History of Empire should be taught in schools?

By dropping some of the stuff that is less relevant. That's how most curriculum development happens.

 

Our future Prime Minister thinks it is a good idea. Link.

Of course, History is an optional subject beyond age 14, so only those who choose to would get to study this stuff anyway.

And have a guess how this has been interpreted by the ever reliable Daily Mail, its headline:

'Now Corbyn is trying to indoctrinate our children.' 'Row as Labour demands all pupils learn about evils of British Empire.'

Meanwhile Tory Education Minister, Damian Hinds, urges Labour

to 'Leave our kids alone' and warns us against Labour's 'Dangerous control freakery' over education.'

Ye Gods, what a swine that Corbyn is with his indoctrination and demands

...Like I said... The truth is a political issue...

 

but Corbyn labour is leaving lots of its traditional support behind without a voice..

Hardly lots, given the Labour vote at the last election, and as long as those votes go to UKIP rather than the Tories, any electoral damage will be limited.

Hardly lots, given the Labour vote at the last election, and as long as those votes go to UKIP rather than the Tories, any electoral damage will be limited.

They failed to win.

I can only speak from what I see around me. Lots of labour supporters I know won't vote for them now, and despite voting for them most times I wouldn't either. But maybe you know different.

Back on topic please, if you want to discuss the Labour party in general theres a dedicated thread.

I was brought up in the 1950's when I was told that Britain was the best country on earth in every possible way, etc etc. There was no actual mention of Empire (I think it was just beginning to dawn that it wasn't quite the bloodless coup that was being peddled) but its glories permeated the very air we breathed.

Now, 60 years later, I still happen to think this is a great country to live in, but I do appreciate being told the truth without being brainwashed into a certain point of view, and being beaten about the head (metaphorically) if I want to step out of line and contradict it.

I'm old enough, sensible enough and knowledgable enough to know that there are usually two sides to every story, and it's not being disloyal or 'unpatriotic' to say so. I'm strong enough to take it, and so should everyone else be. We can still love our country, warts and all.

'The truth shall set us free.'

I actually posted the above not because of some agenda but because I only found out about this a bit back and I wasn’t ever taught about it during history lessons in schools. I’m 45 yrs old by the way and yes there were other ethnicities who fought for the British but for some reasons we are only shown pictures of white soldiers during history lessons in schools.

My grandad's regiment had both Gurkha and Sikh regiments fighting alongside. I know neither are Muslim, but the empire covered almost every religion on earth, which is why I mentioned them. So not surprised at all about those 400,000 Muslims.

---------- Post added 11-10-2018 at 19:18 ----------

Perhaps it's all changed since I was at school, but we spent quite a lot of time on WWII and some on periods you mentioned. But since I didn't do History at GCSE level it's not like they could have fitted in a history of empire somewhere as well.

There was still a British Empire during WW11, in fact Hitler so envied us he wanted his own, but bigger. The North African campaigns were all about the Nazis grabbing the Suez canal and cutting Britain off from the Commonwealth. Which is why the victory at El Alamein was so important.

you just know that Corbyn will want to peddle the Marxist myth that it was only off the backs of poor non-white people, who never of course practised slavery or anything bad themselves, but led blameless lives under totally meritocratic systems, that Britain got rich in the first place.

it wasn't like that at all. Most of Britain's imperial possessions lost money. India was the big exception, that was the moneyspinner all the other European powers were jealous of, as their imperial possessions were even more loss making than Britain's were. It wasn't called the Jewel in the Crown for nothing.

Corbyn will also want to peddle the myth that Britain only gave up the empire because of the brave 'resistance'. In actual fact is was because they were skint, and couldn't afford it any more.

you just know that Corbyn will want to peddle the Marxist myth that it was only off the backs of poor non-white people, who never of course practised slavery or anything bad themselves, but led blameless lives under totally meritocratic systems, that Britain got rich in the first place.

 

it wasn't like that at all. Most of Britain's imperial possessions lost money. India was the big exception, that was the moneyspinner all the other European powers were jealous of, as their imperial possessions were even more loss making than Britain's were. It wasn't called the Jewel in the Crown for nothing.

 

Corbyn will also want to peddle the myth that Britain only gave up the empire because of the brave 'resistance'. In actual fact is was because they were skint, and couldn't afford it any more.

Okay you don't accept what you call the Marxist myth but it does hold water if you sign up to some of the initial thoughts.

As for the strawmen of the first paragraph lets just ingore the "...............who never of course practised slavery or anything bad themselves, but led blameless lives under totally meritocratic systems,.. cos its just infantile.

So why did we seek and get an empire on which the sun never set? Under your current thinking it don't make no sense.

"So why did we seek and get an empire."

prestige mainly and to gain military superiority. People wanted to make money out of the colonies, the trouble is a lot of them were not profitable at all.

some of them made money but most did not. The small Caribbean colonies for example were much more profitable than the huge American colonies were, which were a nightmare to administer and garrison.

even though the East India company did go bankrupt, after it did, the British turned that round and India - at least for a while until it started to lose money in the late 19th and the 20th century, was the big moneyspinner that gives rise to the myth that the empire was the cause of Britain's wealth. But India was the exception. Most of the colonies were not earners at all. Even South Africa. The Boer War cost the British much more than they ever made out of it as a colony.

look at the Portuguese, who were the first. Because they didn't want to lose prestige, their hanging on to their empire actually bankrupted the place and turned them into the poorest country in western Europe. They never made a cent out of it.