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.

Just to clarify I don’t mean “everyone” in strictly a genealogical sense. Anyone living in Britain becomes part of British society, and slavery and colonialism are important aspects of that society’s history.

Indeed - without colonialism it’s unlikely Britain would be such a diverse society

It's important to teach about it but there are other aspects of history that also need teaching and all of them are only going to get limited time in schools. It's a matter of priorities, drop the English civil war or world war 1 and 2 to give more time to slavery discussions. We help out at a museum and its sad to see so many young people who have little idea of what the second world war was or any of the conflict that came after. History teaching seems in some ways to be a popularity contest with people pushing their own interests and excluding so much.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_protectorate

British Protectorates are an example of where diplomacy rather than warfare brought nation's on board. We offered protection (which given the state of the world and small nations never knowing if they would be speaking French, Portuguese, Spanish or Dutch from one week to the next was no small incentive). They gave us strategic points in the ocean from which we could base out navy, handy for a seafaring nation always at war in the oceans. But there were downsides to this system too - they ran their course and we outstayed our welcome in many cases.

There was a UN conference in the 60s that made all empire nations hand back their colonies. We'd already granted many of ours independence and gave it to many more after this conference. Other nations weren't so keen to hand theirs back.

I think it's why I get annoyed why in popular culture Britain is called the big bad guy of colonialism - we weren't exactly the good guys but there were far worse options than the British, and this is how we became a global superpower.

If you are going to teach this topic you can't teach it just focusing on Britain. You need the geopolitical situation, you need the build up, you need to analyse maps and military history and trade routes and diplomacy and so much more.

Kids now are the first generation without a direct link to WW1 and 2 though. It's not relevant to them like it was to us where we quizzed grandparents about what they did in the war. It's another generation or 2 on from that now.

I don't know the answer to this, does any one think that Britain is seen as a big bad guy of colonialism because a lot of current problems in different parts of the world could be traced to some of the dubious decisions made by Britain?

Partition of India / Pakistan
Sykes Picot line
Balfour declaration

I am sure people from these regions may have reasons to be more than annoyed.

If you focused on 20th century history, you could cover loads of this. You could do the two world wars, Windrush, the Troubles, and cover colonialism, slavery, Kenyan Asians and other migratory patterns on the way.

How did we get to the multicultural Britain we are lucky to have today would be a good starting point.

I think you paint a rather overly rosy picture of protectorates. Many of these arrangements were the result of gunboat diplomacy, or the spoils of treaties, with the local population having limitations on their autonomy.

I don’t think whether the empire was “good” or “bad” or not, or how how “bad” it was compared to other empires, should be a focus. Credible historians don’t concern themselves with this. What is more important is understanding what happened, how and why and what its legacy is today.

I don't disagree with you at all.

@GodessOfThunder Not to be pedantic, but I would rather it was called Britain's history, which recognises not all British people are British ethnicity only.

What is British ethnicity by your definition then? We are a proudly multicultural nation.

Agree. Something like “The Making of Modern Britain”. I’d also stick a topic in there about economic and social change - from pre-war to the welfare state/social democracy to neoliberalism.

How did we get to the multicultural Britain we are lucky to have today would be a good starting point.

we are an island nation that was invaded many times before 1066. Combine that with our naval and history of trade where would you even begin on such a vast topic? I love the idea of having a "Making of Modern Britain" class though.

For the purposes of this discussion I conceive ‘British’ as anyone with British Citizenship or residency, or who identifies as such. This encompasses any ethnicity, race etc.

A White Man or Black Man doing the same job get the same pay. The only time there would be a difference is in roles where candidates are sought after eg due to skills etc. This would be down to how that person negotiated their pay.

Regarding health. Levels of obesity, diabetes,& heart disease are all found in higher levels in Black people. Combine this with diet and possibly less exercise taken that will account for increased issues. Bit like us Scots.

Why some Black students don't do well at further education is likely down to the student themself.

You could do a quick canter through vikings, romans etc.

In my experience of teenagers (including me), making history relatable is the key to making it interesting. If you bring it back to modern 20th century Britain, that is going to be every kid in the room who has parents/grandparents born in the 20th century.

Getting grandparents in to talk about their lived experience is amazing if it's possible. The kids love it.

A thread doesn't make a point. It's a discussion of different points of view.

Maybe you hadn't realised, but each different box is a contribution from a different person. Look - your contribution shows up in its own little box, too.

Well OK. But one should be mindful that the history of British people of colour, and of those of mixed descent is going to be different to the history of British people who trace their ancestry back to the Norman conquest, for instance. When talking collectively about the history and actions of the British it's important to differentiate.

Personally I would favour a lot more focus on the history of modern Britain. It’s inclusive and has direct and immediate relevance for understanding today. It is also good for critical thinking; if kids understand much in our culture today wasn’t “inevitable” or “natural”, but constructed, this helps them to recognise their own agency and that things can be changed.

Sure, the Saxons, for instance, are interesting. But they would be rather low on my list of priorities in comparison to more recent history.

On that note, it’s interesting how some conservatives seem to favour the Tudors being on the curriculum. I suspect the tales of separating from a European entity (Catholicism), taking up Protestantism and founding the CofE, stories of memorable monarchs, beating the Spanish and establishing the germs of empire, all appeal to that mindset. It’s also not likely to imbue kids with much of a critique of today.

If you focus on such a short period you miss so much of importance. The industrial revolution, Union of Parliaments, so many reforms, Jackobites, changes in the crown, civil war, tudors, middle ages, saxons & Normans, Romans, pre history. There's just so much in a basic course for schools that you can cover it's fairly certain that some people will think that their pet area has been skipped over. (We both tend to travel around visiting ancient sites as pre historic Briton is fascinating and we'd have more pre history taught. )

Your post infuriates me. It's quite defensive from the get go. British outlawed slavery - so that makes it alright then? Nobody can talk about Slavery because alright then we were instrumental in abolishing it. Elizabeth said she's not sorry as it wasn't illegal. Similar thing!

Why bother even saying a word?

I don’t think anyone has said only focus on that period unless I misunderstood.

Is it?

Surely it's important we understand how we came to be so multicultural and racially tolerant? By doing so won't you capture the views of all different races and nationalities etc?

Assuming your heritage deviates to another nation at some point in your family tree, what brought your family to these shores? What choices were made or what global political issues were going on or what was happening in their home country to make them leave? Why Britain? Your history is British history. By discussing it and having everyone discuss it you'll by default be inclusive of all races.

Well that’s one of the points of placing more emphasis on the history of empire - which was why I started this thread :)

That's exactly what clymene said focus on the 20th century.

You then end up with people who don't realise Macbeth was a real person.