Slavery and Colonialism Are Everyone’s History

[GodessOfThunder]

I was on a thread recently where posters were complaining of slavery and colonialism being “shoehorned” into exhibitions, and were strongly “pushing back” against it being given prominence as a topic in museums and at historic sites. Indeed, transatlantic slavery and colonialism often seem to be regarded as niche historical subjects of interest more to people of colour, and involving only a small number of rich white slave owners and colonial officials.

This perception however, does not reflect reality. Transatlantic slavery effected not only millions of Africans, but pretty much everyone in Britain too. Similarly, colonialism effected not only millions of subjects in the British Empire, but everyone “at home” also. The economy these projects fuelled changed what ordinary people ate and drank and what they wore. They changed how British people thought about non-European people in ways that continue to shape their mindset and create injustice today. Slavery and colonialism helped fund the Industrial Revolution and the jobs people in Britain performed, and much more too.

I’m not suggesting anyone today should feel guilty for these activities. But, these subjects are still all too often not regarded as part of all of our histories. This means attempts to give them proper prominence are met with resistance. If we are to understand British history at a public level properly there is still a great deal of work to do.

The colonies didn’t go off piste by engaging in slavery and the slave trade. It was set up from London and the Crown was heavily invested in it.

via the East India Trading Company. I think it's useful to note Slavery was driven by commercial, not social, needs/wants. Competition with the Dutch (who were extremely brutal), Portuguese and Spanish also cannot be ignored. The bottom line is a private industry had a foothold in government.

China and Russia are the biggest concerns. Where the western countries are pulling their support out and relinquishing their infrastructure over to the locals so China and Russia are rushing in to provide money and business opportunities... history shows us this money and infrastructure breeds loyalty and interdependency to/with the crown/presidency/head/lead state whatever you want to call them.

Be very very wary about saying Britain/France/The Netherlands etc withdrawing is a solely positive enterprise.

You're ignoring the important caveat of Northern Ireland consensus which is absent.

And it's inappropriate to bring this up in the context of colonialism/slavery since it was based on neither. It is a different area of concern, but I'm not surprised folks started shoehorning that in.

What people should understand is that history is not some long, inexorable chain of causation leading to the present day. As Professor Walker of the Irish Studies Institute explained, those who do this are ignoring the quiet times inbetween the historical examples they give.

History is used and abused in order to further a political agenda. This is very evident on the island of Ireland as many learned people observed, including John Hume who was also a history teacher.

The abuse of history concerns all because it is this that is often the ignition point for further conflict. History and the study of history itself are commonly misunderstood.

The main difference between the island of Ireland and Europe including Great Britain is that its inhabitants mine old history with which to whack the other side over the head with. And this goes both ways.

The history of Europe, Hume argued, was much worse in the 20th Century alone than ours was. Yet Europeans by and large don't continually whack the Germans, Spanish or Italians over the heads with the problems caused by fascism.

This abuse of history on the island of Ireland is another reason why history must be more carefully taught. And Northern Ireland in particular does not lack a tinder box for other countries to teach what THEY think the history was about.

But massively inappropriate to bring it up in this thread.

The abuse of history is more relevant to the thread.

Within the topic of colonialism and slavery, its very important history isn't abused in order to whack other peoples over the heads.

British, French, Portuguese, etc.

That doesn't help anyone, propagandises history and fails to promote reconciliation between peoples.

Some of the most prominent contemporary writers who argued for working class reform were anti abolitionist. What they say about slavery has to be taken in the context of what they were trying to achieve. They purposefully leveraged white supremacy, dehumanised black people and minimised slavery to specifically divert resources. They weren’t speaking. In fact, it was simply a nice story that would help their cause. Cobette springs to mind, his writings about black people are awful to read.

I encourage you to read the diaries of Thomas Thistlewood. While I’m not going to ever dispute that the white working classes were grossly exploited and treated appallingly there is a world of difference between their experiences and complete bondage. The kind of extreme systematic violence used to create terror in slaves and so increase outputs weren’t used on the British working classes. There was violence, but it was not the same scale.

It’s not a zero sum game. We can acknowledge how the working class were treated without minimising slavery.

I'm not ignoring it. The absence of a consensus doesn't mean a subject cannot be taught. Please go back through the thread to see how and why Northern Ireland and Irish history is part of this discussion.

People do whack the Germans (and Austrians) over the head. They whack themselves over the head! Italy is its own special mess and a lot of the issues now can be tracked back to decisions made in the early twentieth century.

Teaching history is about providing a well rounded global view of all sides. Teaching source analysis is a must, teaching critical thinking is an absolute must, teaching how to read and comprehend what is being read is a must.

I stress comprehension as essential.

I encourage you to read the diaries of Thomas Thistlewood

I agree with this. I won't share quotes from it because I'll be banned or put on a register. If you want takeaway quotes just search for "quotes from thistlewood diaries"

It’s not a zero sum game. We can acknowledge how the working class were treated without minimising slavery

There was nothing in my post to minimise slavery unless you think that I also agree with children going down mines. That was a passing remark that I was not even endorsing.

My comment was to the point out that it is totally wrong to blame the descendents of the 19th century English working class for the evils of slavery and treat them as if they benefitted from it in some way.

Only the top echelons of the English establishment were responsible for the appalling treatment of other peoples and races throughout the world.

I think you both have very valid points.
My ancestors definitely didn’t benefit from the Industrial Revolution, rather it meant they spent their lives 6 days a week in a dark, dirty and very dangerous environment for very little wage.
However it’s notable that the millworkers in Lancashire sided with the abolitionists in the American civil war to the detriment of themselves as they lost wages when there was no cotton to process.

This^^

It’s always the rich that benefit.
The NHS is possibly the only British institution that has given equal treatment to its citizens.

I have read the thread and observed the island of Ireland as well as Northern Ireland were being wheeled in as examples of colonialism.

The island itself wasn't a colony, but an integral part of the UK. Same applies to Northern Ireland where the conflict wasn't anti-imperialist/colonialism. These are post hoc rationalisations Republicans used to obscure and sanitise the role of the Provos.

My argument stands and it's a good reason why this history is taught at university level. The politicisation of history and the abuse of it has made it university level study.

Overall, Europe doesn't hold a longstanding grudge against the Germans and they've co-existed peacefully since 1945.

It's a whole different level of abuse of history on the island of Ireland where this behaviour has led to grievances being passed down along with various myths. One of the most harmful is the Gael v Planter myths things were far more fluid. Hume isn't an Irish name, for example.

We had a propaganda of conflict and now we've had a propaganda of the peace since 1998. Both are unhelpful.

More unhelpful is people elsewhere with no real interest in the history learning a certain amount and discarding all the important nuances after they've left school I favour of selective easy to understand bits.

No, we deal with it in Northern Ireland first and everyone else will follow our lead in time. It is inappropriate at this point in time.

I doubt anyone who has mentioned Ireland on this thread are 'from elsewhere and with no real interest'. You're rather aggressively trying to close down a discussion point that evolved because of the gaps in the UK school curriculum. History cannot, and should never be, ringfenced as only suitable for 'certain' people to read or write. Oral histories have a place. These tussles have to take place now. Saying it 'is inappropriate at this point in time' is the way that the elite have consistently rewritten history, obscured abuses and silenced certain voices. The process is important. When people stay silent and wait - they find the official 'history' has already been carved by others elsewhere with their own agendas.

No, but on the other hand, there are millions of people alive today who are older than me and could have had a conversation with them.

It is just a sobering thought that something so appalling that we think of as happening so long ago, is only actually a generation or so away.

Also this demand for silence and waiting in regards to Irish history, isn't visible across the rest of the UK curriculum. For example during the 1980s and 1990s, there were lessons in UK schools about South Africa and apartheid that discussed the different international approaches and views, including sanctions. In UK schools and universities, there were lessons and lectures about women's rights in the US and about the context of Roe vs Wade.
Should those lecturers have waited to see what was going to happen before they taught those subjects? Of course not. Not even the largest proponents of censorship would have tried to close down those discussions and debates.

The island itself wasn't a colony, but an integral part of the UK. Same applies to Northern Ireland where the conflict wasn't anti-imperialist/colonialism

People who live in a sovereign state are taught the history of their country, while people who live in a colony are taught the history of the country that rules them.

When I was growing up in Belfast, we were not taught Irish history, we were taught the history of the kings and queens of England.

You do not get to dictate what does and doesn't get to be taught based on your own personal sensitivities. History is dark and disgusting (see the aforementioned ThistlewoodDiaries if you really want to have your stomach churned). To understand and prevent repetition of history it needs to be taught, objectively, without agenda, without misplaced anger or compassion.

Ireland is lived history. My history, your history. The ramifications of Irish history are still coming to light through Brexit. Absolutely it must be a core part of our curriculum. We would be doing BOTH factions in NI an injustice to do otherwise.

As a black person, whether or not white people feel guilt does not, nor has it ever concerned me. Feeling guilty for something that you haven’t done would be not only illogical but also self indulgent. It’s just yet again centring the experience of white people and is not helpful in at all. The point of these discussions is not to interrogate how you feel, it is to look at how narratives from the past are negatively affecting POC and contributing to institutional racism. To be honest, personally, racism bothers me, only in so far as it affects the social, health and economic outcomes of POC. If it was just name calling rather than more negative outcomes at all stages of life I’d be much less concerned.

I do care however, about the dissemination of ideas like this. This right here is the classic white supremacist narrative that is just accepted as fact. I don’t even feel that it’s your fault you are parotting this so entrenched it is in British society when it logically does not make sense.

1. Innovation - Innovation cannot happen in a countries stripped of their resources and human capital. Freedom is essential for innovation. If you are unable to waste resources and change your mind you can’t innovate. So not only are a lot of countries having to play catch up post colonialism but they’re also prevented from developing in the same way that Europe has because they’re forced by rich nations and the organisations they control to adopt policies to their disbenefit.
2. Culture - European culture is not inherently superior. Let me correct this. In the case of the Caribbean and some other places we have in no way adopted your culture by choice. Our culture was stripped through systematic extreme violence. It has continued to be prized because of consistent racist rhetoric which actively punishes poc for engaging in their culture for example in the job market.
3. Advancement - previous posters have mentioned India

The problem with ideas, like this is that, they affect people now. For example, someone might walk into a job interview with a foreign sounding name and clothes that are not quite the British norm and be denied a job. Or people might assume that POC are inherently less intelligent. One of the big findings for why Caribbean boys were underperforming years ago was that the teachers had low expectations, and when that was tackled there was improvement. I realise that there are other people of colour, but I’m using Caribbeans as an example, because it’s my community and the community that I am most familiar with.

You're cherrypicking and misrepresenting what I've said.

I'm specifically referencing the Troubles which was and is NOT an anti-imperialist/colonialism conflict at all. The very fact it has been mentioned in this thread shows those who've done this do not understand the origins or what it's based on.

The origin goes back to 1880s when Nationalism and Unionism first emerged. It was comparative with the rise of nationalism across Europe. By the 1920s, the question was on self-determination which again was comparative with the European experience.

But the Troubles itself wasn't a case of colonisers v anti-colonisers by any means. It IS very inappropriate to shoehorn it into a thread about colonialism and slavery.

The history that IS more relevant to colonialism and slavery is early Irish attempts to conquer other lands and colonise them. The most successful of these was obviously Scotland whose name means "Land of the Irish". Before the arrival of the Irish, it was populated by the Picts with a Pictish language and known as Pictland.

St Patrick is the most famous person taken by the Irish as a slave today. There were others.

A rather more inconvenient fact and relevant to the thread is the role of the Irish in the British Empire. Along with the Scots, the Irish spread the Empire further than the English managed to. These two groups were famed for their fighting skills and made up a bigger proportion of the British Army since 1600s or so than other parts of the UK did.

It was an Irishman from Down who burnt down the White House too.

But the Troubles history itself was not part of this. Especially since history is not one long unbroken chain of causation. History ebbs and flows. One historical event doesn't necessarily impact on another.

Attached is Professor Walker explaining most of the above. He noted the same with Unionism, but I can't find my screenshot of this just now.

The difference with the example of South Africa given is there was majority consensus there since that society was hugely imbalanced. Northern Ireland is very significantly different from it as we never had majority to that degree and our peace pacification process is very different to theirs as a result.

South Africa was an example of colonialism. Northern Ireland was not.

DP is a Dane, he didn’t even know Denmark was involved in the slave trade and now this is literally his favourite fact. 😂

Not my personal sensitivities, but Northern Ireland's own. The latest issue is political Interference in PSNI by Provisional Sinn Fein. The propaganda of the peace pushed by both governments is slowly unravelling as we speak.

Brexit isn't doing that except as people outside NI believed it had been resolved due to the propaganda of the peace itself.

The Troubles isn't an example of colonialism based conflict by any means and doesn't belong in this area of discussion at all. That's the reality. It belongs in discussions of nationalisms and 20th century self-determination politics instead.

There's a reason why Irish Studies has been a thing I universities since 1998. Professor Liam Kennedy has an interesting graph concerning this area.

For the foreseeable, NI Troubles history will remain University level study. Far too complicated to be taught in schools by teachers. University lecturers are better equipped for that job.

Meantime, I recommend Professor Brian Walker's book as a good place to start. He's very even-handed.

Your point was about why you felt Irish history can't be taught. My point was about the way South Africa was approached in the UK curriculum. It wasn't about whether South Africa was an example of colonialism or not.
I think you'd really benefit from starting your own thread because the discussion you're trying to have isn't the one that was taking place here and it's going to end up derailing this thread. I'm not going to reply to you again because I don't want to derail this discussion. But if you link to your new thread, I will join you there.

Also consider that we also brought a lot of innovation, culture, and advancement to these places. It can't have been all bad, else they would have all left when they had the chance.

Whao, just whao. Your ignorance is appalling, but that has always been the way with racists and chauvinists.

You haven't heard about the high cultural acheivements of other countries because you are incurious, not because they didn't happen.

Timbuktu has been home to one of the largest libraries in the world for well over a thousand years. The astronomy of the Mayans and Aztecs was way more advanced than it was in Europe when these cultures met. Etc. etc.

No, my point was that Northern Ireland Troubles shouldn't be taught in schools. Especially NOT in the context of colonialism.

Irish history, on the other hand, is very, very broad! I didn't advocate that various parts of that history shouldn't be taught as I'm sure you'll realise when you read back. Indeed, other aspects of this history fits this thread, e.g. Niall of the Nine, Irish colonialisation of Scotland, etc.

The UK approached South Africa differently because there was majority consensus there. And it fits in this thread's topic of colonialism and slavery.

The uncomfortable truth though is that a lot of nations welcomed being taken over (not just by the British) because it made social and financial sense to do so.

The reason the British (and to some degree Dutch) Empire was so successful in its growth was because it didn't stick to one type of colonisation, it adapted to each country it went to. Some were taken by force, others through diplomacy, some through trade. Portuguese colonised by settling and integrating/intermarrying with the locals. Spanish went in and decimated populations through disease and warfare.

I agree. I'm disengaging from them too because I'm really enjoying this thread. I feel they're showboating and derailing rather than engaging in meaningful discussion