<
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/16/students-truth-british-colonial-history-a-level-curriculum-race-migration>
"“Lord Cromer was a successful consul-general of Egypt. To what extent do you
agree?” I read this essay prompt in my A-level history class, wondering what
“successful” means. Successful in forcing austerity on Egyptians to line the
pockets of British financiers? Successful in civilising a country of people he
viewed as “subversive demagogues” and “subject races”?
Thankfully my essay could argue that Cromer wasn’t successful if I tried to
frame “success” in terms of how he impacted the Egyptian population: he imposed
an unfair land tax system and restricted access to education. But even then I
had to write it under the implicit assumption that colonial rulers can be
successful for a population – it’s just that this one wasn’t. Why doesn’t
discussion around Cromer – and the values he embodied – instead centre on the
right to rule?
Like many students at British secondary schools, I have scores of kings and
queens and specific weapon limitations of cold war treaties etched into my
memory from GCSE and prior. That’s not a complaint – all history is valuable.
But there is so much history that is just as, or probably more significant, yet
absent from our curricula. And as the Cromer essay prompt highlights, there’s
another issue. When British colonial history is studied, what is scrutinised
and critiqued is not the principle of colonialism, but the efficiency with
which the British colonised.
At a fundamental level, history means investigating the past, piecing together
what we know to form the most accurate version. That means examining varying
experiences, perspectives and interpretations; challenging orthodox teachings.
The form of colonial history we currently learn in English and Welsh schools is
not that. Our curricula sing tales of “great men” but are silent about the
colonised. Twelve years after Michael Gove’s tenure as education secretary, we
are still memorising the feats of imperial “heroes” rather than reading
colonial history from reflective and inclusive perspectives – such as the
perspectives of its victims.
Take, for example, my Edexcel module
Britain: losing and gaining an empire,
1763-1914. When we A-level students learn about the 1857 Indian uprising, we
study the “strengths” and “weaknesses” of British governor generals. Yet their
role in orchestrating the 1770 great Bengal famine – killing 10 million people
– is somehow absent from the specification.
Why do our history curricula still project selective amnesia? Fear of
diminishing British identity? Perhaps – but if this fear exists, it is a
delusion. Just look at how Germany reckons with its difficult past.
Vergangenheitsbewältigung (“a working-off of the past”) has only strengthened
the country. Just walk through Berlin and you’ll find plaques, memorials and
museums full of meaningful commemorations of the Holocaust that have made the
country stronger by creating genuine awareness of historical crimes."
Via Susan ****
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
