In this blogpost I spend quite some time on the history of the Empire, but considering the scope of the topic, my descriptions only just scratch the surface. I have omitted many events that I read about, and many others I don’t even know about. Yet I am still more knowledgeable than before.
The British perception of the ruled peoples and the plans for the Empire have changed again and again. And throughout, there were often differing opinions amongst the population. Some sincerely wanted to help the ruled, for example by providing education, building political organisations, and participating in the administration, others wanted to increase the power and glory of Great Britain, and many were primarily interested in their own advantage. Which of these groups had the greatest influence on events could change every few years. In addition, there were changing external influences.
The subject is complex and, as with all things in life, there are many shades of grey, nothing is purely black or white. However, I think I understand why some Britons believe they are “better” than others, that the peoples of the world are in their debt, or can hardly wait to trade with them directly.
A one-sided view of the past can encourage this belief: The British set out to spread civilisation and Christianity throughout the world. They stood up for freedom, law and democracy. They linked the continents through free trade and ensured prosperity. In the colonies, they formed a new ruling class, shaped by progressive, western ideas. Over time, they handed over more and more responsibility to the locals. Eventually, they released the colonies into independence, as modern states.
The transition process itself is a testimony of "British care" and the "superiority of British morals". The colonies of other European countries often had to gain their independence in bloody wars. Relations with their former masters remained in a critical state for decades. The British colonies, on the other hand, immediately formed new bonds with the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth of Nations. The relationships are so close and friendly, some countries even recognise British monarchs as heads of state.
The British deserve a special position among the peoples of the world. Not (any more) because they are an inherently superior "race", but because of their historical merits. Apart from the mentioned good deeds, the United Kingdom fought side by side with colonies and dominions for the self-determination of all peoples in the 20th century. The whole world owes Britain gratitude.
But this version of history is indeed extremely one-sided. In reality, the British version of "freedom" meant submission to British will, including exploitation, malnutrition, loss of cultural identity and drug addiction. In case of resistance, British interests were enforced with gunboats and machine guns.
Release into independence would not have been conceivable without changes in the world. After the World Wars, the United Kingdom was no longer all-dominant, but stood weakened in the shadow of the new superpowers, the USA and Soviet Union. Rather than “British care”, plain economic thinking and the urge to retain as much power as possible under new global circumstances were the reasons to give up the colonies.
But in the minds of many Britons, only the embellished version of events seems to exist. Gaps in memory are not only evident in the belief in British popularity in the former colonies, but also in the naïve immigration policy of various governments. After the turn of the millennium, they immediately renounced any control of immigration from the new EU states in the east of the continent, unlike Germany and France. The consequence: many came, the immigrants caused discontent among the natives, with Brexit as a consequence. Haven't we had this before? In the 1950s, when British governments allowed Commonwealth citizens to immigrate without bureaucratic hurdles, sparking revolts? Could no responsible politician remember this lesson of history?
In general, I have the feeling the history of the last hundred years had hardly any influence on the world view of many Britons. It fits better with the conditions in the heyday of the Empire than with those at the beginning of the 21st century... Why didn't the British ego shrink with the status of the country?
As you can see, I still had many questions. But unlike before, I felt I had enough background knowledge to start a discussion with my British friends.
At least that was the plan, unfortunately it was unfeasible. When I was asked what I had done recently, I told them about my research. I began to explain I had learned very little about colonialism in school, the topic was exhausted with the triangular trade between Europe, Africa and the New World. We were not told much about the development in the 19th century, so...
My friends already did not know what I was talking about. Triangular trade? Never heard of it! Perhaps the topic was known under a different term? I tried a description. British (European) traders bought slaves in Africa, sold them in America and the Caribbean islands in exchange for sugar, tobacco and cotton, shipped these goods to Europe, where the profits were used to buy processed products, such as textiles and rum, to sail back to Africa. My British friends still did not know what I was talking about. They had never heard of the triangular trade.
No matter in which round I talked about the topic, hardly anyone had a clue. None of them had encountered the triangular trade at school, only a few were familiar with it through TV documentaries or books. The ignorance was not only about the triangular trade, but about the whole history of the British colonialism.
I was baffled. The Empire is an important part of the British past. And it is still relevant. Apart from its influence on British self-perception, history explains why Britain still has some colonies and military bases overseas, where the global contacts come from, or why some peoples feel connected to the British or can't stand them.
Was the Empire really not discussed at school? And if so, why? Those friends who knew at least a little about colonial history gave me a simple answer: the British are not the main villains of human history, but their behaviour during the colonial period was not a shining example of how to treat others. Therefore, this part of British history is left out.
Was the explanation correct? By the way, it meant the whole self-perception of Britons was based on felt truths and nothing more. I didn't want to believe them. Perhaps the topic was left out at some schools for the aforementioned reason. But were they allowed to skip such an important period of history? To investigate the question, again some research was necessary. Fortunately, the national curricula are documented well on the websites of the authorities [1]. But before I begin, it should be noted that school education in Britain, as in Germany, is a matter for the federal states/countries within the union; the following comments refer to England alone.
History as a subject is introduced as early as second grade, called Year 1, and is compulsory until Year 9. After the usual gallop through early history, the third block, Years 7 to 9, focuses primarily on British history of the last centuries: the development of the English state and church, Industrialisation and the Empire and then finally the events after 1901.
Within these areas, however, the guidelines are not rigid. For history after 1901, the Holocaust must be covered. Other topics such as World War I, the women's movement, the rise of dictators, World War II, Indian independence or the end of the Empire can be selected, but are not compulsory.
The situation is similar for the centuries before. Triangular trade and the development of the British Empire are proposed, but they are only two options among many. They compete, for example, with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe and Britain, the Industrialisation in the United Kingdom, the politics of the English parties of the time, the history of social reform and the theory of evolution.
Therefore, permission is actually given to potentially avoid the difficult parts of the British past. And apparently it is quite common. Even in an extended survey, I didn't come across any Briton who had been confronted with the Empire in detail at school. (Most of them my age group of course.)
One reason could be the age of the pupils. In Year 9, these are only 13/14 years young. At this age, a critical discussion of complex topics is likely to be difficult, even more so in the years below.
That is a big difference to my education in Germany. History was only introduced as a school subject in sixth grade, at the age of 11, and was compulsory until the 13th grade. Compared to the nine years in the UK, I had to get by with only eight years of History. However, at the age of 16 or 18, one can deal with complex issues differently than at the age of six, nine or thirteen.
I find the English approach highly questionable. The aim of history as a subject should be to show the influences that created today's society. The world we live in is the result of technological progress, social developments, wars and diseases, great achievements, as well as catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Only by taking a balanced view can we learn why we are what we are. A look at the past is worthwhile, if only to avoid repeating the mistakes of past generations (see above).
I really do have a strong opinion on this subject. But I was socialised in the German system. I was confronted with our darkest years, the National Socialist era, in detail, three times. We should not- and do not - want to slip back into this barbarism.
Moreover, it is part of the German ideal of education (Bildung in German) to have detailed general knowledge. Bildung means having a sufficient understanding of the world. And knowledge is a cornerstone for understanding.
When I presented my views to our British friends, there was disagreement. Perhaps it is unfortunate not to know more about the British past, but it is not that important. Knowledge of history was seen as rather useless... It seemed to me that Britons have a different view of the importance of the subject. Or even of education in general?! (More on this in the next post).
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.