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.

Generally, most of the nasty colonial stuff the government doesn't want us to focus on

rather than look at what havoc we wreaked on the world

Another example of harmful and biased ideas we don't want our children to be indoctrinated with

It took until university for there to be optional modules on Britain's role in the African continent and in Asia to crop up

Good, all of this venom should be optional and each student should be paying for their own if they so wish

“Never once has apartheid been on the syllabus”

I agree with your broader point but it’s actually not true that this is never taught in history classrooms in the U.K. There is a unit on the current OCR History A specification that is specifically focused on apartheid. I’d imagine that it’s only taught in a limited number of schools. I happen to teach a different very niche twentieth century GCSE option that I feel is hugely important and illuminating (the Arab-Israeli conflict) that is only studied in a tiny number of secondary schools. They aren’t common but the option is definitely there.
Since the reformed GCSE specs came in it’s also not true that the GCSE is more focused on Victorian England, Cold War and Russian Revolution and other modern stuff. All schools have to do Medieval, Early Modern and Modern history. They also have to do a minimum of one British, one local and one non-British option and studies of one short (around 20-30 year) period, one medium (usually about 50-70 year) period and one long (usually around 1000 year) period. I think GCSEs have changed quite a bit since you went through the system.

In my do one short British medieval unit, one long British study with a local enquiry attached to it, one US-focused short unit and a medium-term study on the Middle East.

*in my school we do

Patapouf I think a lot of teachers try to make things relevant for the kids in front of them to "bring it to life", hence focusing on "what life was like for the average Brit". Most average Brits in the UK weren't out actively colonising, unless they were in a particular class, or in the armed forces - they were trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

On the other hand, I grew up in a British colony, and we had loads of colonial stuff woven in probably because it was considered to be relevant to us - I remember IGCSE history doing the British Raj, the Opium wars and colonisation of SE Asia, and colonial regiments in WWI, we learned about Captain Ansari who Muslim and was awarded the George Cross for valour in WWII after being sent to Stanley prison and tortured by the Japanese - and in primary we went on a field trip to the concentration camp there, etc. We learned about Tipoo Sultan, the Indian Mutiny, Mau Mau in Kenya, Rorkes Drift, colonial troops fighting the Germans in east Africa, French colonisation of Vietnam, Portuguese colonisation of Macau, all sorts.

I don't think the fact that my kids don't learn about the same stuff I did about the British Empire stemming from it being "nasty colonial stuff the government doesn't want to focus on" - there's just not enough time in the curriculum and they're doing stuff I didn't do. It's my responsibility to make sure they know about it, just as it was my parents' responsibility to make sure I had the opportunity to learn about stuff I wasn't taught in school, like the wars of the roses, the romans, the greeks, the persian empire, the anglo saxons, the vikings, the normans, the renaissance, the enlightenment, the french revolution...etc etc etc!

At GCSE we did the History of Medicine, the Wild West and Northern Ireland. I was heavily into history and only started learning about apartheid after watching a film based on a book called 'The Power of One'.

As a primary teacher, only at one school have I seen any history from Africa, where they compared Elizabeth I with a Queen from an African country alive at the same time (I think, its a long time ago). Even Black History Month tends to either celebrate black people in history or focuses on slavery in the US.

I've worked in several schools and never heard apartheid mentioned. These days, schools have more flexibility to choose units to meet the National Curriculum, but you still have many teachers in class who used the same old QCA units and will still have resources, planning etc. That's why I don't think many primary schools have branched out into other areas of history yet.

@Patapouf I did the break up of the British Empire in History GCSE and it covered Indian partition and the role of the British in that.

Stuff like apartheid I couldn't study at school in History because it was current affairs. If we were alive when it happened so wasn't regarded as History. The rule was that anything that happened when you were alive wasn't history.

I know from the Head of History's background she had no issues making us study "the nasty colonial stuff the government doesn't want us to focus on" as our practise evidence questions were on the racist excuses colonists, particularly British ones, used to colonise other people.

The main issue is the background of the teachers choosing topics to study. I know from family and friends the "history" they cover in black history month is a joke.

The main issue is the background of the teachers choosing topics to study. I know from family and friends the "history" they cover in black history month is a joke.

Why should our taxes be used to indoctrinate our kids against us? Genuine question

@mustlovegin who is "us"?

who is "us"?

It's implausible that the majority of the British people would like to have our kids indoctrinated against us

Pleased to report that when I asked DS2 (18) this morning if he knew what apartheid was, he looked at me with contempt and replied 'of course I do', followed by a brief accurate description. He gave up history pre GCSEs.

The problem with teaching history is that there's a lot of it and more is discovered all the time.

@mustlovegin

who is "us"?

It's implausible that the majority of the British people would like to have our kids indoctrinated against us

You still have clarified who "us" is.

You just gone on some rant ignoring the fact that the people in the UK aren't one homogenous mass and good teachers, regardless of their subject, point that out.

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

Could have just as easily picked Kelly Holmes! She has had a very interesting life and done a lot for women in sport via her charity.

As for other things we should cover in school history lessons - the Spanish Civil War might be a good topic too. And Oswald Mosley - we tend to gloss over him and things like the battle of Cable Street.

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

Pleased to report that when I asked DS2 (18) this morning if he knew what apartheid was, he looked at me with contempt and replied 'of course I do', followed by a brief accurate description. He gave up history pre GCSEs.

Pleased to report that when I asked DS2 (18) this morning if he knew what apartheid was, he looked at me with contempt and replied 'of course I do', followed by a brief accurate description. He gave up history pre GCSEs

Knowledge moves in interesting ways too. My son knew about it because of his interest in sport and athletics in particular - and the fact that Zola Budd ran for the British athletics team and why. Being interested in one thing leads to another - there is no "right" knowledge despite the sneering by some posters on here.

Sadly there are far too many events to have occurred, to be able to cover all themes during school. If at the age of sixteen this is the first time the conversation has come up between you both, so when else would they have discussed the topic? I am 35 and never discussed the apartheid or slavery during school. The themes I studied in secondary school were WW1,WW2, The industrial revolution, crime and punished ie witchcraft and the trials at eth tower of London. In primary school the historical themes were the romans, Vikings and the Royal Family dating back to the war of the roses. Different schools may use different reference book sand also depends on the individual teachers what the also bring to the discussions in class as well as how the syllabus is navigated.

@KatherineofGaunt

At GCSE we did the History of Medicine, the Wild West and Northern Ireland. I was heavily into history and only started learning about apartheid after watching a film based on a book called 'The Power of One'.

As a primary teacher, only at one school have I seen any history from Africa, where they compared Elizabeth I with a Queen from an African country alive at the same time (I think, its a long time ago). Even Black History Month tends to either celebrate black people in history or focuses on slavery in the US.

I've worked in several schools and never heard apartheid mentioned. These days, schools have more flexibility to choose units to meet the National Curriculum, but you still have many teachers in class who used the same old QCA units and will still have resources, planning etc. That's why I don't think many primary schools have branched out into other areas of history yet.

It is also important to remember that many primary schools will not have a History specialist on the staff, and it’s very likely that the overworked History lead who doesn’t get a TLR for co-ordinating the subject is not themselves a history graduate. Even smaller secondary schools will have at least one history specialist on the staff body.

@mustlovegin

I think the positive aspects of the industrial revolution are well known and normally covered. DD did it in primary and then in Y8.

But how many do understand the social injustice of it leading to the chartist movement, right to vote, labour political movement, the right to strike, social security and several post WWI revolutions.

I am German.

We cover the social impact of the Industrial Revolution in detail when teaching A Christmas Carol as a GCSE text. You can’t understand Dickens’s purpose in writing the novel without that contextual knowledge.

It's implausible that the majority of the British people would like to have our kids indoctrinated against us

Speak for yourself. My DC have ancestors on all sides that have benefitted from colonialism, e.g. one was involved in the Virginia Company, another was a Conquistador and several benefitted from 20th century colonialism in Africa. Our parents generation either deny or gloss over the family's involvement in racism but I remember the generation above who lived the ex-pat life in South Africa and Rhodesia and had very dismissive attitudes to the local black people and it's important our children understand where their white middle class privilege comes from.

@mustlovegin

‘Why should our taxes be used to indoctrinate our kids against us? Genuine question’

😯
So, you would like future generations to remain ignorant of the truth?

[quote julieca]@sashagabadon True. Lots of concepts like viral load were not understood by most of the population before the pandemic.[/quote]
Not so sure they are widely understood even now.

So, you would like future generations to remain ignorant of the truth?

There's no need for the drama. The information is widely available and anyone can google it (specially16 year olds). The family can encourage it if they are interested (as the OP has done). But we shouldn't be financing the dissemination of anti-British propaganda in schools

And what's 'the truth'? Which news outlet tells 'the truth'? Who monopolises 'the truth'? 'The truth' will depend on what the teacher may want to focus on, what 'side' will be presented in a more favourable light, which nuances will be discussed, etc. And I'm not talking about apartheid here, but more about history in general.

Wtf? What kind of person thinks teaching the history of Britain accurately is anti-British propaganda? It seems profoundly unpatriotic to suggest that learning the truth about British history will make children hate their country.

The Germans teach the holocaust without their children growing up to hate Germany and British children can learn about the slave trade without growing up to hate Britain. It is very strange to think that learning the history of your country would make you hate it. History just is. We can’t change it now or do anything about it, but we certainly shouldn’t shy away from teaching the less pleasant bits. It’s created the world as it is now and tells us illuminating and valuable things.

I think a lot of teachers try to make things relevant for the kids in front of them to "bring it to life", hence focusing on "what life was like for the average Brit". Most average Brits in the UK weren't out actively colonising, unless they were in a particular class, or in the armed forces - they were trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Agree. I think you probably only have 2 or 3 years to cover history in a political, academic way, as opposed to a hands on practical "What would it be like to live in an Anglo Saxon house or be an evacuee?" way before history becomes optional. Given the amount of time allocated to the subject in most curriculums, some things will be left out.

@mustlovegin

So, you would like future generations to remain ignorant of the truth?

There's no need for the drama. The information is widely available and anyone can google it (specially16 year olds). The family can encourage it if they are interested (as the OP has done). But we shouldn't be financing the dissemination of anti-British propaganda in schools

And what's 'the truth'? Which news outlet tells 'the truth'? Who monopolises 'the truth'? 'The truth' will depend on what the teacher may want to focus on, what 'side' will be presented in a more favourable light, which nuances will be discussed, etc. And I'm not talking about apartheid here, but more about history in general.

History is not "anti-British propaganda". It's history. It happened. The facts are as they are. It cannot be altered.

History should be taught warts and all. You can't only teach the nice bits because the bad makes you uncomfortable. Our history is myriad and we should not be afraid of it.