I have been championing the teaching of black and colonial history in schools for as long as I can remember and was a member of the task force set up in 2012 under Baroness Meral Ece on Race Equality in Education and Employment. Through learning about the impact and legacy of colonialism, we can forge a modern British identity, bridge past divisions as well as better inform Britain’s dealings with the rest of the world.
I had previously held a benign view of the Commonwealth legacy. Today Singapore students rank in the top 3 places on OECD’s PISA league tables for schools, while 16 and 18 year olds still subscribe to the Cambridge board examinations. It meant I could, when aged 18, move with ease to London to study law.
The legacy of empire is controversial but the spread and use of the English language as the lingua franca is undoubtedly a positive. The introduction of maritime trade links, development of ports and rail infrastructure are other commendable outcomes. There is also a “Commonwealth advantage” where countries with similar legal systems, professional training and a common language are better able to trade with each other across continents.
On the flip side (as the Black Lives Matter movement has brought into sharp focus), the slave trade promoted across the Atlantic between the 16th and 19th centuries has led to entrenched racism and inequalities. Though other colonial powers were involved, the British had played a key role in transporting 12.5 million Africans to plantations in the Americas, with some 2 million dying en route. When the slave trade finally ended, it was the slave owners who were compensated, not the victims and their families.
Last week (21 July) a group of historians called for sections of the UK’s Home Office “Life in the UK” Citizenship and Settlement test to be amended. They said that the official handbook is fundamentally misleading and in places false. Whilst we cannot judge the actions of the past by the morals and values of today, we must at least broach the subject with honesty, encourage debate and be prepared to hear from those who have been affected. Only in so doing will we be in a position to view the world as it is, not through neo-imperial blinkered eyes.
What we need is a review of the school curriculum with new thinking and sensibilities in a whole range of subjects, not just in history, but also in geography and science, literature and art, current affairs and citizenship classes. If Covid19 is a trigger for a hiatus to build back better, then the school curriculum is definitely a good place to start.
* Merlene was co-founder of Chinese Liberal Democrats and on the executive of the LibDems Overseas. She co-edited “Rise of China – Fresh Insights and Observations” published by the Paddy Ashdown Forum (2021)
37 Comments
“The legacy of empire is controversial but the spread and use of the English language as the lingua franca is undoubtedly a positive.”
Merlene – what are your views on native Brits going to live or spend a significant amount of time in another Commonwealth country and making little or no effort to learn the local language? I ask because it seems a fairly common problem among Brits living in other European countires without trying to do so.
Nonconformist
English remains an official language in India and some wonderful English do the Indians have.(there are signs with not to pluck the flowers from the flower beds) Of course India is a very multi-lingual country.
I have been writing about some colonial history this very day, a piece about Sir John Bowring. He was the fourth governor of Hong Kong. A great Liberal, unfortunately he started the second Opium War.
@Manfarang
“English remains an official language in India”
Never suggested it wasn’t.
“India is a very multi-lingual country”
Yes – if one is spending a significant amount of time in a particular part of India which has a predominant language – willingness to learn to speak even a few words of that language might demonstrate a retreat from colonial attitudes.
Surely the role of education is to teach people how to think critically and assess the merits of different arguments?
“Life in the UK” should be scrapped, it’s just a pointless bit of bureaucracy created to pander to xenophobia.
In the run up to the 1959 GCE exams, our ‘History Master’ in my all boys Grammar school told us to prepare to answer questions on “a man, a crisis and a battle”. Pity that ‘Sharpe’ wasn’t around back then. I can see where Messrs Francois, IDS and co must have gotbtyeir ideas from. (My wife and I have been watching all Major Sharpe’s ‘adventures‘ on YouTube and Netflix.) Oh, happy days all round! What’s that you say? He wasn’t real.
Nonconformist
Here is a few Indian words to get started: jungle, dinghy, chutney, pyjama, bungalow, veranda….
And I had Dal Makjhani for dinner.
John
You had better stick to Gunga Din.
I agree that the history we teach needs a serious rethink, but not with a separate section called “Black History.” If we do that then clever-dick white students will simply sit back with the attitude: “This is nothing to do with us.” Black History, however defined, should simply be incorporated into the normal curriculum
The history of slavery needs to be taught, staring with the Greeks, or even earlier if there was slavery earlier (not my period!) and from the point of view of the slaves as well as the doughty opponents. We need to make clear the involvement of some of those we regard as “Heroes” (Columbus and Drake, for example)
We also need in-depth studies of episodes of British history in which the British didn’t emerge quite so squeaky-clean. My own suggestions from the recent past, would be:
the Opium Wars;
the Irish famine;
the management of Indian Independence.
The sale of African slaves can be traced back to antiquity. It expanded in the seventh century when Islam was gaining strength in North Africa. This was ten centuries before West Africans were sold across the Atlantic to America.
Back then, Arab Muslims in North and East Africa sold captured Africans to the Middle East. Muslims, on the other hand, including African Muslims, were not allowed to be enslaved.
Initially, the Arab Muslims in Eastern and Central Europe took white slaves to sell them to Arabia, but the growing military power of Europe put an end to Islamic expansion and now that there was a shortage of slaves, Arab Muslims looked to black Africa
Slavery has existed in practically all civilizations. This was also the case in Africa before settlers came.
When it came to exports, tribal Africans themselves were the main actors. In many African societies there were no prisons, so people who were captured were sold.
The slave trade in East Africa really took off from the 17th century. More and more merchants from Oman settled in Zanzibar. The island took on important role in the international trade of goods due to the large trade at the Swahili coast and consequently also in the slave trade. This is how the largest slave market in East Africa was created. Arab-Muslim slavery is thought to have outnumbered the Transatlantic slave trade. Africans were brought from East Africa via the Trans-Saharan route to Morocco or Egypt. or deported to regions on the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean.
In the 19th Century, Omani settlers began cultivating cloves in Zanzibar to meet the growing demand on the world market. Large plantations quickly developed and slaves could be bought cheaply at the nearby slave market. It was not until 1873 that Sultan Seyyid Barghash of Zanzibar, under pressure from Great Britain, signed a treaty that made the slave trade in his territories illegal. That decree was not enforced effectively either. It was not until 1909 that slavery was finally abolished in East Africa.
Slavery still exists today, albeit in a different form. So study history, but don’t confine it to a Euro-centric view or you will miss the most important lessons for the modern day form of slavery in forced prostitution and human trafficking.
Crikey, Mr Bourke, is there anything that you don’t know something about? You ought to be running for Prime Minister or Brain of Britain.Why not both. We are not worthy!
I really do not like finger pointing on slavery, for all of history unfortunately it was more or less normal. States with caste systems generally is Europe at times and India I think too avoided having slave class due to having peasant or equivalent classes. It also risks going the other way and dominating all discussion.
Rome, the ottomans, the Greeks, the European empire’s, china all had slaves but it wasn’t all they were and if should not dominate talking about their history.
That said I am in agreement that taking off the rose tinted specs and being honest is needed too.
William Wilberforce was one of my heroes when I was at school because he tried to right a terrible wrong. However, like many others, I was taught less about Britain’s role in the slave trade. One thing that always horrified me about the holocaust was the industrial scale of it and the records that were kept. The slave trade was on an equally industrial scale and detailed records were also kept. Africans were packed into ships like sardines in a tin to provide maximum profit and many of them died due to the horrific conditions. Slaves were regarded as property so detailed records were kept about the slaves owned by those who were claiming compensation when slavery itself was abolished. They were valued according to age, skills and health.
If we are going to overcome the ongoing results of this barbarity we must own up to it. It’s not enough to say that slavery happened in many countries and in many ages. That doesn’t excuse us from our retrospective responsibility. Facing up to the evils upon which much of Britain’s wealth was built should be the first step towards an integrated society.
Sue Sutherland,
slavey has never gone away. It has just changed its form as this guardian article describes https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200
“The last country in the world to abolish slavery was Mauritania, in 1981, yet activists believe up to 20% of its population is still enslaved today.”
It is not just Mauritania where slavery continues to be practised. Human beings have been sold in Libya https://www.dw.com/en/slave-trade-in-libya-outrage-across-africa/a-41486013
A few years ago, a case of slavery was uncovered in Tanzania. A mine was found in a remote area where 50 to 60 boys were forced to work. They were not paid and lived in a camp guarded by armed men.
This is a modern day issue not just an historical aberration for study in school curriculums.
On the flip side (as the Black Lives Matter movement has brought into sharp focus), the slave trade promoted across the Atlantic between the 16th and 19th centuries has led to entrenched racism and inequalities.
We need to be very careful not to perpetuate a distorted view of history, fuelled by those with a nihilist agenda.
Interesting and relevant read: ‘My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves’
What I suggest is actually needed is a better and more balanced teaching of the history of the modern world and globalization (ie. post c1750).
And it’s not just those who are trafficked who are subject to slavery in the UK. It can happen to those born here too.
It can often start with illegal loan sharks. They entrap victims into perpetual debt servitude, who then demand whatever they like from them. These victims may not be in chains but they are still not able to exercise their own free will.
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/
A what about the WHITE workers, some of whom came from Eastern Europe and some from difficult backgrounds who were recently ‘enslaved’ by an extended traveller family in Lincolnshire?
Exploitation takes many forms. You don’t need a massive knowledge of history or facts and figures to work that out. Given half a chance, it probably always will.
“The legacy of empire is controversial but the spread and use of the English language as the lingua franca is undoubtedly a positive.” Yeah, because that was a universally friendly, natural and benign process, wasn’t it! No systematic cultural suppression involved there at all! Perhaps what is also needed, in addition to teaching more/better BAME history and the Atlantic slave trade, is some teaching of ‘British’ history from points of view other than the governing classes of England.
Yeah, because that was a universally friendly, natural and benign process, wasn’t it! No systematic cultural suppression involved there at all!
That’s history for you!
The mogul’s did it, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Normans(*), etc. and in modern times, ISIS, Taliban…
Yes, we should be able to take a more mature and balanced view of history, fortunately, what counts as modern history today is different from what counted as modern history back in the 1970’s, so we can bring in more about British social history, which is more about the ordinary person than the doings of kings & queens.
(*) It is worth looking depth at the Norman takeover of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as in each case a different ‘integration’ approach was taken – which has lead directly to many of the differences and identity problems we have today…
Joe I’m sorry I didn’t mean to imply that slavery no longer existed. It’s just that my mind was back in the days of our colonial history. In fact the situation in Libya is dreadful and makes me critical of what the EU is doing with regard to refugees.
History should be more taught as an examination of core values at the time and how events caused and were influenced by these values. Paradoxically also how events shaped the values and beliefs at that time. Events happen and the culture we have moulds and reflects them.
Roland
The Normans gave rise to a form of English in Wexford known as Yola (old). A dialect (now extinct) that contained Middle English.
In the thread titled ‘Death of Capitalism, we had some discussion around the Marxist conception of history (historical materialism). Marxists will argue that historical materialism is not taught in our schools, because our education system has been developed to serve the interests of the ruling, the capitalist class.
Historical materialism asserts that much of the broad sweep of history is explained by the struggle between classes for the means of production and that slavery was an inevitable development in this struggle. Engels in ‘Anti-Duhring’ writes:
Why did slavery arise, why did it exist, what role did it play in history?
“When we examine these questions, we are compelled to say -however contradictory and heretical it may sound – that the introduction of slavery under the conditions prevailing at that time was a great step forward. For it is a fact that man sprang from the beasts, and had consequently to use barbaric and almost bestial means to extricate himself from barbarism. Where the ancient communes have continued to exist, they have for thousands of years formed the basis of the cruelest form of state, Oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It was only where these communities were dissolved that the peoples made progress of themselves, and their next economic advance consisted in the increase and development of production by means of slave labour.”
What is the connection of slavery with today’s world? Again Engels answers:
‘It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a larger scale, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the ancient world. Without slavery, no Greek art and science; without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by Grecian culture, and the Roman Empire, also no modern Europe.”
Historical Materialism argues that the great slave empires which grew up in Asia Minor, on the banks of the Nile, and later in Greece and Rome, were socio-economic developments as primitive communities became able to produce surplus value. Slaves, along with the land, became the main source of wealth. This form of economic organisation was superseded by another class-based system – the feudalism of the middle-ages and then by Industrial capitalism with its class based division between workers and capitalists.
@ Joe B,
I’m not sure what your point is but Marx and Engels were opposed to slavery and supported the Union side in the US civil war.
The British ruling class, including many Liberals of the time, didn’t. They wanted cheap imports of raw cotton for their mills. It was the organised working class in Lancashire who organised a boycott. I wish I could say I’m one of their descendents but I’m afraid not! There was an influx of people in the late 19th century due to the development of the railways and my grandparents and great grandparents were all a part of that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21057494
Peter Martin,
the point is that history is in the eye of the beholder (or the history teacher).
Modernization theory (as developed by Max Weber from Marx’s earlier theories) holds that modernisation of a society required the destruction of the indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern and argue that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison.
Dependency theory argues that the underdevelopment of poor nations in the Third World derived from systematic imperial and neo-colonial exploitation of raw materials. Its proponents argue that resources typically flow from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theorists that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the world system. Dependency models arose from a growing association of southern hemisphere nationalists (from Latin America and Africa) and Marxists. Modernization theory held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today’s underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today’s developed areas at some time in the past, and that, therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy. This is of central importance to the under-development of the Afican continent in today’s globalised markets.
As for Engels and Manchester, a discarded statue of Engels was transferred from the Ukraine to Manchester but it seems it was not welcomed by the City’s Ukrainian community https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/manchester-soviet-statue-engels-ukrainians Such is the fate of history “One man’s meat is another man’s poison.”
I don’t want to get into a discussion about various theories. I would say that developing countries should avoid IMF imposed austerity policies in return for loans like the plague. They also need to collaborate without getting into each others pockets! No sharing currencies for example..
Presumably, not too many of Karl’s votes for the ‘Thinker of the Millenium’ award came from the city’s Ukrainian population!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/461545.stm
Incidentally a friend’s father was a Ukranian “refugee”. Nice bloke. Until he’d had a few drinks and then he’d tell you what he really did in the war. Far from being a victim of the Nazis ( that was just a cover story he used to gain refugee status) he actually approved of them and fought alongside them against the Russians. He didn’t seem at all worried that the UK authorities would ever do anything about it.
His wife was German. She, to put it mildly, hadn’t entirely shaken off her Nazi education. They didn’t like Marx and Engels either!
Peter Martin,
it appears that over 90 countries have already applied for IMF support since Covid-19 spread around the globe https://www.ft.com/content/e46faadc-456b-4cf8-a2fd-2017702747ab The managing director said “We estimate the gross external financing needs for emerging market and developing countries to be in the trillions of dollars, and they can cover only a portion of that on their own, leaving residual gaps in the hundreds of billions of dollars. They urgently need help,” She also backed “large, timely and targeted” fiscal stimulus, embracing policies including “tax deferrals, wage subsidies and cash transfers to the most vulnerable”, as well as extensions of jobless benefits and loan adjustments. “Lifelines for households and businesses are imperative. We need to prevent liquidity pressures from turning into solvency problems and avoid scarring of the economy that would make the recovery so much more difficult,”
She added “Where we might be unable to lend because a country’s debt is unsustainable, we will look for solutions that can unlock critical financing,” This appears to be the case in Lebanon, for example, where the state/central bank cannot pay for imported fuel and can only provide a few hours of electricity daily for households across the country https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/07/02/mcs070219-lebanon-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2019-article-iv-mission
@ Joe B,
Can you supply any examples of countries which have turned their economies around by accepting IMF terms and conditions on their loans?
Sebia appears to have fared quite well after completing its IMF program https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/02/21/na022218-serbia-completes-successful-imf-program
The bail-out for Lebanon may prove more challenging to deliver https://www.voanews.com/middle-east/imf-talks-drag-lebanons-economy-spirals
@ Joe B,
So how is Serbia doing compared to a decade ago? Or even 50 years ago?
As the IMF writes its optimistic reports the population is leaving.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/07/nothing-to-return-to-serbia-is-losing-one-town-every-year-through-population-decline
Why bother about teaching history when we have Messrs Bourke and Martin arguing the toss! By the way, what was this thread supposed to be about? Come on, chaps, just spare a thought for us poor mortals. We are not worthy!!
John Marriott,
I expect that this to and fro about who’s history should be taught in the UK will not go away anytime soon. Most counties around the world appear to subscribe to a form of school history which is based predominantly on the idea that the transmission of a positive story about the national past will inculcate in young people a sense of loyalty to the state; a reassuring and positive sense of identity and belonging; and a sense of social solidarity with fellow citizens. This same rationale is applied to the history element of the official handbook that supports the UK Citizenship test.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Given the breadth of British history, the Life in the UK handbook provides a starting point to explore our past and help those seeking to live permanently in the UK gain a basic understanding of our society, culture and historical references which occur in everyday conversations. “We have published several editions of the handbook since it was launched and will continue to keep its contents under review and consider any feedback we receive.”
England is one of the countries which has to at least some extent moved away from the traditional model of school history; but the past few years have seen suggestions for a move back to a history curriculum which focuses predominantly on the transmission of ‘Our Island Story’; and which presents a positive rendering of that story. The history curriculum in England is seemingly always under review and has become rather politicised. Public pronouncements by politicians; academic historians and newspaper editorials suggest a tug-of-war between a restoration of what is often termed ‘traditional’ school history (which was prevalent in English schools before the advent of what has been termed ‘New history’ in the 1970s) and what Merlene, in her article, describes as viewing the world as it is, not through neo-imperial blinkered eyes.
Marxism tends to view the primary purpose of the teaching of national history as a device to maintain capitalism and history teachers therefore as capitalist lackeys that promote and reinforce class oppression. I doubt you were taught that in your teacher training courses.
I must have been lucky. I had a history teacher from Sri Lanka who actively encouraged individual learning, debate and wider perspectives. As a consequence, I have had an enduring interest in world history and alterntive perspectives ever since.
@ Joe Bourke “England is one of the countries which has to at least some extent moved away from the traditional model of school history”.
A question. Does “the transmission of ‘Our Island Story” include Scotland and Wales – or for that matter Ireland, not to mention the former colonies ?
Part of the trouble is the rigging of the national curriculum by successive Tory Education Ministers ranging from Gove (with side-kick Cummings) back to Baker to present a biased right wing view of history. I’ve no doubt Spitfires and Hurricanes in Johnson’s little world get more attention than the post war welfare state.
Having said that, I still recall with some relish the derring do of one of my school teachers regaling the class with his experiences of the retreat from Mons to the Marne in August/September, 1914 and how he described the scary nature of the battle of Le Cateau….. thus triggering off what later was to become a career in history.
Thank you, Sir. I can still remember the twinkle in your eye and the enthusiasm in your voice all these years later. R.I.P.
“Marxism tends to view the primary purpose of the teaching of national history as a device to maintain capitalism……”
If they do think that I’d say they were incorrect. Modern capitalism has moved beyond the Nation State. The emphasis now is on the development of transnational organisations such as the EU. The nation states themselves have too much power for the capitalists’ liking. They want to neutralise that with the creation of irreversible treaty obligations.
Unfortunately the left has fallen for a bait and switch trick. The bait was the unity of the European working classes via the EU. The switch was to the modern EU which severely limits their ability of to change policies via a democratic mandate. The modern left needs to reclaim the state based powers that it has relinquished.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reclaiming-State-Progressive-Sovereignty-Post-Neoliberal/dp/0745337325
“I had previously held a benign view of the Commonwealth legacy.”
The commonwealth emerged as a voluntary club that countries could join as they gained independence from the British empire. Initially as Dominions where there was a shared head of state.
The modern commonwealth emerged in 1949 when it was agreed that republics could become members upon gaining independence, following India’s independence in 1947.
I’m not sure what Commonwealth legacy is being discussed here? I’m sure there are errors in any body but compared with the history of empires etc. I’m not sure I would judge a voluntary club of nations too harshly.
https://thecommonwealth.org/about-us/history