To wonder why it's so controversial to talk about white behaviour throughout history?

[BeachParty]

It's an interesting discussion to have, and makes you think.
Why do so many immediately go into "how dare you!" mode or "why are you being racist towards white people?!"
Instead of actually listening to what people are saying? History is whitewashed in this country, we usually learn it from a "hero" viewpoint.

Good luck with that @NotTerfNorCis , have you already written the course? Are you selling a link to it? At what age do you plan to teach it? History is complex, and multi- layered. The version you teach eight year olds (Food, Transport, Social) needs to be deepened at GCSE and to become nearly adult for A level history.

That's a really interesting question! I'd love to design a history curriculum for schools. Obviously what was taught would have to be age appropriate. Speaking from a British perspective, I'd say learning British history is important, but also different facets of world history, enough to make it clear that Britain and the West aren't the centre of the world, and there's a hell of a lot of complexity out there.

Absolutely not in doubt that St Patrick was taken as a slave to Ireland and the Irish took slaves at that time.

No doubt either that Irish people can be as opportunistic and greedy as people from anyone else (I'm Irish).

But not so sure about this @DownNative?

The Irish and Scottish expanded the British Empire further than the English did, especially in India and the American colonies.

There were, of course, exceptions, but most of those from Ireland who were in leadership roles in the colonies came from the Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy class, ie the colonisers of Ireland rather than the native Irish themselves.

Many poorer Irish Catholics served as soldiers etc but far fewer were in charge.

This was not due to any difference in the values between the peoples of Ireland and Britain, but it was simply where the power lay and who had the power to exploit at the time.

I did write a scheme of work for post common entrance once. It wasn't taken up at the time, but it was based on 1815-1914, which is a period not much taught these days, but it worked locally (lots of day trips and industrial history), stacks of basic science and technology. Tons of extension opportunities. And a decent art/music element too.

I don't know much about the Irish and Scottish role in the expansion of Empire building, but younger sons without any expectation of inheriting had to make their own way in life, and it was probably more exciting to go to the other side of the world and make something new.

I haven't hear "common entrance" used since the 80s- takes me back. CWasn't that the 11 plus equivalent

I studied history at A level and started in 1789 with French Revolution

Yes I believe the Scottish were involved in the slave trade, names like Ogilvy

Have you seen the history national curriculum (in England)?

Admittedly there is not much of an international feel to the curriculum for key stage one, but at key stage two, as well as 'traditional' British history, including the Romans, Vikings etc, pupils have to learn about:

The achievements of the earliest civilisations, including an in-depth study of either Ancient Sumer, the Indus Valley, Ancient Egypt, or the Shang Dynasty of Ancient China;

Ancient Greece; and

A non-European society that provides contrast with British history - either early Islamic civilisation (including a study of Baghdad c. 900 AD), Mayan civilisation, 900 AD, or Benin (900-1300)

But Europe was central to history for 1000 years. History was made and happened in Europe. Not in Ethiopia or Indonesia. China turned its back on the world in the (IIRC) 14th century. (I can find a reference, if pressed). Europe, over 1500 years between the Roman Empire and the first World War, passed through the Renaissance, Reformation, wars of territory and religion, and in the English Civil War, the first battle to decide whether the people or the crown held supremacy. The people won in 1649, when the UK executed a king.

The Opium Wars might interest in the role of Scots in the British Empire. Opium traded for tea by Jardine Matheson and another Scotsman to win the war that came, Napier.

Modern trade not only has slavers in its past but drugs.

I'm not sure what the OP was, but this is a superb thread for anyone teaching history.

@suburburban , not 11, but 13, which is the split for prep school to public school. So it's a curriculum for mostly clever, privately educated kids, in preparation for public schools like Eton and Winchester, but which I think would interest a lot more kids than the ones having their educated double paid for.

History has been written overwhelmingly by men in the past, although that is changing now. In UK it was mostly religious men too, as monks had time to learn literacy. It is a shame that we have lost so much female history, as they considered women's history beneath them.

True, @SprigatitoYouAndIKnow , but given the limitations on women's freedom to operate then, I think women are taking things forward now. You can't rewrite history, and if monks were the literate ones, then they recorded the world at the time.

That's a lovely sentiment, and completely unrealistic.

You can't force people - and really here you mean adults because we are talking about a sophisticated understanding of history - to learn things just because you happen to think they should.

There is so much history to learn that no one will know it all. I am sorry you feel embarrassed to not have known the history of Pakistan, but you shouldn't. There are over 100 Commonwealth countries, people with degrees in history don't know they all for goodness sake!

You now know the history of Pakistan - how about Singapore, Botswana, Canada?

Many people are much more interested in their day to day life. That is ok.

The slave markets were there because slavery was an important part of society in some of those countries. Even to the point of being a source of bodies for human sacrifices in some instances.

The Atlantic slave trade certainly created more demand on the west coast of Africa for a time, and it made certain kingdoms incredibly wealthy. In fact in the end, they largely had to be forced to give it up. From a historical perspective though, there had been a slave trade there long before, and it remained well into the 20th century, long after the west had abolished it. Europe didn't "create" it.

Quite a lot of think. My family doctor growing up was from Trinidad, had a Scottish last name. As does my partner who is also from the Caribbean. Both very likely from Scottish owners (for sure in the case of the doctor who was a keen genealogist.)

I've taken on myself to know a summary's worth of the relationship between Britain and its colonies - even a paragraph made up of 5 sentences can be enough to get the gist.

I don't think it's unrealistic to hope a law will come in place one day to make it compulsory for an overview of the Empire /Commonwealth to be taught in schools - in the same way e.g. Germany teaches about the Holocaust (To clarify I'm not comparing the two directly, but giving an example where a nation has not shed away from its past).

Problem is they do the Egyptians and the Maya and learn about pyramids,sing a song or two from Joseph and talk about chocolate.

World history is a supplement to learning about your own heritage, not a substitute

The Egyptians provides a great contrast with British history at the same time. It was the Stone Age but the Egyptians had an incredibly complex civilisation. Britain was in no way as advanced.

I don't think it's unrealistic to hope a law will come in place one day to make it compulsory for an overview of the Empire /Commonwealth to be taught in schools - in the same way e.g. Germany teaches about the Holocaust (To clarify I'm not comparing the two directly, but giving an example where a nation has not shed away from its past).

It doesn't need a law (in England). It just needs to be included in the National curriculum. That doesn't apply to Academies, of course, but I understand that most Academies follow it.

The Holocaust is currently the only compulsory topic at key stage 3 in the National Curriculum.

Key stage 3 pupils have to cover particular periods. The development of the British Empire and the trans-Atlantic slave trade are both provided as examples of topics that might be taught in the 1745-1901 period, along with Irish home rule and various other topics.

Indian independence and the end of empire is given as an example of a topic that might be taught in the 1901- present day period.

Those topics are not compulsory, but I imagine there are many pupils that study them.

As others have said, the difficulty is that there is an awful lot of history! If you make more topics compulsory, there would be less scope for studying other important ones.

I think the new government has said that it will review the National Curriculum, so it will be interesting to see what changes it makes. Start lobbying your MP!

Are upu about to argue that our interventions I'm Afghanistan were for the best

No, believe it or not, I’m content with letting a country live how they like. But if you want to be a rich, prosperous education, then ‘indigenous ways of knowing’ won’t cut it. You’re gonna have to have Western education. Cope.

There was no "religious brainwashing" in many countries until we imported Christianity

All of the lands colonised by Arab invaders would have used religious education (if they had anything at all), eg madrasas.

The entire curriculum is Christian centric in a great many places

And what makes Western education ‘Christian centric’? Of course, if you learn English, you must learn some elements of Christianity to understand it fully, just like you need to understand basics of Chinese religion like Taoism and Kongzi to really understand Chinese idioms.

This had been discussed a lot on MN OP.

Of course it’s complex and personally think when we talk about white oppressors historically, we’re talking about a specific class of people - upper/ruling class as was. Mix of pillaging resources which has gone on since time
began, and a belief their belief was ‘right’ and somehow superior. Add in more technology and economic advantage and it was abused for sure.

Even within ‘white’ history and given our special relationship with Ireland, we don’t describe the Irish Famine as genocide by starvation - which is what it was.

There’s a long way to go for all of this.

The history of Jardine Matheson is fascinating, although it should be said it was the two mens business acumen to find a loophole, which they used to circumvent the East India Companies monopoly of smuggling/supplying opium into China. Meaning they were only opening up a trade route for themselves, one that was already under the control of the East India Company. Mostly under Englsh ownership I think.