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.

Of course I'm aware that here there are questions that can't be asked without a pile on by the mumsnet lock down police.”

That sprang to mind here, too. Bit of a nerd, we watch lots of railway documentaries and the consensus seems to be that India’s system benefited greatly from British engineering and investment 🤷‍♀️

That's fine but as a 'historian' the OP who has disappeared has the opportunity to look at the essay question and use this as a learning opportunity to instil research skills and critical thinking rather than moping on MN trying to gain a woke points.

British education is currently being decolonised, by the way.

Google decolonising the curriculum. This involves changing reading lists and libraries to ensure that academic knowledge isn't just passed on from a euro-centric view.

[quote sashh]@MoiJeJous I sort of agree with you re the wording, but this is for year 8 so needs to be simple and straight forward, 'explore' means different things to 12 year olds.

As for your question re the holocaust, I am in no way excusing a vile evil set of acts but for some people there were positives / advantages, if yo were suddenly the only baker in town or the only tailor then you benefitted.

For an argument that could be expanded into a thesis then the question, "would the state of Isreal exist without the holocaust?"[/quote]
I hardly think “explore” is a difficult word for a 12 year old if they’re apparently old enough to assess the pros and cons of a complicated topic such as colonialism.

Let’s be clear, there were no benefits to the holocaust regardless of whether the baker and the tailor did very well for themselves. It is very irresponsible to position these atrocious events as having even one benefit because all of these events were morally wrong. Likewise, there were no benefits to slavery.

This is not just a history topic. These are people’s lives and some of us are still feeling the effects of it today. You, along with most people here who are probably white, don’t get to decide and analyse the “benefits” of a system that was designed to oppress.

OP - if my child came home with a question like that, rest assured that school would hear from me.

Sorry, I posted the wrong quote, from a different thread 😁
Meant to post a PP citing the Indian railway system as a benefit.

Asking for both sides to be recognised is balanced and demands a bit more thought and research. Then you can morally judge what weighs more.

"The Romans were colonisers."

So? Your point being colonisation is somehow better? Australia was colonised, as was Canada and the USA. I’m sure a colonised country could have the same question applied and both positive and negative outcomes can be found.

I think it is not true to think that profit was the only motive . It rarely is the only motive as in a personal level people are usually much more motivated by doing good ( once they are basically fed and watered)

A lot of people did think they were helping India and that was their personsal motive

By saying the only why was profit is over simplified

MoiJe
Unfortunately there were benefits of the Holocaust for the nazis the same as there were (and still are) to owning slaves.... or an economy/ country built off genocide or slavery. That doesn’t mean there were mass benefits to the citizens of an occupied country.

The only true benefit I can think of is the EU, which was set up to create peace. And we’ve just left that - make of that what you will....

As for your question re the holocaust, I am in no way excusing a vile evil set of acts but for some people there were positives / advantages, if yo were suddenly the only baker in town or the only tailor then you benefitted

Not wanting to stray too far from the OP, but I don't see how being the only baker/tailor in town during the Holocaust could be cited as a positive in terms of history. Pros and cons in respect of past events are generally discussed in terms of a lasting legacy, be that good or bad, not in terms of how Mr Bun the Baker sold more pies and made his fortune.

Of course children have to examine the perceived benefits of an act as these were the justification for doing so. If we want to learn from history we need to look at the full picture. Very few people are outright evil, most believed they were acting correctly and the end justified the means.

If we merely say it was all bad and wrong then we risk it happening again, because this time we are doing it for the right reasons.

I believe we are increasingly presenting both history and current events as being black and white, right and wrong - no debate! This is dangerous. Think back to the Brexit vote, I voted remain but the number of people who stated that people should not be allowed to vote because they are too stupid and voted the wrong way was frightening. Many people believe we should have acted like China in combating Covid and effectively suspended all Human rights. Those who believe Shamima Begum should not be able to access due process of law because she is a terrorist. In each case people believe that they are morally correct and the damage to democracy is justified.

@Rosehip10

OP hasn't replied since she was called out by a PP asking her how a civil servant (as the OP stated she was in some posts a few months back) has managed a quick career change in a pandemic to a "professional historian" who is writing and getting history books published!

She’s probably a bit busy right now, trying to come up with a job description that feasibly combines the civil service with historical research/publication.

That, or name-changing

I say that as someone from a colonised country

I'd be surprised if there was anyone on here who isn't from a colonised country.

Colonisation is as old as humanity itself.

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.

Is this true? The vast majority were illiterate and below the poverty line before the British arrived. Are we really saying that the Indian ruling classes were benevolent and philanthropic? That those people were really worse off? I think the end result would have been the same for them, the only difference is the nationality of the oppressor. So do we think an indigenous oppressor is in some way better than a foreign one?

I think when deciding if this question is appropriate or not you need to know how the children have been taught about colonialism.

Most likely the teacher has been framing the topic in a "x seems like a benefit but it wasn't really because of z" and "a was a small benefit but it was massively outweighed by the harm caused by b" kind of way.

If this question was posed to the class with no prior teaching then I agree that for year 8 children it wouldn't be appropriate. However I doubt it came out of the blue and I strongly suspect they've been taught how to answer, or been fed the expected answer.

"I'd be surprised if there was anyone on here who isn't from a colonised country.

Colonisation is as old as humanity itself."

Ye, I mean RECENTLY colonised, obviously.

I think it's a difficult question for Year 8 students, but not impossible.

It does seem to be worded bluntly and clumsily, but then Year 8s might struggle with a question that began - "Discuss" or "Explore".

A 'balanced response', certainly at A Level, just means that all sides should be considered and acknowledged, but they don't need to be given the same weight or authority.

If you cannot see the benefits in teaching children to question the positives and negatives in history, you don't sound that much of a professional historian.

Jesus, this thread.

Lol 😂 it’s a perfectly well executed question. India did benefit in some way as much as it’s good their independent. It’s history!! Honesty with parents like you this generation are fucked.

@HOkieCOkie

That makes no sense at all. What do you mean? Can you write in proper English with the correct grammar? And emoticons don’t help. D minus.

it’s a perfectly well executed question. India did benefit in some way as much as it’s good their independent

it's not, and wtf?

@FunkBus

"I'd be surprised if there was anyone on here who isn't from a colonised country.

Colonisation is as old as humanity itself."

Ye, I mean RECENTLY colonised, obviously.

What's recent?

For you.

@daisypond lol

I see the OP has disappeared after her lies were exposed. Troll in the dungeon.

Of course children have to examine the perceived benefits of an act as these were the justification for doing so. If we want to learn from history we need to look at the full picture. Very few people are outright evil, most believed they were acting correctly and the end justified the means.

This is exactly what I think too.