“Lord Cromer was an effective consul-general of Egypt. To what level do you concur?” I read this essay timely in my A-level history class, wondering what “effective” means. Successful in forcing austerity on Egyptians to line the pockets of British investors? Effective in civilising a nation of people he considered as “subversive demagogues” and “subject races”?
Fortunately my essay could argue that Cromer wasn’t effective if I attempted to frame “success” in terms of how he affected the Egyptian population: he enforced an unjust land tax system and limited access to education. However even then I had to write it under the implicit assumption that colonial rulers can be successful for a population– it’s just that this one wasn’t. Why does not discussion around Cromer– and the values he embodied– rather centre on the right to rule?Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer, who was consul-general of Egypt in between 1883 and 1907. Photograph: Chronicle/Alamy Like lots of students at British secondary schools, I have ratings of kings and queens and particular weapon constraints of cold war treaties etched into my memory from GCSE and prior. That’s not a grievance– all history is important. However there is so much history that is simply as, or most likely more considerable, yet absent from our curricula. And as the Cromer essay timely highlights, there’s another issue. When British colonial history is studied, what is scrutinised and critiqued is not the concept of colonialism, but the performance with which the British colonised.At a basic level, history suggests examining the past, piecing together what we know to form the most precise version. That means taking a look at varying experiences, viewpoints and analyses; tough orthodox teachings. The kind of colonial history we currently find out in English and Welsh schools is not that. Our curricula sing tales of”fantastic guys”however are quiet about the colonised. Twelve years after MichaelGove’s tenure as education secretary, we are still memorising the tasks of imperial” heroes”rather than checking out colonial history from reflective and inclusive viewpoints– such as the viewpoints of its victims.Take, for example, my Edexcel module Britain: losing and acquiring an empire, 1763-1914. When we A-level trainees find out about the 1857 Indian uprising, we study the”strengths”and “weaknesses “of British governor generals. Yet their role in orchestrating the 1770 great Bengal famine– eliminating 10 million people– is somehow missing from the specification.Why do our history curricula still task selective amnesia? Fear of decreasing British identity? Possibly– however if this fear exists, it is a deception. Simply look at how Germany reckons with its challenging past. Vergangenheitsbewältigung(“a working-off of the past” )has only reinforced the country. Simply stroll through Berlin and you’ll discover plaques, memorials and museums filled with meaningful ceremonies of the Holocaust that have made the country stronger by creating genuine awareness of historical crimes.Arthur Balfour( centre, with dark glasses)visiting Jewish colonies in Palestine in 1925. Photo: UniversalImagesGroup/Getty Images From the Balfour statement to the great Irish famine, the traditions of British manifest destiny still reverberate across the world. Former colonies know far more of– and look much more seriously on– our shared history than we carry out in Britain, as responses to the queen’s death in 2022
throughout the Commonwealth highlighted. As David Olusoga puts it, British history has” constantly been a dialogue”, although many people in Britain treat it as a monologue. However this amnesia does not strengthen or safeguard British identity: it divides us. It excludes and erases the populations that have always been the silenced part of the dialogue. And not simply on a global scale– in the classroom too, where many trainees are descended from the very history their textbooks ignore.It might be challenging to teach the British empire. It might be uncomfortable to move focus from its”successes”to its human costs. There would undoubtedly be objection from the imperial nostalgists. But these are bad reasons for mentor ignorance.The late scholar-activist Ambalavaner Sivanandan said of post-colonial migration:”We are here due to the fact that you
existed.” I was never ever taught this basic reality at school. Reading books and listening to podcasts in my free time have educated me about this topic, not the national curriculum. There are optional GCSE modules on migration and empire, however just 4%of GCSE history trainees take them.
And A-level empire modules, like my own, remain deeply flawed. This leaves history instructors in a moral predicament. Choose the unusual GCSE modules and accept that resources might be less reputable. Teach beyond the narrow A-level empire spec and threat impeding students’examination efficiencies– not to point out the additional workload at a time when teachers have actually never ever been so overworked.In effect we have a system that seems engineered to prevent appropriate mentor of the British empire. This need to alarm all of us. Why? Because the far right gains from our ignorance. Anti-immigration populism is successful due to the fact that we know so little of our history. The claim that Britain is being”colonised” by migrant”invasions”is popular because we are not taught what colonisation really looks like. The demonisation of migrants works because few are taught about the important, favorable function that migration to Britain has played throughout history.But the classroom could be a location where we prevent the development of these narratives. Teach trainees colonial history– that migration is not some random, mysterious phenomenon– and equip us with the intelligence to do so.When I take my history A-levels in June, I can anticipate to compose an essay focusing, ridiculously, on the” successes” of some Victorian imperialist like Cromer rather of on the bigger concerns about empire. My only hope is that future history students will not. With the current curriculum review recommending a shake-up of what is taught in schools, now is the time for a long overdue change. Crucial colonial history is urgently essential– politically, socially and morally. Do you have an opinion on the problems raised in this post? If you would like to send
a reaction of approximately 300 words by e-mail to be considered for publication in our letters area, please click on this link.