The imperialism of Britain

[AfterAscon]

In my school(s) it was never really taught. During my A-levels I took on a rather large prject around the empire and so read numerous books on the subject. Lawrence James in his book 'The rise and Fall of the British Empire' conclusion puts it best: "A superficial glance at Britain's imperial past can lead to the conclusion that [ruthlessness and rapacity] were uppermost [dominant characteristics], but this is misleading. Britain's empire was a moral force and one for good." It then goes into a quote by Nelson Mandela about why he admired Britain.

From my experience people tend to see the phrase British Empire and assume it was the most evil thing to ever infect the world. Yes, it did all those bad things we find so abhorrent today, but it reality it wasn't doing anything particular different/bad by the moral standards of those eras. And, despite all the bad things, a lot of good was also born, and it is quite sad to see it forgotten. Things like, Wilberforce and the empire's instrumental role in the ending of the slave trade and colonisation is almost never mentioned. I also love to note that 3/4 of the 'British forces' in India during the time of the Empire were trained Indians. Britain didn't really have the resources to rule with an iron fist like it wis portrayed.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

even tho most inventions should be accredited to Scotland and Ireland even when the scots are still part of the domain

Oh, it's you again...go on, give us this huge list then.

OT: Slave trade was taught but otherwise history centred on the history of the British isles with very little about anything britain did overseas, the effect the empire had in the UK etc was mentioned in passing but as to the details of what went on abroad and when, most of it was left out. That said, I only did history up to the 3rd year (about 14) so there may well have been more taught later on.

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

Just with the facts, we're not America (From the info I've been given), no sugar coating, my teacher didn't even try to make the colonisation even remotely justifiable. It was wrong, and the facts are presented to you as such.

It isn't so much that we sugar coat here (not until it comes to the Cold War then the bullshit piles on) in the states as much as people twist things to suit their worldview after they've been taught (this happens with the Civil War all the time), or the books just didn't mention certain things in any great detail if at all.

Not necessarily stupidity, but defintely ignorance.

I find it disturbing that you Brits don't have everything taught to you unless you choose to take it. At least that is what it sounds like.

 

[Shpongled]

Just with the facts, we're not America (From the info I've been given), no sugar coating, my teacher didn't even try to make the colonisation even remotely justifiable. It was wrong, and the facts are presented to you as such.

Quite a few other posts from your fellow countrymen heavily contradict your point, and it's unnecessary barb.

I don't see any posts contradicting his points, they all seem to be saying the same thing.

...A lot of it isn't taught really..

Though i remember not covering much more than the two world wars, that's to say you won't find a british (state) school teaching kids about the American revolution or the campaigns against the Zulu tribes in Africa.

its not a important subject acording to the goverment its optional and i chose optional subjects that help me get the job i want still i think they should teach it

We were taught about the slave trade, but scant little about the British Empire itself. The industrial revolution i think is in the national curriculum, but curiously the empire isn't...

Studying history in compulsory education (up to GCSE in the late 90's) all I really learnt about was Nazi's and Tudors...

Only teaching select parts is sugar coating it, even if the general theme taught is that the empire wasn't a good thing. His post stated the the total and unabridged truth was taught. Glossing over the bad parts with a generic empire=bad, then teaching about stuff mostly after WW1 doesn't exactly meet those criteria.

Note: this was to El Poncho, the rest of you that are getting a response, I'm sorry but I had to quote you for examples.

I understand that he country has a very long history, but from the sounds of it I learned more about the history of the UK before 1900 in a high school in Texas then they did.

It would be literally impossible to teach the total and unabridged truth given that A) The British Empire as an entity covers far more content than could ever be taught during their time in education and B) In the field of history, there is no such thing as total unabridged truth.

If students weren't only taught select parts they'd have to be in history class 24 hours a day 7 days a week up until about the 60. Your logic is deeply flawed.

As for the morality behind the empire, you have to take into the context. Most of Europe was doing it's best to do exactly the same things. Everyone was being a ****, it just so happened that Britain was best at it, and it's only human nature to be proud of being the best at something, even if that something is being a ****. It's not like the US doesn't feel the same pride, despite being the sole reason the Slave Trade really took off to the extent that it did.

 

[The Harkinator]

I've pretty much been self taught on this subject and in MY OPINION BASED ON WHAT I HAVE LEARNED, I think the British Empire, in the end, was a force for good. Its lands handed back in return for military aid against Nazi Germany at the time when the world no longer needed empires. It spread across the world when France and Spain were also doing so but expanded more. Dominance overseas lead to them getting ahead on colonialism. The empire survived the American revolution, the French revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte. In the end it spread its civilisation around the globe and produced great invention, intrepid explorers, great people and some examples of the worst scum and villany of humanity. It was a myriad of humanity, good and bad. In the end it made nations it conquered modern and yet in the end it was an old fashioned concept that it was based on.

All in all, like all wide-spread civilisations, our species would probably not have developed as far as it has without empiricism and especially British empirircism. However, in the end for humanity to develop further it had to go. A bloody and revolutionary chapter in human history that has come to a close.

Thats all I've got to say about that.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I find it disturbing that you Brits don't have everything taught to you unless you choose to take it. At least that is what it sounds like.

Holy shit dude, you don't half have some high expectations of the school system .

Joking aside there is a lot of British history (and history in general come to think of it). There is also a lot of geography, religion, biology, chemistry, physics, politics, art, languages etc etc etc. Fitting it all into a 7 year education is pretty hard (that said I think it would be easier if primary education was better). You can't cover everything so choices have to be made about what to teach and so history classes focuses on certain things. There is also a need to teach things to a certain level as well and that will mean dropping some subjects the closer you get to university. You start off learning everything for the 1st 3 years at a basic level, then you drop a couple of subjects (I did 10 overall) as the difficulty is ramped up for ther next 2 years and then finally go down to 3 subjects for your final 2 years of school, although this might have changed since I left.

 

[Altorin]

As with all aspects of our history, nothing is hidden or sugar-coated in any way. Totally bullshit free. There's no way you could soften it when teaching about how we once ran half the world and were generally shit to a lot of people.

Although some good did come out of it, as our knowlege of engineering (and technology in general) advanced, our wide-reaching empire meant that these advances were felt worldwide.

On the bright side, there are plenty of other shitty candidates. The Dutch for instance were ludicrous in their treatment of african slaves during the nutmeg boom in the 1700s. If they could have (in that the use of landmines wasn't part of military practice of the time - they certainly wouldn't have had moral qualms about it), they would have put landmines outside their plantations.

I also would have to say, in hindsight, maybe it's just that I'm canadian, and hence seceded from the monarchy gracefully, I'm glad britain colonized north america. Means canada gets a place all its own - sure half of it is a frozen wasteland, but there's plenty of space, lots of natural resources, lots of fresh water.. what would the new world look like today if it HADN'T been colonized? I mean, if the british didn't do it, the french surely were next, but that's not fair either, if we're retconning history, trying to do away with the EVIL BRITISH EMPIRE then it's not fair to not also take away the imperialism of its rivals. So no colonization. Europe quickly runs out of resources and stagnates.

 

[manaman]

So why does your post sound hostile?

Because you think it should.

No really there is no other reason. It could easily come across as aggressive because I have a fairly aggressive personality, but not hostile. To make sure I am clear as well by aggressive I don't mean assaulting. I mean a bit forceful, assertive, competitive, etc.

I understand that he country has a very long history, but from the sounds of it I learned more about the history of the UK before 1900 in a high school in Texas then they did.

It would be literally impossible to teach the total and unabridged truth given that A) The British Empire as an entity covers far more content than could ever be taught during their time in education and B) In the field of history, there is no such thing as total unabridged truth.

If students weren't only taught select parts they'd have to be in history class 24 hours a day 7 days a week up until about the 60. Your logic is deeply flawed.

As for the morality behind the empire, you have to take into the context. Most of Europe was doing it's best to do exactly the same things. Everyone was being a ****, it just so happened that Britain was best at it, and it's only human nature to be proud of being the best at something, even if that something is being a ****. It's not like the US doesn't feel the same pride, despite being the sole reason the Slave Trade really took off to the extent that it did.

I left a line up there from my post buddy. Read it, then come back to this post.

Everyone I quoted said basically the same thing. They felt that what they learned in school was woefully inadequate, many with extended posts (and more have since said the same thing) that the only period of history really covered is that right before and since WW1. 1900 or so and beyond. You are defending your country from what your country men are saying. Go respond to them not me. I never asked that your entire history be taught to your students I even said I understood that wouldn't be possible, but ignoring all but major points when teaching about the empire (or in quite a few cases ignoring all together expect to say it wasn't a highlight in history) is cherry picking history. Deciding that only the brighter spots in history are worth mentioning is cherry picking. That was the only point I was making. They said that the history was never sugar coated or cherry picked. It may not be sugar coated, but it sure as hell is cherry picked from the sounds of it.

Then again most educational stuff is very empirical in terms of why you should think stuff. Unlike the rumoured US educational system where they make you stand up and do the oath thingy. That just reeks of wrong to me.

I swear some people will literally believe anything that plays into their obvious bias against the US.

I think he means the pledge of allegiance and i agree with him, on a trip to an American middle school I got to watch the entire class stand up and say the pledge. all the way through all I could think of was some kind of mass brain washing and wondering how people in America don't understand how they can have a country of flag waving nutjobs

What is wrong with the pledge of allegiance? No really, what is wrong with it? It's nothing but a tradition. You see what you want to see out of it.

That said it's really fallen out of practice, and it has been out of practice for a long time. I never said it in public school. I went to school in Texas, California, and Washington. There are probably still pockets around the country where the young kids say the pledge in the morning, but I doubt you will find a public high school in the country that recites the pledge. By the time the current generation grows up and starts their teaching jobs, and all the current crop of teachers that are holding onto the tradition are retired I bet you won't even find it in schools anymore. It's a holdover from the very nationalistic period of the 50's and 60's.

 

[AcrylicHero]

I have a question for the many people who call the UK home and happen to be on this forum.

How is the subject of British colonialism and the whole age of the British Empire taught in the UK? I am currently studying European History, and would greatly appreciate some insight from people who actually live in Europe.

Please keep this topic hate and flame free. Thank you.

simple answer, we don't. (at least not in Scotland) we are taught romans in britain, WW1&2 and the suffrogettes. the empire is never mentioned even in passing. our history curriculum is so piss-poor that we dont even learn about our own history let alone the history of the rest of the world - we get to watch 'braveheart' and told that's what happened.

most of the history i've learned has been from the 'horrible history' series and wikipedia, which IMO is really messed up.

Huh, completely opposite here.
I spent atleast two years in school learning about the british empire. Most of the lessons were on the lines of we were elitist self centered bastards. From what I've learnt the argument against empire outweighed the argument for by quite a margin. Plus in the area I'm in the moment someone starts praising the empire without mentioning the otherside would be labelled as either an idiot, someone from the 19th century or a member of the BNP.
Also the topic of the english are bastards came up alot, but then again that might be due to the fact that I was taught by a die hard welshman who worshipped Gavin Henson for the majority of my time in school.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

you seem not pleased to hear of me?
I don't build my posts on shite .
The fact is that there's been a lot of inventions which have gone into the history books under guile of the english which weren't actually the englishmens inventions

Really? In that case you should try providing some backup, I've seen you do this before, you come into a thread, claim that most achievements of Britain/England/UK/whatever name given to the various political and geographical divisions of the British Isles over the years, are actually Irish and then when asked to name any you never do for some reason. You just come out with stuff like the above or "You wouldn't believe me anyway". That leads me to believe that your claims are bullshit.

There are inventions that are claimed by various countries that could be feasibly claimed by someone else. Take the Telephone. Britian claims it because it was made by a British man, Scotland claims it because he was Scottish, the Americans claim it because he was working in the US at the time and gained a US patent for it. Then of course the Italians could lay a claim as Antonio Meucci, who Bell may well have nicked the idea off, was born in Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone

Now if you came in and posted something like the above you might get a positive response, coming in to a thread and saying "Yeah, Irish people invented most of the things the English are given credit for FACT" is going to get a general and well deserved response of "OK, tell us, which ones, give us some examples, show us some proof of this". If you make a habit of doing it it makes you look like a ranting fool with a chip on his shoulder

 

[Danzaivar]

What is wrong with the pledge of allegiance? No really, what is wrong with it? It's nothing but a tradition. You see what you want to see out of it.

Imagine you see a video of a Chinese school, at the start of the day they get up and swear allegiance to China and to the Chinese Communist Party. The first thought that should be racing in your head is 'Oh my God, those commie bastards are brainwashing children!'. It's a similar principle with the pledge of allegiance, sure the message being drilled in is nicer, but it's still a message being drilled in to impressionable minds. The European view of patriotism is it should be something you discover on your own, not something you have pressed on you by a school.

I must admit, I was under the impression everywhere in the US did it. Glad to hear it's being phased out. Not in the sense that the pledge of allegiance is evil and should be forgotten, but it should be something people do on their own with no pressure to do it. You learn something new every day, huh.

Oh and the hostile thing. I meant aggressive. Years of WoW has kind of set the mind to "Aggressive = Hostile". To be honest the way you go on about it you'd think they mean completely different thing. There's a big overlap there buddy.

 

[Shpongled]

I understand that he country has a very long history, but from the sounds of it I learned more about the history of the UK before 1900 in a high school in Texas then they did.

It would be literally impossible to teach the total and unabridged truth given that A) The British Empire as an entity covers far more content than could ever be taught during their time in education and B) In the field of history, there is no such thing as total unabridged truth.

If students weren't only taught select parts they'd have to be in history class 24 hours a day 7 days a week up until about the 60. Your logic is deeply flawed.

As for the morality behind the empire, you have to take into the context. Most of Europe was doing it's best to do exactly the same things. Everyone was being a ****, it just so happened that Britain was best at it, and it's only human nature to be proud of being the best at something, even if that something is being a ****. It's not like the US doesn't feel the same pride, despite being the sole reason the Slave Trade really took off to the extent that it did.

I left a line up there from my post buddy. Read it, then come back to this post.

Everyone I quoted said basically the same thing. They felt that what they learned in school was woefully inadequate, many with extended posts (and more have since said the same thing) that the only period of history really covered is that right before and since WW1. 1900 or so and beyond. You are defending your country from what your country men are saying. Go respond to them not me. I never asked that your entire history be taught to your students I even said I understood that wouldn't be possible, but ignoring all but major points when teaching about the empire (or in quite a few cases ignoring all together expect to say it wasn't a highlight in history) is cherry picking history. Deciding that only the brighter spots in history are worth mentioning is cherry picking. That was the only point I was making. They said that the history was never sugar coated or cherry picked. It may not be sugar coated, but it sure as hell is cherry picked from the sounds of it.

I'm not going to bother going back through the thread to check but i don't think anyone has said what they learned in school was woefully inadequate. It would only be woefully inadequate if full coverage of the British Empire is considered a requirement, which it isn't.

I'm not arguing with those sharing their experience because they aren't making false claims of cherry picking.

The major points of what? The major points in political history? Social history? Military History? Economical History? Social History? Cultural History? Maritime History? the list goes on. You grossly underestimate the amount of history there is in a 400 year period.

You're right, but i don't think many would consider WW1/2 and the Slave Trade brighter points in history.

You misunderstand what cherry picking actually is. Cherry picking involves ignoring information regarding the specifics of the area you're studying. If one is studying the Slave Trade, but decides to ignore the economical reasons for it's development, that's cherry picking. If one is studying the implications of the harnessing of steam in naval warfare, and decides to ignore the rise of liberalism in the British Political system, that's being sensible.

 

[manaman]

I understand that he country has a very long history, but from the sounds of it I learned more about the history of the UK before 1900 in a high school in Texas then they did.

It would be literally impossible to teach the total and unabridged truth given that A) The British Empire as an entity covers far more content than could ever be taught during their time in education and B) In the field of history, there is no such thing as total unabridged truth.

If students weren't only taught select parts they'd have to be in history class 24 hours a day 7 days a week up until about the 60. Your logic is deeply flawed.

As for the morality behind the empire, you have to take into the context. Most of Europe was doing it's best to do exactly the same things. Everyone was being a ****, it just so happened that Britain was best at it, and it's only human nature to be proud of being the best at something, even if that something is being a ****. It's not like the US doesn't feel the same pride, despite being the sole reason the Slave Trade really took off to the extent that it did.

I left a line up there from my post buddy. Read it, then come back to this post.

Everyone I quoted said basically the same thing. They felt that what they learned in school was woefully inadequate, many with extended posts (and more have since said the same thing) that the only period of history really covered is that right before and since WW1. 1900 or so and beyond. You are defending your country from what your country men are saying. Go respond to them not me. I never asked that your entire history be taught to your students I even said I understood that wouldn't be possible, but ignoring all but major points when teaching about the empire (or in quite a few cases ignoring all together expect to say it wasn't a highlight in history) is cherry picking history. Deciding that only the brighter spots in history are worth mentioning is cherry picking. That was the only point I was making. They said that the history was never sugar coated or cherry picked. It may not be sugar coated, but it sure as hell is cherry picked from the sounds of it.

I'm not going to bother going back through the thread to check but i don't think anyone has said what they learned in school was woefully inadequate. It would only be woefully inadequate if full coverage of the British Empire is considered a requirement, which it isn't.

I'm not arguing with those sharing their experience because they aren't making false claims of cherry picking.

The major points of what? The major points in political history? Social history? Military History? Economical History? Social History? Cultural History? Maritime History? the list goes on. You grossly underestimate the amount of history there is in a 400 year period.

You're right, but i don't think many would consider WW1/2 and the Slave Trade brighter points in history.

You misunderstand what cherry picking actually is. Cherry picking involves ignoring information regarding the specifics of the area you're studying. If one is studying the Slave Trade, but decides to ignore the economical reasons for it's development, that's cherry picking. If one is studying the implications of the harnessing of steam in naval warfare, and decides to ignore the rise of liberalism in the British Political system, that's being sensible.

You attribute to much to the phrase cherry picking. I suppose that needs to be cleared up first. Cherry Picking means to select with great care. That's all it means, knowing that, then selectively teaching parts of the history and ignoring others is cherry picking. You don't need a deeper level of teaching only selective parts of specific topic.

Now if the history teaching is inadequate, or not, is objective. I specified that was how they felt. I am only repeating my impression of the opinions they gave. Many used nearly identical words themselves.

I wasn't meaning to imply there was anything wrong with the education system. It just seems to me it isn't as exceptional all around as some are trying to imply, and I was pretty much asked why I felt that way, so I quoted others to show. After that another person chimed in, and over replies to people coming into it later the original point was lost. I am also sure that those that feel the education is more then adequate are not lying or boasting, they just haven't experienced all the regional differences in the education system.

 

[RyVal]

The history curriculum is basically as follows:

The First World War (1871-1918)
Appeasement (1933-1939)
Germany (1815-1939)
Russia (1905-1939)
British Social History (1800-1900)

It's a shame, because the history of the British Empire is very interesting.

 

[Dectomax]

to define it in basic terms. We took over a few countries, took their ideas...got bored, then gave them back and enforced the commonwealth...

 

[RyVal]

to define it in basic terms. We took over a few countries, took their ideas...got bored, then gave them back and enforced the commonwealth...

Don't know about the "ideas" thing. We took plenty of natural resources, manpower and wealth, etc. But if there was any flow of ideas, it was most certainly out of Great Britain and into the colonies, rather than vice-versa.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

to define it in basic terms. We took over a few countries, took their ideas...got bored, then gave them back and enforced the commonwealth...

Don't know about the "ideas" thing. We took plenty of natural resources, manpower and wealth, etc. But if there was any flow of ideas, it was most certainly out of Great Britain and into the colonies, rather than vice-versa.

Well yous did try to claim Collin Farrel in an interview on BBC. Although on a serious note yes some good ideas have come out of countries England has occupied. Boolean algebra was invented by an Irishman and is used in computers, Submarines was also an Irishman, another Irishman introduced the word electron for its charge, also the first experimental verifaction of E=mc[sup]2[/sup] was done by another Irish Scientist and an American one, the unit of heat the kelvin and absolute zero was a Scottish Scientist. I am not saying that England did or even try to steal these ideas but good ideas and concepts have come out of areas England occupied.