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.

Erm, ok then.

Utter codswallop. Every Country has it's own set of values and should of course teach them

I live in Mexico City and just within the boundaries of the city there are a wide range of values. Maybe if we all shared the same values, we wouldn't affiliate to different religions and different political parties.

By the way, my brother is a native of the uk and a Muslim, is that permitted within your British values?

When did we withdraw from the UDHR?

As it happens I agree the FPTP set up isn't always representative. But for now it is what we have. Personally I'd prefer to see a system which removed the party 'whip' so to speak, to one where each minister voted for what his or her constituents most want or need. Not this system of if one side says black the other automatically shouts white.

Coyoacan
Having different religious or politcal beliefs is entirely different from the National Values of any country.

MCOut
You made derisory comments about impartiality of the British Values taught.
If you read the rest of my reply to that it clearly shows what those British Values are and what is being taught. It directly contradicts your claims of racism and exclusion.

Creating threads that discuss current issues is what the board is all about. As we all know you are talking about the suspected shoplifting incident and subsequent assault by a Black Woman on an Asian shopkeeper who momentarily had his hand on her neck while protecting himself.. Followed by racist demonstrations by some of the local Black community.

Pointing things like that out and disturbing the echo chamber of racism claims, when there is obviously considerably more than was reported initially on mainstream news, is the exact opposite of racism.

I disagree as it happens. I believe slavery should be covered in School, along with Industrial Revolution, Political Changes within the last circa 100 years, Recent Wars including the Great War and WW2 etc.

Providing they are done in a balanced way by people with no agenda that is great for the Country going forward. But the continuing argument and claim that Black people are still being persecuted because of 200 year old events should not be given credence.
A PP suggested Oxbridge scholars prove that is the case, and for every study claiming it, I'm confident you could find a different Historian saying the opposite.

under the banner "the beginnings of civilizations"

i would include the teaching of the beginnings of the slave trade from various continents to the modern day, so everyone has the full or as best as possible so it gives a better context overall,

same for the political history etc

The Industrialization era would be under "the rise and development of science and technology"

My main problem with discussion of racism, and colonialism/slavery is that it always makes it seem like a 'white vs. others' problem. When in fact, it's not.
The definition of racism is prejudice/discrimination... towards minorities, what slavery/colonialism is about, is how badly white British have treated POC.
Of course, you are free to disagree with me, after all I'm a stranger on the internet, but it's f*ing insulting of you to assume that I have never experienced covert/overt whatever racism. I don't know what your background is, but it is BECAUSE I am mixed that I have experienced racism from all sides.
For example, South Asians think that Black people are lazy, benefit dependent etc etc. Because I have Black blood I'm looked down upon.
I can give many more examples, what Black people think about South Asians, what people from Pakistan think about Indians, what Muslims thinks about Hindus. And how they let the others know exactly what they think, through not only words but exclusive actions.
White people are the least of my problems. They are also racist but nothing compared to the abuse and gaslighting I have received from other POC.

Perhaps you may argue that oh, scientific/academic studies show institutional racism, etc etc. But a lot of these activists bang on about 'lived experience'. Are you saying my lived experience is wrong and should be discounted, just because it doesn't align with 'the cause'?

EVERYONE should be fair to EVERYONE else. Racism, and slavery/colonialism the way it's presented is simplistic and pits white people against everyone else. It ignored fractures and infighting in POC itself (a stupid term by the way but also related to the aforementioned problem of whites vs everyone else). It's not politically correct to say that EVERYONE is prejudiced, not just white people, if POC fight it's blamed on colonialism when in fact they have been fighting long before. Hindu rulers were fighting Mughal emperors for example long before the Brits arrived on the scene, but they're conveniently blamed. And, as I said earlier, people sold their own race off to slaves, but again them happily making money is ignored and all blamed on Europeans.

Maybe though, as you said, I am privileged. Privileged that I have received lots of trouble from my own people. Maybe I'm an oddity and a freak. Maybe other POC have a perfectly lovely life with their own kind and their main problem is white people and not everyone else, so that's why all of this makes sense and I should shut up :)

@Hawkins0009

the beginnings of civilizations
Yes to this one. In fact, this leads neatly into 'Empires'.

the rise and development of science and technology
Yes, somewhat, under the banner of industrialisation.

the importance of a one world government
Not history, and straying into conspiracy.

the development of the space race
Yes, but belongs under 'Science and Technology'.

the importance of humans colonizing the galaxies
No. This isn't history.

We still absolutely require the study of colonialism, slavery, and empires in the curriculum. So much of the world's geopolitical position today is due to these factors.

@BrideNovToBe

I’ve already said I respect your point of view, so all these notions of me dismissing or silencing you because we disagree are unfounded.

“the people who are free enough to sit around and bang the drum about this also tend to be the more privileged. Bearing in mind that, during the slave trade, many sold off their own... the same few rich families in certain countries send their kids to study abroad/move abroad, whine about racism but their own families' wealth comes from corruption and stealing from their own country people. “

This is a lot of assumptions. While there are disparities, the minority experience is not all one of deprivation. Characterising poc who are rich as criminals is repugnant. Every time poc advocate for themselves and don’t obediently submit they’re vilified.

You yourself expressed the opinion that most people behave fairly to each other. Given this and your point of view I don’t think it was a stretch to assume that you had experienced little if any racism. It doesn’t make sense to me that somebody who is so frequently discriminated against believes that people behave fairly to each other. Additionally, in my experience, poc, who argue against minority interests usually do so because they haven’t experienced racism and therefore don’t believe it’s a problem or for whatever reason tend to feel the need to seek white validation. I don’t think that this is any more insulting that what you have said.

That sounds like a lot of prejudice and rejection. I’m mono racial black and have always been raised in multiethnic environments in which poc were largely (not always) supportive of each other. I believe your experience but don’t share it. I use the term POC, because at one point, the British empire encompassed 1/4 of the world so writing out every ethnicity would be ridiculous. I do recognise we’re not a monolithic group.

Regarding prejudice between poc, tbh I hadn’t mentioned it because I didn’t consider it part of the discussion. I see it as more of a problem on an individual level. All prejudice is wrong, but I feel no one British minority ethnicity has enough members or power to significantly harm the outcomes of another on a national level. That being said in the reply that you quoted above I specifically didn’t mention white people because imo this is true of everyone. I don’t think that poc are immune to the hierarchical racist narratives derived from colonialism and that affects us now. Wars between Hindu, rulers and Mongol Emperors do not, so for me that’s just yet more whataboutery.

This white people versus the world narrative is an indulgence of meaningless white guilt which centres white people at the expense of poc. I’ve ranted about this at length already.

@CallumDansTransitVan

Nonsense. Read the comment again. I did not criticise the values. I said that I don’t think British education is impartial nor that it is fulfilling those values. Those values are moral principles. If education is designed to impart moral principles it cannot be impartial or neutral. It is not necessarily negative.

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/17/political-impartiality-guidance-for-schools-what-you-need-to-know/

• When teaching about the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK, teachers should not present discriminatory opposing beliefs held at the time in an uncritical manner or as acceptable in our society today;
• Teachers also should not present opposing views to the fundamental underpinnings to our society, like freedom of speech and protection from violence and criminal activity;
• When teaching about racism, teachers should be clear that it has no place in our society – but should avoid advocating for specific organisations that have widely contested aims or views; and
• When teaching younger students about historical figures with contested legacies, it may be advisable to focus on what these figures are most renowned for and factual information about them, if teachers think pupils may not be able understand the contested aspects of their lives, beliefs and actions.

I agree with the approach outlined for the first two bullet points, but obviously this approach is not impartial. To endorse one point of view as acceptable or purposely omit an opposing point of view is political.

When this was published teachers agreed and National Education Union called it out for its blatant bias around the teaching of Empire and colonialism.

@MCOut

I can see the final bullet point above is the one that may the most contentious. The document is quite ambiguous about how we portray great British figures and the level to which they were involved in slavery or colonisation. In effect the document is suggesting the teacher makes a judgment around whether to discuss a particular character's complicity in past heinous acts. In fact there is a suggestion that pupils may not understand the contested aspects of the character's lives and I think this is actually a get out clause. Children to have the ability to view our historical characters in a balanced way but here I think the suggestion is if there is a link to colonisation to a great statesman, military leader, politician etc. Then you should quietly omit anything contreversial.

I think a good example.would be Churchill where he his heroic leadership in WW2 undoubtedly helped saved us from Facism did hold racist views. I would guess teachers teaching school children will be under pressure not to examine any of the more unsavoury parts of his character of history. The motivation for this is not deliberate desire for omission but maybe a tacit acceptance in British society that it is offensive to denigrate our war time leaders to a large extent given the their contribution to the state. A similar argument could be made for many other characters.

I think the crux to a lot of these discussions is how we talk about past racism, colonisatiion, slavery without giving the impression that children should not feel proud of their country and its roots.

This is really a tinder box subject in the US where teaching of the foundations of the state are inextricably linked to slavery to an extent but as an extremely patriotic country the founding fathers are practically beatified. The constitution is viewed as a beautiful document despite slavery not being mentioned in the original version.

This leads to huge debate about how US history should be taught and I think you get a very different teaching angle in predominantly poc communities and white communities.

Maybe the government simply do not wish education to step into areas of education where there is the prospect of division?

A PP suggested Oxbridge scholars prove that is the case, and for every study claiming it, I'm confident you could find a different Historian saying the opposite.

As someone who has studied this topic in academia reverently, I can assure you this isn’t the case.

I also feel.We need to avoid some of the problems that have occurred within the US educational system where poc teenagers disengage from education as they see it being about "white dead guy's bringing civilisation to the world through cultural and technological advances where people of their ancestors were there just to be ''civilised'. This has lead to notions such as mathematics being a white subject because a lot of the developers of mathematics historically were white males. POC teenagers therefore see even maths and science as symbolic of opression.

I think This leaves us in dilemma in the UK about how we go about addressing our school curricula to satisfy a diverse society. We can't cancel all the dead white people who have contributed to our civilisation and history but we are left with the question how and to what extent we connect them to colonisation and the mass human rights abuses it entailed?

I think that this is such a difficult question that possibly we stick with the status quo even if it is imperfect in some eyes. A parallel is English literature where a lot of the British canon is by white people and most of our classics do not mention pic or if they do there is implicit or explicit rqcism. Is the answer to change the curriculum to knit some classics to make way for literature from poc and perhaps include accounts of those afflicted by colonisation?

If I were to suggest that there obviously would be a number of different views and I think conveys would be hard to find so maybe we do have to not fundamentally change education?

Omit not knit

Isn't there maybe an argument you are poking the bear by having subjects that reopen old wounds. If we desire racial harmony could it be put that continually highlighting historical injustice may have a negative as well as positive impact. Isn't what in effect we are saying that every new generation in our diverse is exposed to historical horrors where there definitely were certain ethnicities that more the brunt of these?

There maybe therefore racial resentment provoked that because of the passage of time may not have been there before.

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.

I don’t think that’s true. Most people are aware of the extend of the slave trade and the extensive damage done by colonialism.

“Recently” that should be

It should be noted though that science was very much a tool of oppression in terms of race, not least through inventing the pseudo-scientific notion of “race” in the first instance.

I think it’s important pupils realise the relationship between all branches of knowledge and power.

@GodessOfThunder

if we take Newton and business of motion, theory of universal gravitation, calculus etc. .We have one of the most profoundly important minds in history. How do we treat such a character in terms of global society at the time?.Do we have fibreglass any discussion about his works with prefaces that he may have owned shares in a slave trading comapny?

I guess it comes round to the point that a lo t of western civilisation is too prominent or important to cancel hence the need to give thought to how and with what motivation we teach history.

No, I don’t think if we were specifically teaching the history of Newton’s scientific ideas there would be any need to mention any such connections. That is unless they had any bearing on the development of those ideas.

But, if we were teaching the history of the ‘scientific revolution’ or the Enlightenment, then, yes, part of that history is the use of science as a tool of oppression.

This is important, not least, because it disrupts the inaccurate idea that history is a linear journey of ‘progress’. Scientific racism, military technology, the bomb, the Holocaust, climate change all driven (at least in part) by science. It’s as entwined with the use and misuse of power as much as any other branch of knowledge.

We teach science often devoid of its historical and philosophical context and I personally think that is to the detriment of scientists and allows for scientism to take hold.

It would be far better if we taught the historical and philosophical underpinnings of science, both to show the strengths and limitations as well as humanity and flaws of leading scientists that have shaped our understanding of our universe. Good scientists should be critical and sceptical after all.

@GodessOfThunder

interesting point.

if we take the British empire in general how should this be taught to school children? I am getting on a bit but when I was at school the fact that the Empire once stretched to a third of the globe was taught as a matter of pride. I think now we have to contextualize teaching of our Empire building with mention of the negative aspects but importantly pointing out it is the basis for much of the sense of what the country is. Monarchy, the legacy our Empire e.g. the commonwealth, aristocracy etc. all are integral to the way we see this country in the world.

With regard to science of course there are negative aspects of technology and the use of ideas however I think it is a small proportion of science that you could say directly lead to oppression against certain ethnicities as opposed to say the nuclear bomb which is indiscriminate in its use.

fair points on those, ill admit there is some overlap and the groupings need adjusting, the advancing to space is more philosophy than history.

as for the one world government, that seems to be a possibility regards to how political blocks are eg European union etc, it may take many many years but to be honest it does seem earth needs its one world government. i say that not because of conspiracy theories, but because if or when humanity does become a space civilization then it would cause more friction politically wise, if x civilizations are providing technology to eg united kingdom, but not to other countries etc

@mids2019

“The motivation for this is not deliberate desire for omission but maybe a tacit acceptance in British society that it is offensive to denigrate our war time leaders to a large extent given the their contribution to the state.”

I have given no thought to this actually so thank you. I think our thoughts on this may be down to cultural difference. I can’t speak for other Afro Caribbeans, but I feel that respect for authority manifests as respect for the older members of our family/ community rather than pubic figures who are never really above criticism. Additionally, we have a revolutionary community I feel we still revere somewhat while being aware of actions which were unacceptable. I can see the UK norm around authority may be the reverse.

I think I’ve always seen the issue regarding Churchill through this lens. The Bristol figure is another one. Yes these people were a product of their time and we can be cognisant of their contributions, but we are a product of ours. In the quest to be respectful we’re omitting the people they harmed and in doing so are clearly sending the message that in 2023 Britain white lives are valued over and above poc ones. National pride has its place but equality is also a value which Britain purports to take pride in.

Regarding division, personally a large part of why I struggle with my British identity is because of the myriad of ways in which it is made subtly clear to me that I’m not always seen as an equal. I think it is assumed that by ignoring these issues we can avoid division but it’s always been a very false one sided sense of unity which can prevent integration.

Perhaps something like this:

Defining empire: key characteristics
Engines of expansion
Rise and fall
Comparative Case study: India vs Canada
Legacies

Ah so you are saying the education system is not impartial and that the coming additions are still not enough?

Let me answer your highlighted parts which are all about political impartiality in teaching.
When teaching about the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK, teachers should not present discriminatory opposing beliefs held at the time in an uncritical manner or as acceptable in our society today;
That reads to me they should not present statements of homophobia as acceptable, even if it was the norm at the time it was said. Doesn't seem unreasonable. Not sure what the sexuality discussion has to do with black history but here we are.

Teachers also should not present opposing views to the fundamental underpinnings to our society, like freedom of speech and protection from violence and criminal activity;
Why would that be unacceptable?

• When teaching about racism, teachers should be clear that it has no place in our society – but should avoid advocating for specific organisations that have widely contested aims or views; and
• When teaching younger students about historical figures with contested legacies, it may be advisable to focus on what these figures are most renowned for and factual information about them, if teachers think pupils may not be able understand the contested aspects of their lives, beliefs and actions.

Of course they should not advocate for groups with widely contested views. That applies to all groups. A teacher speaking positivly for the National front would be rightly so hauled over the coals., Same with ISIS or any other number of similar type groups. Again why is that a bad thing?

When teaching younger students, of course a teacher has to be careful not to instill a false narrative in the childs mind, until the child is mature enough to understand all the nuances involved. The good, bad and ugly. Nobody is saying the bad bits cannot be taught. Just that the teaching has to be age and maturity appropriate.

I notice you missed out this important bit with regards to discussing contentious issues, direct from the front page of your link.

Will this prevent teachers from exploring important modern movements like #metoo?No. We want teachers to be able to discuss contemporary issues and movements with their pupils to help them understand them better. This guidance should help them do that in a way that separates out political views from the issues themselves.
That is exactly how it should be. Ensuring that Women (and everyone) have their rights as a human respected should start in the young. But no it shouldn't be used to support discriminatory feminist ideology. The same applies to all contentious issues. As previously stated the only proviso seems to be to ensure the student has the required level of maturity to completely understand what is being discussed.

Eleganz
We have to accept the time limitations when teaching any subject. In science you have a student in a classroom with science subjects including chemistry, biology & physics to cover in perhaps 4 hours a week during term time. Where do you concentrate on if you start throwing the history of the science into the mix.