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.

No, it doesn't make it alright - but it's a hugely important event, and to properly understand it is to underline the documented (and largely untaught and undiscussed) fact that from the dawn of civilisation, slavery was the norm the world over regardless of race or nationality. That's the entire point, and being infuriated is to miss it by a country mile.

OK. I would also place more emphasis on modern history, but not exclusively so.

What elements of modern history would you focus on?

@Newusername1273 I am rather tired and maybe not thinking straight. But I feel that only some of my history is British history, and that a large part of my history actually concerns another country. Yes, it was a colony of Britain for some time, and there the two stories overlap, but it does actually have a long and rich story of its own. Forgive me if I am not making sense, I shall have to go to bed soon. I hope you understand something of my point.

It’s not necessary.

If you were teaching WW2 would you explain that war has been a norm across peoples around the globe for millennia?

Are you suggesting this because you are concerned people may think British involvement in slavery was unique and fear the consequences of this?

You are making perfect sense. My comment is referring to the fact you are (presumably) British so automatically your story is British history. Something brought your family members to these shores, that's British history, global history and history of their home nation. It's all those things.

We used to do an exercise at school when I was a child where we explored our family tree and our roots. Do kids still do that? It got us having all sorts of conversations with family members. Do schools still do that?

As I mentioned above a course entitled something like “The Making of Modern Britain”. Basically Britain from around 1800 to today. Encompassing topics (just off the top of my head - others may have different ideas obvs) such as: Slavery and Empire, Industrial Revolution and Cities, War, Suffrage and Rights, Social change and the state (eg welfare state), Changing economic systems and the ideas behind them.

@Newusername1273 I am liking the idea of a global history, where we explore our connections, relationships and transitions. Sometimes painful, but more holistic than current methodology. I am going to sleep now!

No, I'm saying it because the modern discussion of slavery gives the false impression that it's always exclusively been racially-targeted, which it wasn't for the vast majority of history - for the most part, it was a consequence of losing a war. In fact, even the transatlantic slave trade began that way - because it began through Dutch traders buying existing slaves from African royalty, who acquired them through winning wars.

It also evaluates it in the context of modern moral values, which is to ignore the entire history of civilisation.

The history of war is, and always has been, understood to be a part of human civilisation - and WW2 is studied in that context. Slavery, on the other hand, isn't.

My overall point, though, is that wilfully excluding relevant facts and context from the discussion is how you make propaganda, not study.

@BigFatLiar

Children in primary school do rudimentary history related topics (the Egyptians, WWII evacuee here).

There is no way that: The industrial revolution, Union of Parliaments, so many reforms, Jackobites, changes in the crown, civil war, tudors, middle ages, saxons & Normans, Romans, pre history.

Plus modern history can be taught in the two years before GCSE. I would suggest that modern history is more relevant and interesting. Knowledge of the Jacobite rebellion really isn't essential

Knowledge of the Jacobite rebellion really isn't essential

Many would disagree, especially those who want to separate from the United Kingdom again.

I actually think you make a good point.

It is relateable for those with limited interest in history to be taught about eg WW2 and how it shapes our relationship with other Countries. The same with the Industrial Revolution and how it brought about the modern conveniences we now take for granted.

If they then go on to take history as a chosen subject, researching and learning about further back could take place then. As others have said though, it is important not to politicise the subject.

I agree with you.

I'd also like to see more about the Irish genocide.

I'm English but come from people who managed to escape (only by coming to live in terrible slums working in horrific conditions).

Mumsnet is where I first learned about it. While I'd heard of the famine the role of the English had been completely glossed over.

I have complex PTSD and it helped to see how the trauma from that genocide - seeing so many people die from starvation has had a literal knock on impact through every generation down to me.

I don't think it's whataboutery to say this... it more "Yes, and..."

Generational trauma. I definitely think there's something behind that concept. But it's depressing.

I don't think it's whataboutery to say this... it more "Yes, and..."

It's not whataboutery it's simply a matter of recognising that there's only so much time in schools and unless pupils are focusing on history then we need to give a well rounded introduction.

I think that's interesting @Lantyslee, I'll try to find the Roman thread.

I imagine it depends on a few different factors, not least whether 'what came after' turned out to be better or worse.

I was in Sri Lanka earlier in the year who've had a terrible time with corruption, massive (95%!) inflation on food meaning some people are now struggling to survive, very little money making its way to the ordinary person's standard of living.

I overheard many conversations of older Sri Lankans saying that it was better under British rule (which wasn't what I was expecting).

I understand that it is difficult to cover all the important topics in history. Is there even an option to choose a module on colonialism in GCSE or A level history ?

Just checked AQA syllabus and there is a paper on empire, would be interesting to know how many school actually teaches this.

"But the point is, people don’t understand the effects of slavery and colonialism (I’m not just talking about slavery) on Britons in Britain. Ergo they are very much part of British history. "

TBH I completely agree with your points OP.

I assumed (as an English person) that most English people DO understand this.

I've been quite surprised by a lot of the comments on this thread that show that people actually don't understand this.

It wasn't "just a few rich people with a few slaves". None of my ancestors benefitted directly as they were Irish and living in poverty but any British person alive today benefits from the legacy of slavery and the Empire.

In fact, any person, of any heritage or ethnicity living in the UK today benefits from its legacy.

We effectively plundered the riches of half the world and brought it back here - this funded the technology explosion of the Industrial Revolution as well as a large part of the increase of the UK banking and insurance sector.

Yes, we have been great industrialists and inventors but that all needed capital. And that capital came on the backs of slaves, colonialism and the working poor.

This is what allows us to be the 5th biggest economy today from a small island. It's what allows us to speak English in almost every country we visit.

@JuvenileEmu I'm interested to know what you've typed your comment on that didn't involve the same?

Sorry I posted when still reading earlier parts of the thread which talked about visibility in a wider sense than the school curriculum.

Has everyone seen the news about the portrait of David Harewood being hung in Harewood house?
his 4th great grandparents were slaves on the plantation owned by the 2nd earl of Harewood and therefore were forced to take his name. Upon visiting the stately home he became very emotional to realise that there wasn’t a single picture of a black person there, despite the family’s ENTIRE wealth coming from the enslaved people working their plantations. The current Earl of Harewood is one of the signatories on the petition for reparations from those who benefited from the slave trade (which Britain industrialised in a way never before seen)

this is the essence of why we need to centre the slave trade, the wealth that this country holds today was in a massive part taken from the forced labour of enslaved people and the resources stolen from colonised nations. We have all benefited from that, in some way, just by the luck of the draw of being born here in Britain.

I so disagree. As you say that aristocratic family benefitted, but how did other less nobly born people benefit.

I personally still have problems reading Jane Austen because the young men at the gambling tables, for example, were often gambling with the money from their estates in Ireland and/or their plantations in Jamaica.

But the English working class were not exactly living the high life

Again, history is important and I think a general awareness of a broad scope of our past is importnant.

But......it can't be denied that there is a the potential for a focus on slavery to be used as a tool in contemporary racial politics and as schools should be apolitical there is a need to consider this.

I do think that at least in America slavery awareness is being used to underpin arguments for affirmative action and a general sense that people of colour are 'oppressed' and are victims of the legacy of historical crimes. I do not think this narrative is helpful as it can lead to simplistic narratives of 'white European = bad' and 'ethnic minority = good '.

If we take the U S then it has to be accepted that a lot of the founding fathers of the state were either slave owners or at least pro salary yet George Washington is forever going to be eulogised in their currency and memorials. If we start to denigrate slave owners as whole we start to denigrate those that found the modern IUS and Americans are certainly averse to any navel gazing criticism of their existence as a country.

The civil war in th US was a huge event and there are still scars even now. There is resentment in the US from the South and it is politically damaging to portray the South as somehow the 'level power's given the number dead in that conflict. Restoration of the US was reliant on a great deal of diplomacy and respect of states on either side of the divide and this understanding is compromised if we over focus on slavery and portray the civil war as simply about evil slave owners being defeated (it was a lot more complicated).

Evil in an above sentence.