“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, questioning what “successful” means. Effective in requiring austerity on Egyptians to line the pockets of British financiers? Effective in civilising a nation of people he deemed “subversive demagogues” and “subject races”?
Thankfully my essay could argue that Cromer wasn’t successful if I attempted to frame “success” in terms of how he impacted the Egyptian population: he enforced an unfair land tax system and restricted access to education. But even then I had to compose it under the implicit assumption that colonial rulers can be successful for a population– it’s simply that this one wasn’t. Why does not conversation around Cromer– and the worths he embodied– instead centre on the right to rule?Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer, who was consul-general of Egypt between 1883 and 1907. Photograph: Chronicle/Alamy Like lots of trainees at British secondary schools, I have scores of kings and queens and particular weapon constraints of cold war treaties engraved into my memory from GCSE and prior. That’s not a problem– all history is valuable. But there is a lot history that is simply as, or probably more substantial, yet missing from our curricula. And as the Cromer essay timely highlights, there’s another problem. When British colonial history is studied, what is scrutinised and critiqued is not the principle of manifest destiny, but the effectiveness with which the British colonised.At an essential level, history means investigating the past, piecing together what we know to form the most precise variation. That suggests examining differing experiences, perspectives and interpretations; difficult orthodox mentors. The kind of colonial history we presently find out in English and Welsh schools is not that. Our curricula sing tales of”great men”however are silent about the colonised. Twelve years after MichaelGove’s tenure as education secretary, we are still memorising the tasks of royal” heroes”instead of checking out colonial history from reflective and inclusive perspectives– such as the viewpoints of its victims.Take, for example, my Edexcel module Britain: losing and getting an empire, 1763-1914. When we A-level trainees learn more about the 1857 Indian uprising, we study the”strengths”and “weak points “of British guv generals. Yet their role in orchestrating the 1770 great Bengal starvation– killing 10 million individuals– is somehow absent from the specification.Why do our history curricula still job selective amnesia? Worry of decreasing British identity? Possibly– however if this worry exists, it is a deception. Simply take a look at how Germany considers its difficult past. Vergangenheitsbewältigung(“a working-off of the past” )has only reinforced the nation. Just stroll through Berlin and you’ll discover plaques, memorials and museums filled with meaningful celebrations of the Holocaust that have made the nation stronger by developing authentic awareness of historical crimes.Arthur Balfour( centre, with dark glasses)going to Jewish nests in Palestine in 1925. Picture: UniversalImagesGroup/Getty Images From the Balfour declaration to the fantastic Irish famine, the legacies of British colonialism still reverberate across the world. Previous nests understand even more of– and look even more critically on– our shared history than we do in Britain, as responses to the queen’s death in 2022
throughout the Commonwealth highlighted. As David Olusoga puts it, British history has actually” constantly been a discussion”, although many individuals in Britain treat it as a monologue. But this amnesia does not reinforce or secure British identity: it divides us. It leaves out and eliminates the populations that have constantly been the silenced part of the dialogue. And not just on an international scale– in the classroom too, where lots of trainees are come down from the very history their textbooks ignore.It may be hard to teach the British empire. It may be uncomfortable to shift focus from its”successes”to its human costs. There would definitely be objection from the imperial nostalgists. However these are not good excuses for teaching ignorance.The late scholar-activist Ambalavaner Sivanandan stated of post-colonial migration:”We are here since you
existed.” I was never taught this basic fact at school. Checking out books and listening to podcasts in my leisure time have informed me about this subject, not the national curriculum. There are optional GCSE modules on migration and empire, however only 4%of GCSE history students take them.
And A-level empire modules, like my own, remain deeply flawed. This leaves history instructors in an ethical issue. Select the uncommon GCSE modules and accept that resources might be less reliable. Teach beyond the narrow A-level empire specification and risk preventing students’test performances– not to mention the additional workload at a time when instructors have never ever been so overworked.In result we have a system that appears crafted to avoid proper teaching of the British empire. This need to alarm all of us. Why? Because the far best gains from our lack of knowledge. Anti-immigration populism succeeds because we understand so little of our history. The claim that Britain is being”colonised” by migrant”invasions”is popular because we are not taught what colonisation in fact appears like. The demonisation of migrants works because couple of are taught about the vital, positive role that migration to Britain has played throughout history.But the class might be a place where we avoid the development of these narratives. Teach trainees colonial history– that migration is not some random, mysterious phenomenon– and equip us with the intellect to do so.When I take my history A-levels in June, I can anticipate to write an essay focusing, absurdly, on the” successes” of some Victorian imperialist like Cromer instead of on the bigger questions about empire. My only hope is that future history trainees will not. With the current curriculum review advising a shake-up of what is taught in schools, now is the time for a long past due change. Critical colonial history is urgently necessary– politically, socially and morally. Do you have an opinion on the concerns raised in this post? If you wish to send
a reaction of up to 300 words by e-mail to be thought about for publication in our letters area, please click here.