Child learning about slavery in primary school during Black History Month

[mamaM0]

Don't really know where to begin with this but... DD got homework which included a BHM theme as main part of English section.
They were given a timeline of "historic" events and asked to put them in correct order, there were at least 3 "events" referring to the transatlantic slave trade; Europeans "buying and selling of African slaves" , "the abolition of slavery act" and "slavery becoming illegal in the British Empire".
DD is in Y3.
I was not expecting these highly complex subjects to be taught in primary school let alone be rolled out in such a crude, crass way.
My heart is heavy with this subject matter and I feel the school could've taken a much more sensitive approach - better yet, focus on positive historic BH themes to actually inspire the kids - which is why it was created in the first place; to shine a light on black people too often portrayed as negative in western societies.
I'm posting this because I am in shock! And would like to know if this is being taught in your DC's primary schools? If so how have you approached it?
Is this normal?
My DH has refused to allow our DD to complete the homework.

Yawn.....this lot are getting worse than holocust deniers... @Kellie45 is that you?

😂😂😂

If she shoe fits...

Yes and kellie was compared to holocaust deniers, not nazis.

Not in good faith? Like white people coming on BMN to lecture people about slavery?

To believe - The problem is our Country is being scapegoated around the world as the ONLY ones that were involved in the slave trade

To believe -It's currently fashionable to bring the UK down in any way you can and that includes us.History is being re written left, right and centre

To believe -the African nations were as complicit in slavery as the European ones were in selling their own people which is a fact that is often overlooked.

To believe - that Britain was actually the first European nation to fight against the slave trade when everyone else was carrying on with it

All the above are statements of @Kellie45 and @LINABE

They are extremist / igronant views that have no basis in reality or scholarly research. To believe in this fantasy is akin to holocaust denial. Its literarlly a denial of the holocaust of the transatlantic slave trade and Britains role in it.

The igronance of the above statements are said to exhaust us, and defeat us.

But for me, it just makes me stronger to know the truth for myself and my children.

@Doubtmyself I am white. You are right. I stand beside you and I know that's nothing, but you are right.

I see the discussion has really evolved! So many insightful contributions to consider, with the exception of the rude, ignorant, pointless comments, which are of no interest and make no meaningful contribution at all.

After a quick speed read through national curriculum ks1, ks2 & ks3, TST doesn't appear as a subject to cover until ks3 History (11-14yr olds; secondary school). This age seems sensible to me.

So there is no obligation for schools to teach this subject before ks3, lending weight to the argument of why is it included in BHM for one month of the year, taught in isolation as part of "black history". This approach doesn't do it justice or leave much space for the sensitivity that is needed. It's almost pointless as children this age (ks1-ks2; 4-11yrs old) have no context or understanding of slavery, capitalism or economic powers.

One study has shown that :

"Children aged ten and under are often not able to contextualise and make sense of the transatlantic slave trade".

(No surprise there).

"There are many complexities to this history and many areas where the wrong approach to teaching it can cause children to become confused and traumatised, or develop serious misconceptions about events and legacies".

(source from understandingslavery.com)

I agree with a previous post; Our children have enough to contend with already.

All the more reason to teach it when children are more emotionally equipped to be able to understand this dark chapter in history, learning it over 3 years, hopefully taught with sensitivity and accuracy within the wider context seems like a far better approach to me.
(One can only hope)

It's widely acknowledged that The Trans Atlantic slave trade was one of the darkest chapters in the history of mankind.
Let's just ponder that for a moment.

Sensitivity needs to be applied. Lots of people have mentioned the holocaust. I would expect the same level of sensitivity to be applied.

It is eye-opening to see the number of people that don't have a problem with this being taught early in a drip feed approach or otherwise despite the possible negative outcomes.

Above all else my aim is to Nurture the whole child:

"It is easier to build a strong child than it is to repair a broken adult."
(Frederick Douglass).

"At the end of the day, the most overwhelming key to a child's success is the positive involvement of parents."
J.H

For the record Britain was not the first European nation to abolish the slave trade;

1803 Denmark-Norway becomes the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade, forbidding trading in slaves and ending the importation of slaves into Danish dominions.

Three years later in 1807 The British Parliament makes it illegal for British ships to transport slaves and for British colonies to import them.

All the more reason why this needs to be taught at the right age!

It is eye-opening to see the number of people that don't have a problem with this being taught early in a drip feed approach or otherwise despite the possible negative outcomes.

speaking only for myself I hope you consider my contribution to this thread thoughtful and not in the pointless inflammatory category.

I am clearly not as well read on the subject as you are and my comments on this thread were not as well researched as yours.

I can see your point and you have convinced me that the teaching of the topic requires serious research by the teacher and I am much less convinced that it is a suitable topic than I was at the start of this thread. That said I do think children cover aspects of history that they are unable to contextualise emotionally all the time. The teaching of history/society/values is always difficult and requires proper consideration.

my own DCs school sent a letter saying that they refuse to participate in ‘BHM’ and instead have increased the number of books by black authors in the library, and seek year round ways to make their curriculum more inclusive. I wonder what you think of this approach?

I am really intrigued by the idea that societal and legal constructs of race were only after the inception of the transatlantic slave trade. As an English Literature graduate who has studied Shakespeare from a post colonial perspective, I have read that Shakespeare's only two definite characters of colour (Othello and Aaron in 'Titus Andronicus') are defined by racist tropes concerning the devil's portrayal in medieval art. Is this not true?

@Kellie45 Please stop with your silly nonsense. Fool

OP, I hear you. Our first primary school made a complete mockery of BHM every year. Making it "diversity month" 🙄and almost exclusively about slavery. Starting in Y1. My husband and I went to the head to try and make her see how unreasonable it all was. Deaf ears obviously. Awful

@AppleKatie I'm fucking glad.

OP I asked a primary child close to me what they studied for BHM in an inner London school and what they studied was a complete joke. Looking at the background of current black sports people in their 20s/early 30s. For the two straight years before it was figures in American civil rights movement. (I guessed a few parents complained.)

Other people, who were children but now are young people, I've asked over the years have studied figures in the American civil rights movement or the slave trade. They only got to learn something worthwhile at 14.

What annoys me is British Black history is all around - loads of these kids are black or black mixed and have elderly black relations - yet schools in cities and towns with black populations don't use the resources that are staring at them.

My own schools due to having a black head in primary then a Jewish head of history in secondary didn't participate. Instead primary was concerned in showing history, politics, science etc was all around you - it wasn't unusual to drag someone's parent or grandparent in to help with or be the subject of a lesson. At secondary they were concerned in showing that the history we were being fed though popular sources like with the British Empire wasn't factual.

This is preposterous!
Enslavers didn't exccjage for their own currency. Ofcourse not. It makes no sense. They exchanged humans for mirrors, gin and guns. Some newer texts add sugar and knifes but I've never come across sugar being recorded in West Africa especially as sugar cane and coconuts from which sugar is made is grown there.
Traditional kingdoms didn't sell humans to foreigners. Humans were usually captured by other and sold on to Europeans by outlaws in most cases and of course other crooks within society.
Prisoners of war are usually kept in captivity on the continent.

My post above was in response to your comment about Benin bronze art work. The Benin empire and many neighbouring ones have bronze, gold, silver, iron ore even till date.

I guess I'm just saying, why are our DC expected to ponder on this heavy history of slavery at such an early age instead of just getting on with who they want to be in life but, maybe that's exactly the point.

You can't make this shit up.

Yes, William Wilberforce and friends did fight for the abolition of slavery. So much so he couldn't align with any party and was an independent. To this day he's been side lined in British history for it.

Rather than passing off films as historical facts, where is your academic list of books that back up the facts ?

Plus the slaves were available because the tribes offered to exchange them as the were already trading with other tribes in the triangular trade, then after a while they made business deals with the Europeans, the Europeans did not automatically demand them. (Sources pending to back up my premise)

Date Event
1480 Portuguese brought enslaved Africans to their West African colonies
1500 New colonies were established in the New World by Spain and Portugal (throughout the 1500s, Portugal began bringing enslaved people to the New World)
1600 Demand for labor increased the need for enslaved Africans
1600 French, Dutch, and English colonies were established in the New World - these countries became entrenched in the transatlantic slave trade
1619 Enslaved Africans arrived in the Virginian colony of Jamestown
1700 Throughout this century, a large influx of enslaved Africans were traded in the Americas, they accounted for a large portion of the triangle trade
1807 Great Britain ended the slave trade with the signing of the Slave Trade Act
1808 America ended the importation of enslaved Africans with the signing of the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" in 1808 (even with the act signed, the trade in enslaved Africans would continue on for decades to come)

www.studysmarter.us/explanations/history/us-history/triangular-trade/

love the way colonial rape of Africa is glossed over as “1600 English colonies engage in slave trade” Despite Elizabeth I authorised the first slave trade ships long before that.

You do know what English colonisation entails don’t you? It wasn’t Erin chaps making business deals with locals. What utter and complete bollocks. Colonial rule was brutal harsh invasion for fucks sake.

The slave trade ended in large part because the humans enslaved rebelled , like Haiti and across former colonies like Guyana and Jamaica like Tackys Revolt in 1760, it was becoming unmanageable.

Its laughable the level of drivel being posted on this thread. Can’t these people pick up a fucking book?

Studysmarter? Fucks sake ….

Can we have some more comments like @Hawkins001 please?

Im working from home and fancy a laugh at people chatting raas….