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.

Colonialism was dreadful. The negatives far outweighed the benefits, however it is probably fair to say there were some, even if they were few and far between and quite trivial.

It's a bit leading, I guess, in that it seems to assume that there were benefits of colonialism rather than asking if they think there were any and if so what they were?

I think it's an appropriate task, but I'm not a professional historian. If I were, and had issues with the question, I wouldn't need to ask other people whether I was being able reasonable or not to think it wasn't appropriate

But I think probably it's more a case of "the incidental benefits of colonialism were no compensation for the emotional cultural and economic costs of colonialism" than "there were no benefits at all whatsoever that can be identified"

I guarantee the teacher isn't going to mention the "poor savages" in the lesson.

[quote Lalalabrador]@MillieEpple that’s it I think. The teacher asked for a ‘balanced argument’.[/quote]
Can you think of anything that happened to India that was of benefit to it?

I don't think it's asking for a balanced argument - but to think about things that happened that could be considered of benefit.

I suppose your daughter needs to explain why she considers it a benefit.

And it's all perspective.

@Lalalabrador

India did not benefit from colonialism. There is no for or against colonialism. There ‘weren’t good people on both sides’. I want my daughter to learn the truth about the British Empire not a skewed, jingoistic myth of a Britain generously bestowing ‘civility’ on the poor ‘savages’ of the colonies.

I think you're conflating asking the question with a statement India benefited from colonialism. The answer can be there were no benefits. To ask a question doesn't imply a certain answer.

In all honesty I'm quite surprised if you practice history you're not taking a more crital thinking approach to the question.

I agree with you OP. The question still takes the outdated stance that colonialism was potentially a good thing. Almost a favour bestowed on the 'poor' country. It was not. It was never a good thing. The focus is wrong.

@GreyWall why would someone pretend to be a historian? I normally pretend not to be one.

I’m surprised you’ve read the level you have in your career and haven’t came across a question which wants you to provide an argument for and against. Surely your child would say although x may seem like a benefit, it’s greatly outweighed by z and y.

Surely the obvious benefit from it is their enduring democracy - a rare beast in that part of the world.

[quote Lalalabrador]@MillieEpple that’s it I think. The teacher asked for a ‘balanced argument’.[/quote]
Is there more to the question you haven't said? Because simply asking that question isn't asking for a balance argument. Why do you think the teacher wants that? Did they ask for that?

Well encourage her to write a balanced argument! One where there are no positives for colonialism.
Surely she can manage that

Did you see this viral homework from a couple of years ago?

Of course, being a historian, you will be able to discuss the issues with her and see if she thinks it's of benefit.

Making a balanced argument means you talk about each viewpoint, show you understand what the different arguments are, and explain why you believe them to be correct or not. It doesn't mean you have to believe anything in particular. The question is to get the pupils to think around the subject and decide for themselves how to answer. If there were no benefits, the student can say so. They can also refer to what others believed to be benefits, and say why many people now see it very differently.

@Narniacalling

Well encourage her to write a balanced argument! One where there are no positives for colonialism. Surely she can manage that

She could copy this article

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts

I can't see a problem with the question myself. I think I read in a George Orwell essay that India had a much better railway network than it's neighbours due to 'colonialism.' And he was no fan of it.

Because when ever i did a question at school if there were two parts i expected to give them equal weight unless it was clearly stated they werent to be given equal weight.

@DrDreReturns

I can't see a problem with the question myself. I think I read in a George Orwell essay that India had a much better railway network than it's neighbours due to 'colonialism.' And he was no fan of it.

However:

Racism combined with British economic interests to undermine efficiency. The railway workshops in Jamalpur in Bengal and Ajmer in Rajputana were established in 1862 to maintain the trains, but their Indian mechanics became so adept that in 1878 they started designing and building their own locomotives.

Their success increasingly alarmed the British, since the Indian locomotives were just as good, and a great deal cheaper, than the British-made ones. In 1912, therefore, the British passed an act of parliament explicitly making it impossible for Indian workshops to design and manufacture locomotives.

Between 1854 and 1947, India imported around 14,400 locomotives from England, and another 3,000 from Canada, the US and Germany, but made none in India after 1912. After independence, 35 years later, the old technical knowledge was so completely lost to India that the Indian Railways had to go cap-in-hand to the British to guide them on setting up a locomotive factory in India again.

[quote GreyWall]@Lalalabrador you can't "practice" history it's not medicine...[/quote]
Give over

Although I agree the negatives far outweigh any small benefits of Colonialism, this is an example of a balanced argument:

English has come to be the link-language between Indians. With 800 languages and dialects, India is one of the most linguistically diverse places on the planet. With English, it became easy for millions of Indians to converse with one another. It is difficult to say which language Indians would have spoken in in the absence of English. But the language has undoubtedly opened doors to innumerable opportunities for Indians both domestically and abroad.

Indian professors, doctors, engineers, journalists and scientists have done exceptionally well all over the world and part of the reason for their success is the ease with which they speak, read and write English language. English education has also helped India in securing thousands jobs in the IT and BPO sector. “English speaking population” is a factor that India actively uses to its advantage while seeking foreign investment.

However, it can also be argued that China, Japan, Israel, France, Germany and many other countries grew economically without its population speaking a word of English. Would Indian economy have grown at the same pace if we hadn’t spoken English? It is hard to say. But the fact that none of those nations had such large number of people speaking English has certainly worked in India’s advantage while attracting foreign investments.

The negative effect of English education is the neglect and endangerment of Indian languages. Since English is seen as an essential skill to get jobs, it has attained an elite status in Indian society. Millions of Indians view the language as their tool to fight unemployment and poverty. Even though, English was introduced to train human resources who could work for the British government in India, it stayed on and has done more good than harm to the country.

It looks at both sides and draws a conclusion at the end. This was written by Prashanth Bhat who is a Researcher.

My guess, having taught slavery to Year 8 (although a decade ago now!!), is that the question is worded that way to make them consider if there were any benefits. Because if it wasn't in the question they wouldn't consider it at all. It's not that colonialism is being taught as a lovely fantastic thing, its that kids can't get their heads around why anyone would do that to anyone else ever.

I absolutely agree with you, that's a terrible question. Sadly the majority of these comments show how desperately this country needs to update its curricula. On the same note, no black writers studied in English. Art focused on western (male) art.