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.

@Newusername1273

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.

I don't want to harp on this, but the English - and they considered themselves English (English was referred to as 'the Mother country as late as 1965 or so) - in Australia were terrible. If not killed outright, the administration allowed landholders to keep them as slaves. They simply moved into the country, divided areas up, allotted pieces to landed gentry from England and allowed them do whatever they pleased from then on. There were no consequences for the murder, assault, or rape of indigenous people, as in the eyes of the Administration, they weren't people. I've read a newspaper article of the time where they are referred to as 'fauna'.

Please look at the extent of English reach on Australia here.
c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php

I wouldn't be here without this occurring, as I'm descended from First Fleet and Second Fleet convicts. However, I'm deeply saddened by my country's past and find it difficult to celebrate. So, yes, England may have become powerful from acts like this, but just because they are allegedly worse offenders doesn't let them off the hook.

Ok so we can distill your points down to overall Black people are simply incompetent & lazy and white people are just superior. No different from the ideas perpetuated in slavery. This is why teaching inclusive British history is important. These racist views are pervasive and enduring but hopefully generations to come will have empathy and more balanced views so they make fairer decisions.

Your first point is irrelevant because individual characteristics are controlled to control job, level and qualifications. This phenomenon is seen at all levels and typically large organisations who conduct ethnicity pay gap reviews have pay bands but do not negotiate salaries at graduate levels. Most of these organisations are upfront about having a problem.

Regarding maternal deaths, if this were the case you would expect more proportionate levels. More like 1.6, not 4 times more likely. Again, the NHS is upfront about having a problem.

Recently you’ve been posting threads about the black community to encourage abuse in the guise of debate. Just pointing this out so other poc can decide whether to engage. Had I noticed prior I would have written you off as it’s less a case of apathy or an unconsidered viewpoint and more active conscious anti blackness.

You come from a place in which I highly doubt you've spent any meaningful time with black people. I’m assuming from your initial post you’ve received little if any formal education with regards to black people, you have no lived experience as a black person. Yet are happy to make unqualified statements on a public forum to influence people who will make decisions which affect poc.

You have no idea about the number of people who admire Stalin and his labour camp driven economy on the ex-Soviet space. He is regularly voted in as top 5 most loved Russians of all times.

it has been always been “other” targeted though: “barbarians” in the Roman world; people in other tribes; internal “others” such as criminals. Race was another manifestation of this dynamic.

Also, the Portuguese were active in the trade long before the Dutch.

I’m still trying to to unpack your concern around not acknowledging slavery wasn’t always racially targeted, and why this information has been “wilfully excluded” leading to “propaganda”. Are you suggesting people who don’t acknowledge this are attempting to allow Black people to “over-claim” victimhood? Or, is it the opposite; you wish Black people to feel “better” through showing they weren’t exclusively targeted?

I’m interested what you see is at stake concerning the provision, or not, of this information.

@MCOut

Aren't you illustrating the point that you can't separate the teaching of slavery from race? It seems the motivation of teaching about slavery is not purely for academic awareness but to support an anti-racism agenda. I certainly do not agree with racism but should we not at least be honest behind the motivation behind increased teaching of this subject?

I think what a lot of players are suggesting is that slavery is contextualized with the lo we of the white working class poor at these times (which was grim) and therefore the historical sufferings of one race do not utterly surmount those of the other.

I think the thing to be avoided in the teaching of such subjects that there should be any sense of shame in being of any race and we should not feel shame about our country.

There are racial discrepancies in a number of areas within the country and they do need addressing. I actually think it doesn't help the anti-racism cause to highlight historical wrongs to a huge extent as that leads to resentment amongst than white working class who feel their culture and history is being displaced (rightly or wrongly).

An over focus on one side of a racial divide I think leads to a sense of grievance on the other.

I actually think there is an argument to suggest the major dividing line in British society is that of class and there should be unity in combating an overall system that rewards elites.

I'm not saying it's being done to deliberately create propaganda (at least, not by most people who do it) - it's simply a byproduct of the wilful ignorance that starts it.

What's at stake? Facts and knowledge, as opposed to distortion of facts to suit an agenda. Every time it's repeated, the human race gets a little bit dumber on average...which I thought was also the point of you posting this thread (I may have misunderstood, it happens often 'cos I'm not that great at reading between the lines).

Posters

I can distinctly remember studying slavery at both junior school and high school. In junior school we went on a trip to the William Wilberforce museum. I’m 40. Other people must have two as it was a state schools so will have been part of the syllabus.

@renovationheavenandhell

That's interesting. I think one of the points of some on this thread is that we reduce to the praise of those that achieved abolition as slavery shouldn't have existed in the first place. I think the OP was suggesting the teaching of slavery should be a focus on the victims of slavery not necessarily the white saviour that stopped it.

I agree William Wilberforce is worthy of a museum but I wonder what the OPs stance on this is?

I’m not sure you’re being completely transparent.

What specific perceived “agenda” do you have an issue with? That learning about the history of slavery also helps us understand the causes of of racial segregation injustice today and might help diminish racism? Why would you have an issue with that?

I think abolition is an essential part of the story, obviously. But, in the past it’s been focussed on too overtly and the history of both slave owners, and victims have been underplayed.

Regarding the latter group, by way of comparison, if I went to a Holocaust museum I would find it odd if it focussed on those who liberated the camps vs the victims.

So, you’re essentially saying any inequalities experienced by Black people are solely down to them - their supposed poor diet, lack of ability to negotiate a salary etc. - and not the result of institutional or individual racism?

Overwhelming evidence suggests this isn’t so. You can easily find it if you wish to educate yourself.

This post is an illustration of why we need a better understanding of the ongoing legacies of colonialism and slavery.

@GodessOfThunder

I think it's an interesting and complex conparison.

The perpetrators of the holocaust were quite rightly prosecuted and the horrific regime which spawned them defeated. The names of the leaders of Nazi Germany will forever be remembered with horror and disgust.

The problem is mo 're complex with slavery in that many who were slave owners and possibly actively promoted slavery are apologised at least in the US. George Washington was a slave owners and did nothing to abolish slavery after the foundation of th US yet his ensuring legacy lies at the heart of the U.S. (quite literally). The U.S. Is littered with memoria to those that benefited from slavery or at least did nothing from positions of power to stop it.

Therefore the teaching of slavery can be a a challenge as it is difficult to know how to portray the leaders and dignitaries of slaving nations ; are they heroes or villains?

Eulogies not apologised

Oh and enduring not ensuring

Empire and slavery are important historical phenomena in their own right. It’s impossible to understand the Britain and the world around us today without understanding them. And, as Britain gets more diverse, and the world more globalised, this is increasingly the case.

Teaching them can also aid understanding that can help diminish racism, and what’s wrong with that?

All historical topics (indeed topics of all knowledge), by design or otherwise, serve an agenda somewhere. It’s just that these links go unacknowledged. The Tudors haven’t been on curricula for aeons because Henry and his wives are a good tale, but because teaching the split with Rome suited an anti-Catholic, anti-French, pro-Anglican agenda.

The difference between the transatlantic slave trade and other historical slavery is the precise reason that OP is correct and the whataboutery merchants are mistaken (wilfully?) about the false equivalence they're peddling. Every aspect of our modern economy, and much of our social, political and power structures have their origin in this trade. 18th and 19th century folk were enlightened enough to recognise to be uneasy about treating humans as animals so dehumanising propaganda was rife. Religious, pseudo-biological and, of course, economic reasons were pushed in order to justify the practices. These were copied directly from Cromwell's propaganda campaigns which dehumanised the Irish in the 17th century - a reason for the whataboutery clan to realise that the issues are connected, and uniquely connected to British history. The same dehumanisation is observed in contemporary discourse about immigration and about the underclass of any colour. All of this can be taught without provoking guilt amongst the comfortable white demographic, unless of course they benefit from rehashing the othering tactics themselves.

I don’t think the notion of “heroes” or “villains” should figure in any teaching of history. It’s not about judging. People being taught may internalise in that way, but that can’t be helped.

We're four pages in and certain posters are still pretending it isn't taught. It has been part of the UK curriculum for over 40 years.
Is the confusion that the US doesn't teach and acknowledge it appropriately? Or is it because as an early poster said some people don't 'feel' as though its taught so their feelings trump the facts?
In which case it's back to the question of how people's understanding and knowledge should be manifested to appease or acknowledge those who 'feel' overlooked. I asked that question pages back.
But it isn't whataboutery to say there are parts of British history that are deliberately overlooked and haven't ever been in the curriculum because tbh England still benefits every day and does not want to reckon with that part of its past and present (Scotland, Ireland, India, GRT - are just a few).

No confusion here.

Not every child studies slavery at GCSE or A level.

Earlier exposure is fairly lightweight (at least in my direct experience as a pupil and a parent).

It’s not true that every adult under 40 was taught about slavery at school in substantive way.

There are very many adults who lack knowledge as evidenced on this thread, and hold prejudiced views as a consequence.

Empire (the thread isn’t just about slavery) is less taught, yet it’s impossible to understand the multicultural globally connected Britain of today without knowing something of its history.

Yes, OP, but only if ALL known slavery is included, and not just that connected with the British trans-Atlantic slave trade.

You'd need to state that all advanced civilisations from the early Near-Eastern cultures (Sumerians, Mespotamians) to the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans to name but a few, depended on slaves.

We have less information about other areas, but we know for sure that the North African states (Barbary) used and traded in slaves and that Sub-Saharan African peoples had slaves themselves and also facilitated the Trans-Atlantic trade.

As long as it's put in context, and not made out that the British were some kind of evil freaks of history, then fine.

And I agree that people need to focus on modern slavery - all those using recreational drugs, for example, are participating in slavery, but (as with the tea an sugar consumers of 18th century England) are they prepared to face up to it?

What do you worry will happen if all this context isn’t provided?

Please read the OP. The transatlantic slave trade has a continuous connection to and influence on modern British life and culture. Your relentless whataboutery is akin to insisting we teach that the 15th century Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina is equally relevant as WWII to British children.

It was taught in textbooks at one point in Y8 history that the Middle Eastern slave masters were somehow good as the slaves could buy their freedom and were taken in wars but only the Europeans were bad

Really balanced view

The less nobly born people might not have benefitted from slavery immediately, but the huge amounts of money that slavery added to the economy will have given the capital necessary to fund research into medicine and STEM fields which eventually would result in breakthroughts that the "common man" would use in every day life, maybe not immediately, but perhaps 5, 10, 20, years later.

The industrial revolution was in part facilitated by money from the slave trade and the ability for products to be mass produced and produced cheaply, meaning EVERYONE could afford them

Mass production lowered the costs of much needed tools, clothes and other household items for the common (That is, nonaristocratic) people, which allowed them to save money for other things and to build personal wealth.