So, istead of whining about how tests are 'traumatic' for youngsters, Ofted (the body supposed to uphold educational standards in the UK) has decided to make a valid point about the teaching of history in British schools. From personal experience I can definitely say that the Empire is not taught sufficiently (or at all) in schools. The only two subjects I have studied (at school, at any rate) from the period 1750-1900 are the Industrial revolution and slavery.
Now, the industrial revolution is a very important part of history. But it was taught with no historical context and with the simplest details repeated over and over. And the slavery section was even worse; virtually all that was done was the Middle Passage and some stuff about the life of slaves in the West Indies and America. Nothing about the abolition movement (except in the vaguest sense) and nothing about the long campaigns against the slave trade and slavery itself waged by (primarily) the British Empire.
From what I can see, there are two factors at work here. The first is the politicisation (sp?) of teaching. For too long it had been regarded as politically incorrect or insensitive to teach issues that may be slightly controversial. The British Empire is perhaps the area of history that has suffered most from this; a surprising number of people still believe the hackneyed and out of date view that the Empire was universally a 'bad thing'. I believe it is necessary to teach children about the history of their particular country. The empire was, I think you'll all admit, a pretty important part of that history. I don't think anything is achieved by covering it up for silly political reasons.
Secondly, history teaching is neglected in schools. One hour a week in yeras 7-9 (11-14 years old) is simply not enough. Granted, other subjects are probably as important, especially the 'core subjects' of maths, English and science. But 30-odd years ago it was not uncommon for 2-3 hours (or even more) per week to be spent on history. I really do feel that more time should be spent on teaching history. RE and IT lessons could be cut back to start with (noone ever learned anything in an IT lesson below GNVQ or A-level standard). The only reason RE is even studied is because it is a statutory requirement. Most of the content could be covered in a more relevant and interesting way through history anyway.
Historical study and knowledge provides people with a vital sense of identity, as well as helping them to understand what is going on in the world around them. In addition, the analytical skills gained are incredibly useful in all sorts of careers. Finally, it's nice just to know stuff. Perhaps the best example of the way in which general historical knowledge has declined comes from an Indian tattoo parlour of all places. In World War 2 Imperial forces were stationed in India to guard against the Japenese and, ultimately, to liberate Burma. One of the most popular tattoos among these troops bore the writing 'Cawnpore Well', a reference to the massacre at cawnpore during the Indian Mutiny. That British and Commonwealth enlisted men, not exactly renowned (then or now) for their studious nature, knew the significance of this shows a dramatic difference to the situation today, where hardly anyone (of my age (18) anyway) would even know there was an Indian mutiny.
I'll let you all post any opinions while I go and calm down... Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, well. If it's about the British Empire, then feel free continue.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Something else...
It�s been my experience that people like the myth of history rather than the reality of history. Since history is based on interpretation of events, often those who challenge commonly held myth history are viewed as revisionist historians come to destroy treasured traditions.
Deeply held cherished traditions are hard to change. Culture, and the traditions it engenders, shape popular perceptions even when based on myth. I would argue that societal elites tend to use popular misconceptions of historical events to their advantage to harden class roles and to consolidate social and political power.
My advice is don�t tear your hair out about it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think they should teach a semester on British history with UK tectbooks....followed by a semester using history books from India.
Just to see what the viewpoint diffrene is on the "Empire".
Same with the US: there should be lessons taught from Native American texts....not that they have any, but you get the idea.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I think they should teach a semester on British history with UK tectbooks(sic.)....followed by a semester using history books from India.
That should be a fun semester, assuming they don't translate the textbooks Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Same with the US: there should be lessons taught from Native American texts....not that they have any, but you get the idea.
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, I seem to recall the uproar that happened not so very long ago when historians tried to move some of the focus off of the �Great White Men" and onto the often overlooked "others" that make up the historical narrative.
Such change will be a painfully slow process and will not happen soon because the focus of American education is well away from the humanities and on to teaching toward standardized tests.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
One hour a week? And I thought American kids weren't learning anything. At least they tried to teach us.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The hour a week is only for the years when it's compulsory. Obviously it's more for GCSE and A-level. At the risk of sounding like a hard-right tory, I think at least some of the reason for the minimalisation of history in British schools is the (notorious) left wing domination of the teaching profession.
quote: It�s been my experience that people like the myth of history rather than the reality of history. Since history is based on interpretation of events, often those who challenge commonly held myth history are viewed as revisionist historians come to destroy treasured traditions.
Quite right. Obviously it is difficult to teach the most up to date research in schools but not teaching something for predominantly political reasons is blatently wrong. Especially when it's such an important period of history. Imagine the American West was no longer taught in the US. I know some people are having a hard time accepting new views of World War one and the Empire in particular.
quote: I think they should teach a semester on British history with UK tectbooks....followed by a semester using history books from India
Leaving aside the fun of 18th century geo-politics in Hindi... Most UK textbooks on other subjects (the only ones I've seen) do take a multi-view point approach that is commendable. The American West texbooks were particularly good at this, despite the relative lack of native American primary sources. I do know that some of the Indian stuff has been hijacked for political purposes in some of the states though; I read about one 'historian' who claimed that the Black Hole of Calcutta never happened and was just an excuse for whites to take over the subcontinent.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We were taught about many of the more shameful aspects of how the Native Americans were treated (the Trail of Tears in particular) but theres no real teaching about how other cultures view the world (even in World History classes).
There just is no time for teachers to teach it: not with all the standardization (FCAT here in Florida) and the focus is always on topics that will be addressed on the ACT/SAT.
All many kids see of other cultures is what's represented (oftem stereotypically) on TV.
I'd love to hve learned about the beginings of the first civiliazitions in China and the middle-east.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
I got a chance to dive deeper in that regard last year, brushing up on my history. The migrations and events of southern europe (especially greece) up until Alexander Teh Great, very interesting.
I was able to take a philosophy-class at the same time, which started with the greeks as well, the pre-socratians and whatnot. So the two classes kept a nice parallel pace.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, but I do think the history of the country it's being taught in should be taught first and is, in some ways, slightly more important, at least in the first few years of secondary school. After that there should be more of a balence. My A-level corse was split between Tudor England and Soviet Russia for example.
Of course, teaching the Empire would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: ...RE and IT lessons could be cut back to start with...
So call me an undereducated American, but what are these specifically? I see IT and think 'Information Technology', but that's because I am a geek and have no social life.
I loathed history at the end of high school (Ages: 13-18) as our teacher basically pressed us through a chapter a week of primarily US History with memorization of names and dates (followed closely by forgetting) with little consideration/context of just how cool history can be. The History Channel is now one of my favorite things on TV. It's an inherently interesting subject, I just think that so often it is taught unimaginatively and incorrectly. And one hour a week just seems criminal.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:My A-level corse was split between Tudor England and Soviet Russia for example.
Aren't they one in the same?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The hour a week is only for the years when it's compulsory."
So, the rest of time, it's zero hours a week if you don't volunteer?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yep. Great, eh? Although you're supposed to start specialising from year 10 onwards; GCSE English, Maths, Science and RE are compulsory, you also have to do a technology and a language (usually French or German but some schools offer Spanish). When I did my GCSEs IT was compulsory as well. Ultimately I was limited to two actual choices and took history and geography. A/S level you get to choose four or five subjects and then carry on three or four to A level.
quote: So call me an undereducated American, but what are these specifically? I see IT and think 'Information Technology', but that's because I am a geek and have no social life
IT is information technology. The problem is, before A/S level (Year 12/lower 6th form/16-17 years old) you basically learn how to use word and excel and stuff like that. I have never taken an IT lesson where I didn't already know haow to do the stuff we were being 'taught'. Same goes for pretty much everyone else I know.
RE is Religious Education which these days means a brief swing through the major faiths in years 7-9 then Islam and Christian Ethics (not PC to teach straight Christianity anymore- insert your own jokes) in years 10-11. Just about the only reason people do it is because it's compulsory. And easy.
I think these two subjects could be collapsed into an alternating one hour slot per week and the extra hour given to history.
There was a very good article in the Telegraph today but it's not on the web site yet; I'll post it when it is.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Religous Education?!? Man, that's fucked...sex education would serve society far better thn delving into paranormal nonsense. Is there a cryptozoolgy elective as well? You could do a thesis on 'Nessie. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
RE is a statutory requirement. Technically you're supposed to do it until the end of sixth form but most schools don't. We just signed a form saying we didn't want to do it. Also some of the slightly less mainstream religions/denominations can get exemptions. It's supposed to be in support of the C of E; social cohesion and all that. Nowdays, of course, there's much more about other religions.
We do sex education as well, it's part of the science course.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, at least it''s not part of the religous course! I imagine they keep the science and religion classes at opposite ends of the schoolday. ...to avoid confusion when it's test time, of course.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Actually sex ed is covered in primary school, yr6 when I did it, (age 10-11) and being at a Catholic high school it wasn't really touched upon outside of biology, which is voluntary anyway and rather dull. My school had a history department with a staff of 2 teachers and no money, but it was certainly the most interesting subject I studied, if only for the fact that both teachers were off their rockers.
RE, bah, useless nonsense, I'd ban it m'self especiall the way they taught it at my school, only Christianity was covered, and most of it was Catholic (being a Catholic school you know) in our exam essays we were not allowed to disagree with the Catholic view, bassically you wouldn't get marks if you started arguing that the Catholic are wrong, you mention other arguements but can't support them. Bar Stewards.
Oh and haven't they changed IT to ICT now? All I remember was playing Unreal Tournament on the servers against my mates after classes LOL.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
I got sex ed in 9th grade biology. It was cartoon-based, but they did show the old in-out in-out in conjunction with condom applying so we would get it. Somewhat arousing, even. It was a nice 45 minutes spent. Thank you, government!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Was it hentai? Tenticle Anime?
I got Sex Ed in reform school (age 14) from a really really slutty girl in a pool.
Just a grope and wnk but still very educational.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Cartoon based?
"Eeeeewww!" "She's faking it."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Just a grope and wnk..."
That was a rather inopportune time to demonstrate your inability to operate a keyboard...
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Well RE biggest joke ever. In Australia they stop doing it around 14. Unless you go to a religious based school (catholic for example) where it is oh so subtly rammed down peoples throats.
My only memories of RE are from getting into trouble for mocking the good lord. But shit happens. I can't remember a single person taking that class even slightly seriously.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: My only memories of RE are from getting into trouble for mocking the good lord. But shit happens. I can't remember a single person taking that class even slightly seriously.
Sounds familiar. It's a good job there were no Muslims in my Islam class or I'm fairly certian we'd have had a fatwa on us within 5 seconds.
That Telegraph article (I've copied the whole thing as you have to log on to the web site):
quote: The lessons of Empire (Filed: 15/07/2004)
Few teenagers today learn about the British Empire, says Andrew Cunningham
Fifty years ago, their names tripped off the tongue: Clive of India, Wolfe of Quebec, Captain Cook, Mungo Park, Livingstone and Stanley, Baden-Powell of Mafeking, Kitchener of Khartoum. Every schoolchild grew up knowing these imperial greats. On the wall of most classrooms was a map of the world, one-third coloured pink, as a reminder.
Now, 50 years of 'progressive' education and misguided history teaching have done what these figures' opponents never quite managed � killed them off. Ask any teenager today about the illustrious names on this list and you'll meet with a complete blank. As far as history teaching in schools is concerned, the British Empire may as well not have happened. Our children are never taught about it.
These are the unsurprising findings of Ofsted, which complained this week that schools spend "insufficient time" learning about the Empire. "Insufficient time"? Surely, the understatement of the year. Ofsted's inspectors found that pupils aged 11 to 16 receive a mere three or four lessons on the subject in five full years at school.
The Empire barely features on the GCSE syllabuses, which devote most of their attention to trendy topics, such as Hitler, Stalin, the General Strike and Cold War. Our teenagers know all about the Nazis and trade unionism, but nothing about the Empire upon which the sun, once so famously, never set.
What little information does filter through tends to be sickeningly one-sided: condemning the British Empire as some brutal aberration. One BBC website aimed at schoolchildren came up with this analysis: "The Empire came into greatness by killing lots of people... and stealing their countries." The reality, of course, is that the British Empire was special largely because it was based on commerce, not conquest.
As Ofsted argues: "Pupils should know about the Empire." Why not put it more strongly? It should be top of the syllabus. Yes, of course the Empire can be a sensitive subject (though not, perhaps, as sensitive as its detractors would have us believe) and should be taught in the context of its own, vastly different world order.
Pupils should be aware that its legacy can be interpreted differently, according to beliefs and background. They should also realise (as if they need reminding) that imperialism � whether British, French or American � is no longer acceptable. But, in addition to being the biggest Empire the world has ever seen, ours was also the most benign. It deserves better than to be consigned to oblivion, 100 years after its Edwardian heyday.
One fact is certain: the British Empire won't be so easily forgotten around the globe. From Canada to Calcutta, the West Indies to Gibraltar, the Empire has left a permanent legacy: the English language, a strong sense of liberty, an impartial legal system and stable parliamentary government.
To this day, India remains the world's largest democracy. From Calais down to the Cape of Good Hope lie the graves of the men and women who died building that Empire: who died believing in a cause that, a century on, seems so politically incorrect and flawed. In superb poems, such as Thomas Hardy's Drummer Hodge (dedicated to the British dead at Spion Kop, South Africa, 1900), their memory lives on.
Rudyard Kipling, of course, was the chief writer of Empire. It's easy to sneer today at some of his sayings � "the White Man's burden", "East is East, and West is West", "Come you back to Mandalay". We conveniently forget the strong sense of sacrifice that underpinned his work and the ways of Empire. It was Kipling who wrote: "You're a better man than I am" of the native servant, Gunga Din � and meant it.
And we delude ourselves if we think the Empire can be quietly forgotten. So many of us are still bound to it. Not in the sense of grand ideals, events and achievements, maybe, but in the mementos and memories we inherit from our own pasts. Uncle Charlie's medals, Great Uncle Trev's pith helmet, Great Grandad's battered trunk that went all the way to Bombay and back. This is history brought to life. Nearly every UK citizen has relatives spread all over the world. Long-lost cousins living in places whose names alone evoke the imperial connection: British Columbia, New South Wales, Nova Scotia, New England.
Its legacy is all around us back home, too. In the names of our streets; in the time-stained statues in our squares; in our language, with its mix of imported words from former colonies (khaki, jodhpurs, bungalow, mufti). The imperial legacy lives on in the fact that Britain is now so ethnically diverse: with so many from the former colonies having, in turn, come to the "mother country". The Empire has brought people from Pakistan, India, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Jamaica to live together in Britain in relative harmony.
Now, more forward-thinking historians, such as Niall Ferguson, are at last giving the Empire credit for its many achievements. As Ferguson says in a recent book: "The Empire maintained a global peace, unmatched before or since."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Just a grope and wnk..."
That was a rather inopportune time to demonstrate your inability to operate a keyboard...
Yeah....I was bust cleaning up the house for your information though. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
All you ever need to read on the "Empire" and colonialism is H.G. Well's War of The Worlds. It was written specifically to make people think about the morality of such things.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I'm not sure it's adviseable to read just one work on anything. Especially by an author with strong political views. Like basing all your knowledge of Soviet Russia on Pravda. The best recent book on the British Empire is the one by Niall Fergusson. It's good that people are beginning to move away from the 'Empire was pure evil' view; it's somewhat silly and certainly not supported by historical evidence unless you're quite selective. Granted, it wasn't exactly a bundle of joy for everyone, but the British Empire was a hell of a lot better than the European Empires. Especially towards the end of the 19th century and into the twentieth.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
And the only empire in history to die in peace and with relative dignity, IIRC.
Just curious, like the fall of the Der Mauer was the fall of Soviet Russia, what is considered the last day, month or year the British Empire existed as a recognized entity? The big event? Was it the death of the last british king?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
15th August 1947 - Independence Day in India. The day we gave up the jewel in the crown was was without doubt the end of the Empire.
Read Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins. It tells the whole story of how Independence came about, and it's a very moving story of human tragedy and frailty and stupidity. I lived in India for three years in the 1970's, it's an amazing country.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
That's my birthday! I shall try and get that book for summer reading. This is great, "Freedom by midnight" and R.A Salvatore's "Homeland". You know, I suspected Gandhi would have something to do with it all.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, Gandhi is often meddeling in Drow affairs.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"One BBC website aimed at schoolchildren came up with this analysis: 'The Empire came into greatness by killing lots of people... and stealing their countries.' The reality, of course, is that the British Empire was special largely because it was based on commerce, not conquest."
So the killing people and stealing their countries was secondary, is what they're saying...?
[ July 15, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: So the killing people and stealing their countries was secondary, is what they're saying...?
Basically, yes. The empire did (initially at least) expand due to economic necessity (or what was then percieved as economic necessity). India came under British control due to the actions of the East India Company and other areas were initially controlled by other companies as in Western Canada.
For much of the 19th century the British government was extremely unwilling to take on new colonies. Natal was begging us for years to be annexed and we only took over the Sudan with extreme reluctance. And we didn't steal their countries per se. They were legitimate spoils of war. Like the half of Mexico annexed by the US. Don't forget either that it wasn't exactly a case of the natives being dressed in grass skirts and armed with sharpened mangos, as per the standard view. Several (notably the Sikhs, Zulus, Afghans and Mahdists (Fuzzy-Wuzzies)) put up a pretty good fight.
quote: Read Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins. It tells the whole story of how Independence came about, and it's a very moving story of human tragedy and frailty and stupidity. I lived in India for three years in the 1970's, it's an amazing country
I'll have to get that. I've always been interested in Idia; hopefully I'll get a chance to go there soon. But now I'm off to Spain for two weeks!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)