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.

A lot of the Scottish aristocracy also played a part in slavery

But you can also argue industrialisation benefited everyone globally. The technology, once invented, was exported pretty quickly and that's without the huge improvement in workers rights, living conditions, water quality, sanitation, health care etc.

"Cheap" (slave) labour facilitates change. Look at any of the big empires and what underpins them all? Cheap/slave labour. The exploitation of defeated enemies, the trading of children, and the othering of people not of their kind.

It is why we still see it happening now with the developing nations or at its worst in China. Slavery is evil but it will never stop while small dick energy runs the world.

You have only to look at Blake or any of the radicals at the time to conclude the IR was pretty terrible for the working classes. Enclosure acts drove them off land into cities, children and adults were forced into cities, living in slums, working in factories with no working rights and blamed for poverty as a moral failing. If things improved you'd have to consider the fight of the working classes in unions, in protests such as the Peterloo Massacre, and the huge effort after WWII to equalise society. Yes the IR produced the middle classes, but there were many who existed beneath that.

Exactly.

You have two sides: one of significant, and disgusting levels of oppression and exploitation. The other of invention, creativity, and social reform.

The two go hand in hand and need teaching simultaneously.

Yes so our modern day society also benefited from their exploitation

I don't follow your point?

Of course it affected people globally, it created a foreign market for the goods which were produced and shifted favour to the goods producing countries, making Britain even more economically powerful - on the flip side, it created a disparity of wealth between ourselves and the goods consuming countries.

I was giving an example how the common man benefit from the slave trade, whether or not industrialisation affected everyone globally it is at least partially a result of the slave trade that it even happened.

Hobbi
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.

Relentless?* *😀He he!

The OP includes the phrase 'part of everyone's culture'. Therefore it's not whataboutery to suggest OP takes a comprehensive, broadly historical and international view. They didn't say 'part of UK culture' - or are you suggesting that's what is implied? If that's the case, no wonder there's misunderstanding.

What puzzles me is that when I was at school in the 70s we were taught the evils of slavery (both at my private prep school and later at state secondary). I well remember having a lesson on the famous plan of a slave ship, showing the people crammed in. We learned all about the triangular trade, the way the trade winds facilitated it, the sugar, tea and later, cotton etc. and links to the Industrial Revolution. Also, the Manchester Cotton Famine and the way the workers supported the American slaves' cause. Plus, of course, the abolitionist movement.

I just don't get why anyone has suddenly been taken by surprise by this. It's not something that's been covered up - it was very much on the educational agenda in my day. Has it dropped off in recent years? It's the pretence that it's been covered up in some way that I find completely crazy. No, it hasn't - what point are people trying to make here? Nothing I've recently read on the subject has been new to me, yet there's a strong implication that somehow 'now it can be told'. Is it something that's happened since the National Curriculum was introduced? Feel free to enlighten me.

@CoffeeCantata I don't think we covered it at school in the 80s. I only got to study in depth in Higher Ed! Would be good to hear from more recent students if it's covered in schools/colleges. And is it the sort of contextualised, rounded coverage you studied, or is it just a bit on Will Wilberforce?

@CoffeeCantata

I wouldn't dream of attempting to enlighten you, your 40 year memory of learning about the slave trade at prep school is obviously the gold standard in understanding how historical events are relevant to contemporary issues. As for what you're missing, the OP is making the important point that British life has been drastically shaped around the impact of the slave trade and that teaching about it could possibly include an acknowledgment of that, rather than just as information about an historical event. And yes, the whataboutery has been relentless, as it always is. I suppose 'all lives matter' as well. The OP has stressed it's not about blame or guilt, yet folk on here still act like they're simultaneously guilty while also falsely accused.

user9630721458 · Today 11:46

No, not just Wilberforce, although we did cover him - and the support he got from people such as Wedgwood (Am I a not a Man and a Brother?) etc.

At primary level and at my grammar school in the 70s we did a lot about slavery and were left in no doubt of its evils (I'm talking the T-A slave trade here). Also its links to British industrialism and, as I said, the Cotton Famine in ....I think the 1860s? In those far-off days, TV was not dumbed down and there were plenty of documentaries about slavery too. I don't think it was on the exam syllabuses but in what is now called KS1, 2 and 3 we certainly learned about it.

Also, at university doing Eng Lit, it was discussed in relation to Jane Austen (Mansfield Park and Sir Thomas Bertram's Jamaican estates) and Austen's portrayal of him as morally dubious (his slave ownership being a hint of this).

I just object to the suggestion that it's been somehow covered up and that any of it should be a surprise to us. I'm old, but what on earth have educationalists been doing if all this really is news to subsequent generations? I've discussed it with my contemporaries and they also were taught about it in school.

We older people might feel a bit patronised and don't feel we need to 'educate outselves' thank you! Honestly, don't judge us all by modern dumbed-down educational and broadcasting standards.

Hobbi · Today 11:55

I refer you to my reply to user above, and rest my case.

But Hobbi - I don't know your age, but you come over as very patronising and arrogant.

@CoffeeCantata Yes, I get the impression that it isn't taught in so much depth in schools now. It would be well covered in English Lit and History at HE level I expect. I may be wrong. I think education needs to look at a less Britain centric view, including learning about figures like Olaudah Equiano and resistance like the Haiti revolution,

Thank you very much; it's great when knowing something in an academic field defines you as arrogant. Sums up modern England and its contempt for experts. I suspect we're of similar age. You brought up Sumerians and Mesopotamia - that's arrant whataboutery. You continue to define the transatlantic slave trade as an isolated historical phenomenon. You don't seem to want to confront its importance to contemporary British life. I don't believe you are an uneducated person so can only assume you have your own reasons for wilfully ignoring the arguments presented and constructing cliched straw men as an alternative. Seems a shame as no one is calling for guilt or blame but whatever...

I think we have crossed wires. The whole point of having a more inclusive is history curriculum is for the purpose of anti-racism. I am happy to unashamedly shout this off the rooftops.

The entire argument that teaching should be apolitical is ridiculous tbh. There has never been a time that education has not been ideologically motivated. For example democracy is a value British education is formally required to impart. This is just arguing that education should be allowed to continuously exclude poc to maintain a feeling of white superiority.

We agree partially with regards to white guilt. I mentioned it previously and it truly angers me. It shouldn’t be indulged because it doesn’t affect life outcomes. Imagine if I said we shouldn’t teach about working class reform because it might make rich people feel bad.

White guilt is tedious, self indulgent and useless. It stands in the way of progress, derails all conversations and is damaging to poc because it centres white people in the same way everything else does. It’s so self centred the amount of people who look at how disparities affect poc people and still walk away thinking that their feelings are what drives calls for change.

Empathy and an appreciation for the contributions of all races is the goal. Not shame, not guilt. While learning slavery you end up coming across hurtful material about black people so it’s equally uncomfortable for everyone. Uncomfortable but necessary. It’s also not all doom and gloom. There are some really positive moments between races that also don’t get taught.

I don’t feel that it’s my responsibility to try and combat white guilt and I honestly don’t think it’s something that POC can achieve. I’ve found white people in general will receive information like this better from other white people. We can agree that they’re not responsible for things they did not do. We can make it clear that there are many positive contributions that Britain has given to the World. We can support the English football team right beside them. It will not make a blind bit of difference.

I managed to be taught about slavery and not dislike white people, so I’m confident that white children can be taught about it without feeling unnecessary self loathing. Similarly, I managed to be taught about working-class reform which has little to do with my people and walked away with empathy for the British working class. Asking white children to do the same is not asking much. It’s not like slavery alone would take up more than 6 lessons. We are talking about changing/ adapting only about 25% of the curriculum to be more inclusive. Any curriculum will still be heavily focused on the white British.

@MCOut

👏🏻

My understanding is that this has never been the norm. Lots of my generation haven’t learned it at all as teaching about slavery was at the school’s discretion. I’m not even sure there’s ever been an optional module on India come to think of it.

My initial post defined “everyone” as “everyone in Britain”, so, no, not the everyone everywhere across all time interpretation you have suggested. It also referred to specifically transatlantic slavery and the British Empire.

You wrote “I just don't get why anyone has suddenly been taken by surprise by this.”

My response:

Educational coverage (and more importantly what people actually remember today) across the past few decades has been patchy. Some know a lot less than others.

In the past decade we have developed a greater understanding that slavery and imperialism weren’t just things that happened overseas and only involved a small number of elite slave/ship owners and abolitionists. We now understand slave owners were more diverse and numerous, plus we know more about connections to institutions.

Before, there was a sense that the story of slavery and its effect on Black people ended with abolition. Today, we have a better understanding that the prejudices nurtured by slavery and empire continue to create injustice today.

The population of Britain has become more diverse. Empire and slavery are directly resonant for more people.

We live in a more globalised world where Britain’s global history has become, rightly more resonant.

All this sadly, has all been interpreted by some conservative minded people as some woke/BLM activist/lefties/minority/American types are deliberately kicking off about what we all already know in order to manipulate us to accept their unreasonable demands.

One argument made several times on this thread has been been “but what about telling the history of oppressed white people”. There are collectively thousands of books; industrial and living museums; exhibitions; films; plays; dramas; documentaries and so on dealing with this topic. Some people “feel” slavery and empire related history, that has been produced recently, is dominating (or in danger of doing so) over their preferred narratives. This however, is because the brain is primed to notice what’s new and different. It’s not a reflection of reality as a visit to any local museum will illustrate.

I left school in 2010 and definitely learnt about slavery. I didn't do history GCSE so it would have been y7-9. I remember learning about it in quite a nuanced way as clearly an absolutely appalling thing and one that a lot of people worked very hard to combat including both Harriet Tubman and William Wilberforce. I think we also touched on the Irish famine in the context of Cromwell and am pretty sure India was discussed at some points although that may have been due to the school being predominantly Asian. I definitely learnt about castes somewhere.

The thing that drives my nervousness around the current way things are presented is that it seems really divisive. We've seen this happen before - I've seen the argument that racism as it stands today was pushed to prevent the indentured servants and slaves teaming up against the people oppressing then both. What I'm seeing currently seems to present all black people as victims and all white people as aggressors which ignores intersectionality and context. The nuances matter.

From my education I'd say the best thing we can teach children is how to understand how nations operate and how to see where they're being manipulated. By all means touch on all sorts of topics and pick a few key ones to explore in greater depth to properly understand the patterns so they can apply them to other situations. It's not like world leaders are inventing wholly new methods, they're just applying old ones differently.

My dad was born in 1922. So no, not eight generations. One.

Did you learn about the colonies and what happened there? It seems a large part of history does not exist in British curriculum.

History should definitely teach an unbiased view of each side, as it were. I'm shocked that I myself , as someone who did history at both GCSE and A Level and to this day still enjoy reading historical books, was taught so little about the history of Ireland, and my ignorance drilling this subject is pretty bad. For so long I assumed the Potato famine was just about bugs eating the crops, I had no idea that the British has basically refused the Irish access to food they could have as part of their control.

And to think that only a few decades ago, Irish people had difficulties renting accomodation. Paddy jokes are still widely considered acceptable, though thankfully less so.

@Callmesleepy

There was famine and plague in Ireland while Cromwell engaged in his genocide but 'the famine' was much later. He did, however, portray the Irish as lazy, brutal and subhuman and therefore deserving of their treatment. Word for word and image for image, this was replicated to justify the transatlantic slave trade. Much of what we now describe as racist language and tropes originated in Cromwell's tactics in Ireland. This is another reason that this particular slave trade is of particular importance to our culture, despite apologists claiming it's equivalent to Ancient Rome or Carthage or some such nonsense.

Careful, won't be long before someone will respond to you insisting that the Irish be grateful for the British and all that they did for their country.

@nonheme yes but, again, very multicultural school in London so I'm not sure it was standard. We did some of the good bits of colonialism as well but it was predominantly presented as negative which I think is fair. I'm still not totally clear on the power interface between the government and the east India company despite doing my own research as much of the information available has a serious spin on it.

@Hobbi yes it was an addendum to the first famine. Again, some nuance on the good of Cromwell's new model army and his impact on the class system vs how he acted in Ireland. I think the famine should be prioritised now as it's the same mass movement of people due to manmade situations we'll see with climate change.

I keep coming back to the importance of being able to challenge what we're told and knowing how to research ourselves as crucial rather than necessarily depth on specific topics. We need history to inform how we act today.

They will just have to eat then!