Turn on thread page Beta

Slavery to be taught in schools. But what version will they teach? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    According to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7582004.stm
    Britain's involvement in the slave trade is to be studied by all secondary pupils in England from September.

    Children will study the development of the trade, colonisation and how slavery was linked to the British empire and the industrial revolution.
    Um, haven't all schools always taught that anyway?! Isn't that just part of history? I guess not.

    I have a concern. I remember listening to a programme on R4 about the anniversary of the abolition last year, and I heard a couple of bits of astounding ignorance, both from teachers who basically chose not to (or were unaware of) African chiefs and Saudi Arabian involvement in slavery.

    And then there are sites like this:
    http://scotlandandslavery.org.uk/Sla...nt_Future.html

    I see NO mention of of the fact that Britain was one of the FIRST to abolish slavery, that Britain only accounted for 5% of the slave trade.
    Most of the trading happened in Arabian countries, which didn't abolish slavery until 1962.

    But then, this sites title informs us that
    "Britain abolished the slave trade on 25 March 2007". Doesn't sound like Marika Sherwood is very clued up!

    You know, listening to people talking about British involvement in slavery, you'd think we were going to Africa with nets and rounding them up!

    I'm all for history being taught, but in full. But I wonder if they'll include the inconvenient truths?

    By the way, I think slavery was a horrendous and despicable part of history that we should learn from. But let's get some perspective - I've no reason to feel guilt. My forefathers weren't sugar traders or land owners.

    Let's have history as it was, and less "guilty white man" crap like this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully they wont teach the Sepp Blatter version
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol, from the thread title i thought you were going to be talking about eugenics and race superiority. Could've been funny lmao.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It does seem fashionable to hold whitey responsible. I was taught about the African kidnappers, but I can't remember when. Saudi Arabia wasn't mentioned.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    When it comes down to it, saying you were only responsible for 5% of a very bad thing is hardly something to be proud of. Slavery is slavery and it's a disgusting thing. Britain took advantage of Africans and even in abolishing the slave trade they were responsible for disgusting things (like displacing native Congolese slaves to Sierra Leone, hence the birth of Freetown). There were wonderful people, some lesser known like David Livingstone, who didn't believe in the slave trade, but it's only right that the history of slavery is taught from a peripheral view-point highlighting all of the people responsible, including the demanding upper classes back home, the Arabians on Zanzibar and the affluent middle-classes who saw slaving as a respectable and profitable trade.

    Apart from that, I don't see what there is to say. I'm intrigued as to what version you feel should be told - the one where the British weren't so bad because they only subjected a few thousand Africans to slavery as opposed to other countries who subjected hundreds of thousands? Isn't everyone guilty in this? The white man is clearly as guilty as the 'brown' (and I use the term only because I don't know how else to describe them) man, so let's portray it as such. Let's also acknowledge that there are good white men, bad white men, good brown men, bad brown men, good black men, bad black men.

    Ultimately, whether white, brown or black, a number of disgusting people from each race were responsible for one of the worst crimes imaginable. That's the moral that our children should be getting out of this. If it's portrayed any other way then I shall be disgusted. So far as the Portuguese in the Congo in the 15th Century, Africans and Europeans have sold and bought persons for slavery. It's neither worse to buy nor to sell, in my opinion, it's simply abhorrent.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LukeatForest)
    When it comes down to it, saying you were only responsible for 5% of a very bad thing is hardly something to be proud of. Slavery is slavery and it's a disgusting thing. Britain took advantage of Africans and even in abolishing the slave trade they were responsible for disgusting things (like displacing native Congolese slaves to Sierra Leone, hence the birth of Freetown). There were wonderful people, some lesser known like David Livingstone, who didn't believe in the slave trade, but it's only right that the history of slavery is taught from a peripheral view-point highlighting all of the people responsible, including the demanding upper classes back home, the Arabians on Zanzibar and the affluent middle-classes who saw slaving as a respectable and profitable trade.

    Apart from that, I don't see what there is to say. I'm intrigued as to what version you feel should be told - the one where the British weren't so bad because they only subjected a few thousand Africans to slavery as opposed to other countries who subjected hundreds of thousands? Isn't everyone guilty in this? The white man is clearly as guilty as the 'brown' (and I use the term only because I don't know how else to describe them) man, so let's portray it as such. Let's also acknowledge that there are good white men, bad white men, good brown men, bad brown men, good black men, bad black men.

    Ultimately, whether white, brown or black, a number of disgusting people from each race were responsible for one of the worst crimes imaginable. That's the moral that our children should be getting out of this. If it's portrayed any other way then I shall be disgusted. So far as the Portuguese in the Congo in the 15th Century, Africans and Europeans have sold and bought persons for slavery. It's neither worse to buy nor to sell, in my opinion, it's simply abhorrent.
    Couldnt agree more but shouldn't it be taught that our Parliament and navy were responsible for its demise?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The OP is clearly worried that kids will be taught that the British were solely responsible. They shouldn't be taught this because it is a lie, and it might cause the kids to grow up believing in silly bull **** like apologising to blacks for being white. Of course it should be regarded as abhorrent, nobody sane is debating that.
    Offline

    14
    We did Slavery at my school I thought everyone did but I do live in one of the former slavery hotspots, a city built as it is today thanks to slavery though so its important to remember and learn about it here. A local museum used to have a really good department dedicated to it and now there is a standalone Slavery Museum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    According to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7582004.stm

    Um, haven't all schools always taught that anyway?! Isn't that just part of history? I guess not.

    I have a concern. I remember listening to a programme on R4 about the anniversary of the abolition last year, and I heard a couple of bits of astounding ignorance, both from teachers who basically chose not to (or were unaware of) African chiefs and Saudi Arabian involvement in slavery.

    And then there are sites like this:
    http://scotlandandslavery.org.uk/Sla...nt_Future.html

    I see NO mention of of the fact that Britain was one of the FIRST to abolish slavery, that Britain only accounted for 5% of the slave trade.
    Most of the trading happened in Arabian countries, which didn't abolish slavery until 1962.

    But then, this sites title informs us that
    "Britain abolished the slave trade on 25 March 2007". Doesn't sound like Marika Sherwood is very clued up!

    You know, listening to people talking about British involvement in slavery, you'd think we were going to Africa with nets and rounding them up!

    I'm all for history being taught, but in full. But I wonder if they'll include the inconvenient truths?

    By the way, I think slavery was a horrendous and despicable part of history that we should learn from. But let's get some perspective - I've no reason to feel guilt. My forefathers weren't sugar traders or land owners.

    Let's have history as it was, and less "guilty white man" crap like this.
    That's all well & good...
    But in the modern era, wouldn't Britain be one of the first to have begun slavery in the first place??
    or am i mistaken?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by SmilerNuts)
    Hopefully they wont teach the Sepp Blatter version
    Haha :p:
    Offline

    14
    Dude its about Britain involvement in slavery not Arabian involvement, were living in Britain. I'm sure the educational authorities will review the teaching to make sure its as 'accurate' as possible and not brainwashing kids.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    According to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7582004.stm

    Um, haven't all schools always taught that anyway?! Isn't that just part of history? I guess not.

    I have a concern. I remember listening to a programme on R4 about the anniversary of the abolition last year, and I heard a couple of bits of astounding ignorance, both from teachers who basically chose not to (or were unaware of) African chiefs and Saudi Arabian involvement in slavery.

    And then there are sites like this:
    http://scotlandandslavery.org.uk/Sla...nt_Future.html

    I see NO mention of of the fact that Britain was one of the FIRST to abolish slavery, that Britain only accounted for 5% of the slave trade.
    Most of the trading happened in Arabian countries, which didn't abolish slavery until 1962.

    But then, this sites title informs us that
    "Britain abolished the slave trade on 25 March 2007". Doesn't sound like Marika Sherwood is very clued up!
    You know, listening to people talking about British involvement in slavery, you'd think we were going to Africa with nets and rounding them up!

    I'm all for history being taught, but in full. But I wonder if they'll include the inconvenient truths?

    By the way, I think slavery was a horrendous and despicable part of history that we should learn from. But let's get some perspective - I've no reason to feel guilt. My forefathers weren't sugar traders or land owners.

    Let's have history as it was, and less "guilty white man" crap like this.

    what did she mean by that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LukeatForest)
    When it comes down to it, saying you were only responsible for 5% of a very bad thing is hardly something to be proud of. Slavery is slavery and it's a disgusting thing. Britain took advantage of Africans and even in abolishing the slave trade they were responsible for disgusting things (like displacing native Congolese slaves to Sierra Leone, hence the birth of Freetown). There were wonderful people, some lesser known like David Livingstone, who didn't believe in the slave trade, but it's only right that the history of slavery is taught from a peripheral view-point highlighting all of the people responsible, including the demanding upper classes back home, the Arabians on Zanzibar and the affluent middle-classes who saw slaving as a respectable and profitable trade.

    Apart from that, I don't see what there is to say. I'm intrigued as to what version you feel should be told - the one where the British weren't so bad because they only subjected a few thousand Africans to slavery as opposed to other countries who subjected hundreds of thousands? Isn't everyone guilty in this? The white man is clearly as guilty as the 'brown' (and I use the term only because I don't know how else to describe them) man, so let's portray it as such. Let's also acknowledge that there are good white men, bad white men, good brown men, bad brown men, good black men, bad black men.

    Ultimately, whether white, brown or black, a number of disgusting people from each race were responsible for one of the worst crimes imaginable. That's the moral that our children should be getting out of this. If it's portrayed any other way then I shall be disgusted. So far as the Portuguese in the Congo in the 15th Century, Africans and Europeans have sold and bought persons for slavery. It's neither worse to buy nor to sell, in my opinion, it's simply abhorrent.
    "You?" It certainly isn't anything to be proud of, nor is it anything to feel guity about, since modern day whites had no involvement. Obviously it's an extremely terrible thing to have occured but we cannot be blamed for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TI-84)
    That's all well & good...
    But in the modern era, wouldn't Britain be one of the first to have begun slavery in the first place??
    or am i mistaken?
    Is there ANY evidence for that?
    I repeat, we were one of the FIRST to abolish slavery.
    Black slavery is STILL practised in Africa and Saudi Arabia (although the latter nominally made it illegal on paper in 1962, one of the last 6 in the world to do so).
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Dude its about Britain involvement in slavery not Arabian involvement, were living in Britain. I'm sure the educational authorities will review the teaching to make sure its as 'accurate' as possible and not brainwashing kids.
    Lol! Now THAT would be a refreshing change!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Dude its about Britain involvement in slavery not Arabian involvement, were living in Britain. I'm sure the educational authorities will review the teaching to make sure its as 'accurate' as possible and not brainwashing kids.
    If kids are not AT LEAST taught about African involvement there will be a gaping hole in the story, and the kids may fill this hole with the idea that white Europeans were running around Africa with nets. Do you seriously not see anything wrong with this? Leaving out such a critical aspect of the truth betrays an agenda in almost all cases. In this case, it seems that the crazier people among us feel it's necessary to apologise for being white/British - a disgusting notion that I don't want my sister or anybody else learning.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Is there ANY evidence for that?
    I repeat, we were one of the FIRST to abolish slavery.
    Black slavery is STILL practised in Africa and Saudi Arabia (although the latter nominally made it illegal on paper in 1962, one of the last 6 in the world to do so).
    Lol! Now THAT would be a refreshing change!
    Its shocking how most of the history that is taught to students in primary school and secondary school is inaccurate, I realised this when I picked up my first history book one time in the local library and found out our British empire was not as great or as stable and vast as my patriotic history told me.

    (Original post by burningnun)
    If kids are not AT LEAST taught about African involvement there will be a gaping hole in the story, and the kids may fill this hole with the idea that white Europeans were running around Africa with nets. Do you seriously not see anything wrong with this? Leaving out such a critical aspect of the truth betrays an agenda in almost all cases. In this case, it seems that the crazier people among us feel it's necessary to apologise for being white/British - a disgusting notion that I don't want my sister or anybody else learning.
    I'm sorry if I didn't meant this in my post, I think african involvement should be taught as well for the reasons you have posted. Well we have to leave it to the government who are constructing the curriculum, but it may be likely to miss out African involvement but may have dire consequences.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Its shocking how most of the history that is taught to students in primary school and secondary school is inaccurate, I realised this when I picked up my first history book one time in the local library when I was 14 and found out our British empire was not as great or as stable and vast as my patriotic history told me.
    Amen :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    According to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7582004.stm

    Um, haven't all schools always taught that anyway?! Isn't that just part of history? I guess not.

    I have a concern. I remember listening to a programme on R4 about the anniversary of the abolition last year, and I heard a couple of bits of astounding ignorance, both from teachers who basically chose not to (or were unaware of) African chiefs and Saudi Arabian involvement in slavery.

    And then there are sites like this:
    http://scotlandandslavery.org.uk/Sla...nt_Future.html

    I see NO mention of of the fact that Britain was one of the FIRST to abolish slavery, that Britain only accounted for 5% of the slave trade.
    Most of the trading happened in Arabian countries, which didn't abolish slavery until 1962.

    But then, this sites title informs us that
    "Britain abolished the slave trade on 25 March 2007". Doesn't sound like Marika Sherwood is very clued up!

    You know, listening to people talking about British involvement in slavery, you'd think we were going to Africa with nets and rounding them up!

    I'm all for history being taught, but in full. But I wonder if they'll include the inconvenient truths?

    By the way, I think slavery was a horrendous and despicable part of history that we should learn from. But let's get some perspective - I've no reason to feel guilt. My forefathers weren't sugar traders or land owners.

    Let's have history as it was, and less "guilty white man" crap like this.
    because my ancestors did, does that comment mean i should feel guilt?

    absolutely not. slavery is a terrible thing, and should be taught that, in full. as an american, i've been taught about america's participation in slavery since i was five, and i would never say that it shouldn't be taught, regardless of my family's history. but i don't think guilt should come into it at all, history is about learning from the past, and not about suffering terrible complexes because of what we did. history lessons should be meant as prevention, and not punishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My mother's maiden name is Bainbridge. I bet that means my ancestors came here from Scandinavia on longboats, murdered the men, raped the women and burned the villages. Everyone who wants me to apologise for this can play my rusty trombone. Same applies for the slave trade, in fact especially for the slave trade because Al Sharpton is such a C.

    Thanks for the clarification maze.e. I agree that it might not be necessary to teach about Saudi Arabia on the same syllabus as the Europe to America slave trade.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Dude its about Britain involvement in slavery not Arabian involvement, were living in Britain. I'm sure the educational authorities will review the teaching to make sure its as 'accurate' as possible and not brainwashing kids.
    Educational Authorities have no idea, the ministers are the same as those put in charge as any other area of government.

    The level of peoples ignorance of such important events in history, local and global, is shocking. I don't blame teachers or anything stupid like that... in fact I just sign and don't think about it because theres nothing I can do.

    'cept whine about it here ofcourse
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.