pretty good deal going as a British colony and we were economically foolish to fight to end it. He made some fair points doubt that he believed that was the only relevant consideration.

@FunkBus

The entire of world history features colonialism - every war, every invasion is essentially about colonialism.

Would it be seen as terrible to ask whether the pilgrims going to America was a good thing? Or whether Alexander the Great had some redeeming features? Or Genghis Khan? The situations in Scotland and Ireland? The Iraq War, the Gulf War?

Sometimes I feel like English people think that since they have stopped colonising, everyone else should do so too and realise it was wrong. It's honestly a weirdly insular viewpoint. Human beings attempt to conquer and colonise. Whether it's just human nature or not, I am not sure, but it doesn't seem to change much. With the growing influence of China, I really wonder what will happen if the boot ends up on the other foot and the English end up being the colonised ones.

I agree with much of this FunkBus, the important thing for a student asked to research and answer a question like this is that colonialism is still alive and well as it has been since ancient times. That's why I said earlier it is a complex and emotional topic.

Of course a 12 year old can only be expected to answer according to the level of their own intellectual development . I remember being morally shocked and depressed by what I learnt about the 2nd WW and slavery in the USA to the point of guilt and depression.

Now I am grateful fo the wide ranging amount of history we covered and of course I have read and learnt so much more since. Although I cried with boredom when we did Causes of the 1st WW. As has been said by some wise person the more you learn the less you know.

Modern China is advancing a policy of economic influence in Africa and, I learnt from my neighbour, Jamaica and maybe many other places that seems to be under-remarked. Oh and of course Tibet.

But students must start somewhere and I was taught the reason not to do up to the minute history in school was the difficulty of reaching objective conclusions. Though that is of course culture specific.

Very revealing the responses to your post Op. We've such a long way to go. YANBU

Because the perpetrators do not have to live with the impact of the crime. Would you think it was appropriate for a rapist to consider the ways in which he had done his victim a favour by raping her?

Why do you imagine such a person would be justifying rather actions?
It was analysis.

Would it be ok to ask German children to write an essay on the benefits of the Holocaust for Jewish people and how they were harmed by it? I think not

Silly example. A better one would be how the German people were made promises in the election that resulted in victory for the national Socialists and paved the way for the Holocaust.

Yanbu, colonialism was not a choice, or option for India so I think it was definitely an inappropriate wording. I think discussing impact of British empire would be more appropriate.

This is why I always feel there should be week similar to 'black history' month in schools where we raised awareness about other colonies where British had a huge impact and how it changed generations.

India contributed a huge deal in the world wars and I have always felt that wasn't common knowledge
https://www.india1914.com/Priceoff_war.aspx

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/g2/cs4/background.htm

"Very revealing the responses to your post Op. We've such a long way to go. "

I mean, what does this even mean? I don't see anyone saying 'hurrah for the Empire' but it is ludicrous to suggest that it didn't have some eventual benefits. No one is saying that that therefore justifies it fgs.

@Wildswim

It's similar to asking how Germany benefited from Nazi rule

Germany benefitted a lot from Nazi rule. An economic depression was ended, the economy boomed, full employment was reached, infrastructure such as motorways were massively improved, and national pride was restored after years of despair.

I was going to say this... but isn’t the same as India. Germany was made better for the Germans. India was formed and made better in most part for the colonialists.

The question your dc is being asked clearly evokes debate. The answer can be no, not at all. The benefits I see was a larger country was formed and an elite few benefitted. I’m not saying it was justified or positive as the country was raped and pillaged and the British pulled out leaving the vast majority illiterate and below the poverty line.

For me, this would be an argument that things getting better for some often means getting worse for others... a lot of others. And that the better for some cannot be justified.

I think it helps children to develop their critical thinking skills by exploring subjects in stark terms of pros and cons. More often than not, these will not be equally balanced and I think it's very important for children to understand that. It's also helpful for them to grasp the concept of how the portrayal of information depends very much on the source. I'm in NI and there are a lot of, erm, discussions like this!

I don't think Year 8 children would be able to delve beyond the terms and implications of the question. As a teaching tool the question has huge drawbacks because it plants an idea, an implication, that there were negatives and positives in equal measure to the experience of the colonised. Children in Year 8 do not have the intellectual capacity to unpack this question adequately.

It asks children to make a moral judgement as to whether railways and an efficient civil service can make up for the disruption of culture and political development and grand theft of resources. They are not equipped to do this in a way that is at all meaningful.

Many of the children will drop History after GCSEs; this may well be their only shot at thinking about the legacy of the British in India. It is important that they are not presented, even by implication, with basic premises that may be flawed which they will carry with them at the back of their minds years into the future.

YANBU, but you are right for the wrong reasons.

It’s the wealthy and middle classes that benefited from colonialism, not those living in Victorian workhouses and slums who couldn’t even vote.

As the descendant of very poor people I don’t feel responsible for colonialism. What I gained from would probably be the Industrial revolution that made a difference to future lives and the formation of trade unions.

In 1958 de Gaulle instructed the French to sabotage Guinea as they left because they voted not to join the CFA, a financial institution which forced previous French colonies to allow France to effectively control their finances. It still exists in some form today.
The leaving French burned books, demolished infra structure and even killed farm animals. It sent a clear message to other former French colonies to toe the line.

You're a historian and you think that this essay question is inappropriate?

Right...

@FunkBus

"Very revealing the responses to your post Op. We've such a long way to go. "

I mean, what does this even mean? I don't see anyone saying 'hurrah for the Empire' but it is ludicrous to suggest that it didn't have some eventual benefits. No one is saying that that therefore justifies it fgs.

Certainly in getting kids to think critically, yes.

I think it's a great question. Obviously colonialism is not great but did it raise living standards or destroy them? Very interesting.