To be shocked that 16 year old didn't know about apartheid

[biddlybop]

Recently, I was having a conversation with a teen in the family and mentioned apartheid (think we were talking about films and books based on true events). They asked what apartheid was. I explained, and they had never heard of it.

I was genuinely shocked. We were taught about it in school - in both history, and English. I'm 30, so I wasn't educated decades ago.

Is this not in the curriculum anymore, or is it just her school? I think it's really important that young people are taught about these events, especially as racism is still such a problem.

I know of apartheid but only the minor details. Not enough to have a debate on the matter.

I didn't learn it at school mind you. I think a lot of what you learn depends on what type of school you went to. We never had philosophy and ethics in my school - it was more vocational based.

I'm similiar age to you...when I was growing up we had 9/11, the war in the middle east, global financial crisis etc.

There are thousands of years of different history throughout the world

How on earth do you expect someone to learn it all in 15 or 16 years?!!

I’m pretty sure there’s lots you also don’t know about.

This just made me remember as I was never allowed to watch tv apart from an hour of kids tv. The day Diana died I was at my grandparents who let us watch kids tv in the morning. I was called a horrible girl as I moaned that there were no cartoons on because they keep talking about some princes who's died. I honestly had no idea who she was and I was about 14 at the time.

On the plus side this has caused me to talk to my own children about current affairs and to be interested in the world. I am learning loads more now I'm an adult but living in such a small bubble really held me back in a lot of ways.

If her family don't discuss a variety of topics then there will be all sorts of things she is ignorant of. Schools only teach a narrow curriculum - the children only have 5 hours a day of learning.

Were they aware of slavery or segregation in America or any of history of immigration or Empire?

Apartheid in South Africa was current affairs for me, but from a historical perspective it’s just one example of racist oppression.

I’m in my late 50s and I remember my form teacher at school being shocked none of us knew about apartheid. That would have been about 1978 and the equivalent of year 10 now.

Currently in the current affairs/ history gap is 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and they still affect a lot of contemporary attitudes and events in the world.

For me the origins of the Cold War are in that gap. History ended on VE Day,

[quote trendzetter]**@BeautifulBirds* Didn't learn about it in school, history was medicine and American Indians.*

You mean native Americans, surely? [/quote]
The majority of the people you refer to prefer to be known as American Indians or by their tribal name.

''Native Americans' includes people from Samoa and other US pacific islands and Inuits who have a different history and culture.

It also includes the millions of people in central and south america who again have different histories and cultures.

I've heard of it but know very little about it, and I have a history degree! It was never covered in school and I don't recall it being spoken about at home. My parents are both very well educated and went to university but neither studied history or talked to me much about it.

I don't like these threads where people act all "shocked" about what other people don't know. They come across as quite superior and sneery.

I bet there are loads of things YOU don't know about either. You've just picked one event in history and decided that everyone has to know about it because you happen to know about it

I don't think it's about feeling shocked by what people know or don't know. It's about discussing what the school curriculum should include and what students need to know to understand the context of books like Journey to Jo'burg or Noughts and Crosses. Some historical events have longer term consequences than others. This will vary between countries. I think it's quite reasonable to hope that school students in the UK will learn more about the slave trade than the Hanseatic League because it will help their broader understanding of the society we live in today. It doesn't mean that I feel 'superior or sneery' towards anybody who is interested in medieval trade in Northern Europe.

The problem is that too much is expected of the history curriculum when, as others have said, it occupies a comparatively small part of the total hours of the compulsory curriculum.

What we should be more worried about is how we acquire the knowledge about national and world events we need to participate as a citizen in a democracy. That is something we need throughout our lives.

I think it's quite reasonable to hope that school students in the UK will learn more about the slave trade than the Hanseatic League because it will help their broader understanding of the society we live in today

No, it will mean that British kids will be more permeable to activism pushing identity politics (which this thread seems to be about).

Historical events and figures that need to be prioritised on the UK curriculum are those relating to Britain and Europe.

And yes, Britain had influence all over the world, but this doesn't mean that events from all over the world should be prioritised over our own local history

I completely agree we should concentrate on British history here in the U.K. like the French should concentrate on French history, Chinese on china’s history etc. School history lessons are too small a proportion of time to do anything else. That’s not to say other countries history is not interesting, I am going to learn more about China for instance and I’ve always loved anything about the Romans. I love a Mary beard documentary on julius Caesar or Nero! I am also ignorant about the Ottoman Empire so determined to learn more about that too but yes we don’t want a generation of children having never heard of Henry the 8th or Elizabeth the first or the Great War etc. We have loads of our own history luckily for us. It’s literally everywhere in this country.

@mustlovegin

Why are you arguing with Nettie? They are making exactly the same point as you… That it’s natural for history in this country to focus on things that we were more directly involved in. We had a much more fundamental involvement with the transatlantic slave trade than with the Hanseatic League and it shaped our history, politics and economy in far more fundamental ways. The transatlantic slave trade is our own local history. Ships set sail from and then returned to British ports and the profits of the trade drove our economy. Dealings with the Hanseatic League, not so much. If you’re teaching history in Portugal or Spain then it’s likely to be true there too, but in Estonia, probably not.

Your bizarre point about identity politics is odd. You seem to be the one with an identity agenda here.

@mustlovegin

And yes, Britain had influence all over the world, but this doesn't mean that events from all over the world should be prioritised over our own local history

And the local history of places like Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow is profoundly influenced by the slave trade. In the same way, apartheid in South Africa had its origins in informal controls introduced during the the rivalries and disputes between Dutch and British colonisers in South Africa. If you'd read the whole thread, you'd see that I'd commented on the focus on events in US history at the expense of studying similar happenings elsewhere.

@sashagabadon

I completely agree we should concentrate on British history here in the U.K. like the French should concentrate on French history, Chinese on china’s history etc. School history lessons are too small a proportion of time to do anything else. That’s not to say other countries history is not interesting, I am going to learn more about China for instance and I’ve always loved anything about the Romans. I love a Mary beard documentary on julius Caesar or Nero! I am also ignorant about the Ottoman Empire so determined to learn more about that too but yes we don’t want a generation of children having never heard of Henry the 8th or Elizabeth the first or the Great War etc. We have loads of our own history luckily for us. It’s literally everywhere in this country.

The issue is that certain historic events do explain why the world is as it is today.

Imperialism didn't start with the British in India, it started with the Spanish and Portugese discovering the world.

The French Revolution had fast reaching effects on democracy all over Europe. The Napoleonic wars are part of the reason modern European states are as they are now. And I mean more than just the Battle of Waterloo or Trafalgar.

Ancient Rome or Greek history is the backbone of our understanding of democracy.

As someone growing up in a different country I am fairly fed up with the limitation to Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and the Great War.

If you want to concentrate on British Histroy then please include the whole development of Anglo/Saxon, Vikings, the establishment of a united England, the Succession war between Mathilda and Stephen, the Scottisch rising (both please), the reason them, why there are the Protestant marches are called "Orange", the reasons for the American Revolution, the social injustice of the Industrial Revolution, etc. I could go on.

This just made me remember as I was never allowed to watch tv apart from an hour of kids tv. The day Diana died I was at my grandparents who let us watch kids tv in the morning. I was called a horrible girl as I moaned that there were no cartoons on because they keep talking about some princes who's died. I honestly had no idea who she was and I was about 14 at the time.

Jesus, I'd have been so proud of you were you my daughter. A horrible girl, for not entering into the hysterical national tide of hammed-up grief on the death of a wealthy ex-princess you didn't know from Adam, for not being an insincere little fraud? An excellent girl.

Why are you arguing with Nettie? They are making exactly the same point as you

I'm arguing because I don't agree with what she's saying

the social injustice of the Industrial Revolution

Another one. Instead of focusing on the myriad of positive aspects of the Industrial Revolution, let's focus on the social injustice! Sure, let's poison our kids' minds against the British.

As someone growing up in a different country I am fairly fed up with the limitation to Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and the Great War

Where did you grow up if I may ask?

But she’s also saying that our history curriculum should focus more on British history and events that Britain was directly involved in.

Thanks MadameMinimes!

It's about discussing what the school curriculum should include and what students need to know to understand the context of books like Journey to Jo'burg or Noughts and Crosses. Some historical events have longer term consequences than others. This will vary between countries.

Those discussions would be GCSE level or above. History is optional. There is only so much that can be covered at an age appropriate level during the years when history is compulsory.

@CasaBonita

No definitely wasn't taught when I was at school in the 90s. I did have crap history teachers though.

I remember 'learning' about WW1 by copying notes off a whiteboard that the teacher was in turn, copying from a textbook. No discussion, no opportunity to ask questions. Just uninspired, crap teaching.

But it wasn't "history" when you were at school, it was current affairs! I think this the difference. Anyone in their 30s or 40s wouldn't have learnt about it in history, it was happening at the time, had only just finished. We didn't learn about yhr fall of communism in history either, but them i left school in 1996 so why would we have?

For kids now, it IS history and should be taught.

Well, I'm glad my child learnt in a basic way about apartheid in KS2, though she was very disturbed that there had existed a time and place when she and her best friend couldn't have played together.

I raised my eyebrows though when they had to write a mini biography of a prominent black person, and the two choices were Rosa Parks or Marcus bloody Rashford.

I'm a millennial and I have studied history to post graduate level.

Never once has apartheid been on the syllabus. Generally, most of the nasty colonial stuff the government doesn't want us to focus on isn't in the national curriculum. It took until university for there to be optional modules on Britain's role in the African continent and in Asia to crop up.

I only knew about apartheid as a teen because my parents had taught me about it and I was actually interested in the topic. There's a great deal of modern history I expect most teenagers do not have a clue about. Schooling ks1-ks3 is very much centred on romans, tudors, ww1 and ww2 and then at gcse gets more into the Cold War, Russian revolution, or Victorian history but it's very much from the POV of 'this is what life was like for the average Brit' rather than look at what havoc we wreaked on the world.