History is a joke

[ScatterKitty]

AIBU to wish History lessons focused less on Henry VIII (or British monarchy in general) and more on the history which led to current conflicts and issues which affect current affairs?

Was anyone taught about the Israel/Palestine situation? Or the history of India or Pakistan? Or even Windrush and UK Black history?

How am I meant to explain to my kids what's going on in the world when we were never taught and all they learn about is British monarchy, Romans etc?

I've been trying to find a decent explanation online with no luck. Can anyone help?

there, not their. Sticking out like a sore thumb.

I did O level history in 1983 and we did world history in the C20th. We covered the fall out after WW1, China, Japan, India, Africa Ireland and both continents of America. The Middle East was a particular interest of our history teacher as she had been in Syria during the Six Day War. I remember her telling us that she carried the radio around the house with her, glued to the BBC World Service. (Always good to see what sources a historian turns to when it is a matter of personal safety..)

I actually hated it as I wanted to do the Tudors and the Romans and had to wait for university for that. A levels was British History from 1834 to 1945 (and we did a lot on Ireland in that) and Europe of the dictators (so what we'd done at O level but in more detail). Having done the world history at O level did mean that we understood its context better. It hacked me off though as there was a huge overlap with the A level Politics syllabus and I thought that those interested in the modern stuff could study that instead....

However, its pretty silly to complain that school history doesn't cover every single topic everyone thinks is important. There really isn't time to do that. Last week there were some photos of planetary movements in Orion and scientists discussing why they might be moving in pairs- we don't then complain that children should leave school knowing all about astrophysics as we accept that a more advanced level of understanding is for degree level and beyond. The same is the case for history. At GCSE and A level it should really be about learning the basic skills needed to be a historian and how to use them. In a way the actual era studied is irrelevant as what is really being taught is how to evaluate sources, put together arguments etc. A topic like the Anglo Saxons is really useful here as there are limited written sources which means that you have to teach evaluation of non written ones too. It also demonstrates that England was once not so London focussed, that the Dark Ages weren't dark and for that matter why Kiev was a very important city at the time.

@Everanewbie African tribal leaders gleefully traded their people for riches

Bigoted, ignorant, and racist (I'm not sure I've got that in the right order).

@ScatterKitty YANBU we desperately need more people to be more aware of our shared histories.

I'm sorry, you might not like it. You might prefer a version where the Europeans just went off kidnapping otherwise happy people, but the triangular trade is named that for a reason with the first leg seeing Europeans taking goods to Africa to be exchanged for humans. It does not excuse the european role which is an affront to any decent human, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling bigot, bigot repeatedly doesn't absolve other, non-european actors of blame either.

What!!!

I did WW2 in history and it had only finished 40 years before!!

I think our kids in the UK, should be taught about The Troubles. I couldn't believe my 2 teenagers hadn't heard of it. I'm sure I'd taught them about it!

Derry Girls was great for opening up discussion about those times.

Politicians design history syllabi and it's in their interests to whitewash the bad stuff like Ireland.

I was educated overseas where history is mandatory and not an option that you can drop so we covered a little bit of partition and Arab-Israeli conflict. Did you choose history for GCSE? I don't know if there's other qualifications that might cover modern history eg politics.

My children were shocked when I told them that the fall of the Berlin Wall happened when I was a teen.

@Everanewbie

The NAST was the only economy and colonial conquest ever (ever, ever) to be TOTALLY founded on the enslavement of one people by another.

The North Atlantic slave trade was the largest and most extensive slave trade in history. Over the course of several centuries, it resulted in the forced migration of approximately 12.5 million Africans to the Americas, primarily to European colonies in North and South America, and the Caribbean. This scale alone set it apart from other slave trades. It wasn't just extensive it was intensive.

It was characterised by its strong racial component. It primarily involved the enslavement of Africans who were transported to the Americas, where they were subjected to lifelong servitude based on their race. This racialised system of slavery was unique and contributed to the development of racial hierarchies and systemic racism in the Americas.

The North Atlantic Slave Trade operated within a triangular trade system. European ships carried manufactured goods to Africa, where they were exchanged for enslaved Africans. These enslaved individuals were then transported to the Americas and sold into slavery. The profits from the sale of enslaved people were used to purchase commodities like sugar, tobacco, and cotton, which were then transported back to Europe.

The North Atlantic slave trade persisted for over four centuries, from the late 15th century to the 19th century. This long duration allowed it to have a profound and lasting impact on the societies and economies of the Americas and Europe.

The North Atlantic slave trade left a lasting legacy of racial inequality, discrimination, and systemic racism in the Americas. The descendants of enslaved Africans in the Americas continue to face the social, economic, and political consequences of this history.

I'm afraid you're ignorant and flippant use of words such as "gleefully" is just beyond reproach.

Depends on the age. I doubt most primary age children will understand how the British Empire caused severe issues with India and Pakistan and other political hotbeds in the Middle East.

Slavery, Windrush was definitely part of Y6 Black History Month teaching.

In Primary DD did Stone Age, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Egypt, WWII homefront with a bit of Medival/Tudor thrown in.

In Secondary she did Ancient History (mix of Roman, Greek, Egypt, Persian), British Empire (with a teacher who was very critical of the whole topic and raised really good questions), Industrial Revolution, bit of WWI and WWII.

She did history for GCSE, they did USA from 1920 until 1970, Germany from 1914 to 1945, History of medicine and Elizabeth I. She came out of it with a huge understanding of modern day US issues and understanding the impact on the Tudors on today's society, especially Religion and the Empire.

She now does history A-level, Stuarts, Italy until 1945 and a course work from a list of topics which includes German Nationalism for example.

The issue is not what is taught but that in lots of schools history is optional after Y9.

The North Atlantic slave trade left a lasting legacy of racial inequality, discrimination, and systemic racism in the Americas. The descendants of enslaved Africans in the Americas continue to face the social, economic, and political consequences of this history

I agree. That's why it needs to be taught. I don't apologise for 'gleefully' either. Any person, whether European, African, Arab, Far Eastern etc. don't deserve my respect when the were selling their fellow man into shackles and enriching themselves. In some way that betrayal just hits home for me.

But those slaves taken by Barbary pirates didn't fare too well either. When challenged on their practice, the response of Sidi Haji Abdrahaman of Tripoli was as follows:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Maybe also look up how the Ottoman empire treated African slaves.

@Everanewbie

Didn't take long to get to your Islamophobia did it?

Maybe it's worth working on not being a newbie.

If you are in England, Elizabethans and the world wars are relevant to them as that is part of the history of the UK (I cannot be doing with topics such as the history of medicine, either, it's unfocused and often out of historical context). Fwiw, some Indian, Chinese, and USian history is often taught along with events such as the Windrush. Black history is likely to be taught in the context of ending the slave trade out of Africa (one slave trade among many) in the eighteenth and nineteenth century - that and Windrush is about it until the late twentieth century (though there are some interesting individuals to look at). It's a good idea to understand the history of where you live and how it came to be that place rather than do a gallop around 'world history' which can only be superficial.

Anyone who enslaved their fellows covers about everyone as due loss of respect, since slavery is endemic and certainly at least 6000 years old. Excellent answer btw.

Urgh, I'm racist because I believe that the horrors of the transatlantic trade should be taught alongside historic examples of slavery, emancipation and abolitionists, oh and that I didn't suggest that African leaders reluctantly accepted goods that made them rich in exchange for their brothers and sisters. I am also Islamaphobic because I object to the barbary pirates and the ridiculous attempt at justifying it by referencing the Qu'ran.

I'm interested to know how Daftasabroom thinks that slaves got to the ports.
(without an active slave trade being carried out by Africans and Arabs within Africa).
Did they volunteer?

reluctantbrit ·- agree with you. It is not maths and English that needs to be taught to 18 but history - but preferably not by people with an anti-British agenda; as empires go (and they go a lot) the British Empire was fairly benign, unlike e.g. the Ottomans, the Belgians, the Spanish, the Romans etc.

@Grammarnut disagree. The English history curriculum is obsessed with former glories and ‘empire’ without actually teaching anything in depth about how harmful colonialism was.
Israel and Palestine are in the news yet again, and I’ve yet to talk to someone English who’s aware that Palestine was another of the U.K. s colonial nightmares,
and that Palestine was under British rule for 3 decades.

@Whereforartthoudave respectfully, when were you at school? The British Empire made up virtually none of the syllabus that I was taught. Regretfully so. It was taught with reference to the 13 colonies in America and that was about it.

Disagree - as a history teacher - the English history curriculum is obsessed by the world wars, Henry VIII (without seeing why he is important in many cases), how evil the British Empire was, and that slavery is an entirely European sin, afaik. Agree about Palestine, actually. The Balfour Declaration of 1922 (Britain held the Mandate for Palestine after WWI) was a stupid thing to do and turning Palestine into Israel fatal - only guilt about the Holocaust could have caused it - and Britain helped do that along with the activism produced by Jewish nationalists. I am not sure colonialism was as destructive as you think. Certainly, the British Empire built infrastructure and left the places it acquired (only Australia, the Americas, and New Zealand were colonised) with viable democratic systems, well-run agriculture, and the means to prosper - and many of those countries so left have prospered and also become members of the Commonwealth (the end purpose of the late Empire). The Opium Wars are another kettle of fish and Britain is culpable - but what country does not have things in its history that it is ashamed of, or should be?

Couldn't agree more.

we're lucky that it only seems to be History that brings out such an emotional response.
So many sweeping assertions of what's taught and not taught, and what should be taught. I'm regularly amazed when people say that slavery wasn't taught about in the past, when (in a state school) we were taught about the triangular trade. And this is 50 years ago.
FWIW, I found history boring at school, and was glad to drop it when a could. Since then, the subject has become one of the great passions of my life. Stop relying on the State to provide everything - find out for yourself.

I don't understand why someone pointing out that in world history slavery is more than just the British and French empires?
Why is that bigoted?
I always draw parallels when teaching Yr 7 RE about Moses freeing his people from slavery and more generally in Egypt around that period eg all the temple building was slavery.
Are we only allowed to talk about colonial slavery? Are we able to say that slavery was already a massive trade and it was continued by the British empire?

...and stopped by the British Empire too.

I wasn't taught about either the British Empire or the American Rebellion (which was caused by British treaties with native Americans, guaranteeing colonists would not cross the Appalachians - which I learned much later!). We did Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Anglo-Saxons the Norman Conquest, with a Cook's tour of everything else up till Victoria. I did GCE O and A level and studied British Economic and Social History, which made me a lifelong socialist. The history of trades unionism, and what we owe to the people who suffered and died to enable trades unions to exist, should be studied in school I firmly believe. If it were there would be much less moaning about strikes and more understanding of why they happen.