Cristopher Colombia in primary school curriculum

[Donotfitin]

So the school just sent the curriculum
for my DS year (Y1). They called him a “significant explorer”. I immediately queried it, because as a Latin American he’s seen as a very divisive figure who brought rape, disease, and genocide. In my country (Mexico) we’ve completely removed that date from
our calendar, and the statues, etc… have now been removed.

I‘m not against it, but I just want a nuanced approach. So AIBU?

The Aztec people were already very familiar with slavery, rape, and war long before the Europeans arrived.

Im sure the school will be only too pleased to include information regarding your ancestry, schools love it when a parent or other relative can help personalise the curriculum and talk to the kids, working with the school to ensure its age appropriate

I don't think you will find any nation or race with a blameless past - or frankly a blameless future.

Not every country has apologised though.

Germany have apologised to Poland

The U.K. have never apologised to Ireland. An apology would ease so much tensions and improve relations.

Yeah I'm 44 and I think that's how we were taught it too (in primary), though to be honest I mostly remember being interested in the cool ships. I do think it was somewhat glorified, and was certainly told from the European perspective. I'm sure it's more balanced now. It did stick with me though, and I went on to do a degree in archaeology, with a specialism in pre-Columbian civilisations.

Yes, he’s a very significant explorer.

if we only taught history about people only if they did things we liked then there would be no history teaching at all.

Someone already mentioned the Romans. They weren't nice to Boudacea (or to Jesus for that matter).
Henry VIII? Look what he did to his wives.
Elizabeth I? She started the roots of plantation system/cultural destruction of N. Ireland.
Mary Tudor was blood thirsty.
Nowhere as bloodthirsty as Catherine the Great, I suppose.
Marie Antoinette was a wee bit out of touch.
Napoleon was a maniac.
Churchill was alcoholic.
And as for Hitler...

One thing I only realised recently (learning about history of Lille) is that slavery and colonisation were ordinary across Europe pre 1500s, pre-New World "discovery. European were bastards to people in Americas because they were used to being bastards to each other routinely. Fiefdoms, serfs, eunuchs, vassals, conquest, subjugation, genocide, rape & pillage, all completely "normal".

Watching the recent Shogun adaptation is good, set in 1600s... the 2 cultures insisting that the other is totally barbaric, when through modern eyes, both cultures are awful.

Columbus didn't think he had gone to India - he thought he had gone to the East Indies, what we now call Indonesia (and the Philippines).

A lot of people had slaves in the past. Julius Caesar had slaves. Abraham Lincoln had slaves. Do you want children not to learn about those people either?

Adolf Hitler was, IMO, a very bad man. Should children not learn about him either?

I never said children should not learn about him, but har a nuanced approach around it.

I agree with you.

He is named on the KS1 History National Curriculum in a list of significant individuals pupils might study, but we’ve never done him for the reasons you outline in your post.

For what it's worth I think your approach is quite sensible. Hopefully the details the teacher sent you will show it's already planned to be taught in an appropriate factual way or they'll take your concerns on board.
Threads about history always get super heated and filled with straw men though.

Yes but there was a marked contrast in the gradual opening up of rights/freedoms in the Old world through the late middle ages and early modern period with the actions of those same Europeans overseas

Slavery in England was banned by the Norman's after they took over in 1066. Feudalism wasn't fun but serfs had more rights than slaves. It was a series of mutual obligations which was hugely unequal but not the same as slavery and everyone was at least in theory governed by laws. By 1125 you had some limits on the rights of kings although it took a lot longer for any of that to reach common people. Peasants revolts etc helped gain more space for ordinary people, and civil wars led to the idea of constitutional monarchy rather than absolute monarchy. And then by the enlightenment you had ideas of freedom and democracy.
It definitely wasn't all sunshine and roses. But there was at least a concept of ones actions towards others being restrained by law and of a social contract. That was in huge contrast to the actions of those same Europeans overseas and to those deemed as "other". A contrast that was remarked upon by contemporary commentators (See Samuel Johnsons rather scathing remarks on American Colonials).
Spain's a little different because they were very feudal for a lot longer than say England and had an absolute monarchy. But I still think the "you can only judge people's actions by the values of their time" approach ignores that at least as the Age of Exploration was coming to an end the "values" we think we have today were already in development. They just weren't being applied equally.

Tacitus for example was a contemporary of the Roman Empire and at times very critical of it. Euripides had some strong things to say about the Greeks. Just because something was being done in a time period it doesn't mean it wasnt immoral or can't be criticised. Historians looking back at the 21st Century could argue Epstein was a product of his time and of the values of his time and in a sense he was (depending on who gets to set the values). But the fact so many people in power were seemingly OK with what he did doesn't make it right. So people with all the power 400 years ago being OK with something doesn't make it right,

Maybe you should educate yourself that Mexican cartels exist because of American economic colonialism

As others have said, he is a significant explorer.
you also seemed to have made assumptions about how this subject will be taught. Surely, if you want diversity then this includes encompassing history in the name of inclusivity.
how would your native country respond to a foreigner dictating what was taught in their curriculums?

Sounds like a totally unbiased YouTube video representing balanced Israeli views. No agenda or editing at all.

The famine in Ireland and how it was caused by us, is about is about the only thing taught about Ireland in the UK.

Wel they are on video saying it.

OP, there are going to be loads of topics taught in school. There is generally an attempt to teach them in a balanced way. I wouldn't worry too much.

I was living in Colombia when I was your son's age and I cannot remember a single one of the history topics that I must have been taught, let alone if they were biased or not. I can barely remember anything except winning an Easter egg hunt and being scared of one of the teachers.

Videos can be edited to show how thick and ignorant people are, or they can be edited to show how wonderfully balanced and knowledgeable they can be. It is all about which people you decide to include.

If you interview 20 people about ice cream and 17 of them prefer chocolate but you only include the 3 people who prefer vanilla in your video, that doesn't prove much about ice cream preferences. It probably just means you are trying to sell vanilla ice cream.

Yes obviously things can be edited to make a viewpoint. Still this Palestinian youtuber does also show positireconversations that he has with young Israeli people. He dienst only show negative interactions.

There are many versions of any historic events by virtue of them being historic, recorded by few who were literate and subjective / recorded with a bias. If you were born and educated in Mexico you will also have been taught with a bias just a different one to that taught in Europe. Historic events are rewritten many times over.

Schools here are taught the details they require to pass their eventual GCSE exams, beyond that is for a parent to teach.

How very naive.

I would actually speak to school about what it is they will actually be learning and how it is likely to be presented. Many years ago when I was at school he and other explorers were presented as enigmatic heroes. I later learned that was one view but of course it wasn't a balanced view at all. I did my own research as I got older and realised for me he wasn't someone to be admired.

I would hope that nowadays the teaching with regards to him would be more balanced but ypur child is only in year 1 so I would doubt it.

Rape, disease and genocide existed in South America and everywhere else long before Columbus, and indeed long after.