You are here:

Student Views

Are historians staying true to ‘learning from the past’?

Why is it the case that in the face of undisputed evidence to the contrary, the British Empire is still taught at schools and universities as a ‘force for good’ in history? Why are self-proclaimed imperialists described as heroes around the country to young schoolchildren? Why is Winston Churchill, who was in favour of using poisoned gas as a mode to spread terror to civilians his entire life and was responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943 (death toll 2.1 million), amongst many other things, called the greatest Briton of all time? Can we really claim to be on even the first step of ‘learning from history’ if our current idea of righteousness and glory is so erroneous? These are some of the questions I am concerned with as a student in History. The disdain and indifference with which the British Empire sought its own short-sighted ambitions is responsible for many of the crises and conflicts in the world to this day. Take the example of Syria, starting when it was under British rule in 1920: After his brother Faisal was deposed as the King of Syria by invading French forces in the late July, Prince Abdullah rode north from Hejaz, modern day Saudi Arabia, with his forces to seize back Damascus from the French. Having heard of his plans, Winston Churchill, who was eager not to agitate Britain’s key ally, the French, told him to refrain from such an attack. In return, Churchill had Abdullah proclaimed as King of nearby Iraq instead. Abdullah, who had spent most of his life in Mecca, rejected the position in favour of his brother, who went to become Faisal I of Iraq. Abdullah was left with the remains of serial British and French ruler drawing of the region, a desert area which went on to become Jordan. Indeed, it was with such indifference that the British divided and distributed lands to their faithful cronies, with no regard for those who had lived in those lands for centuries, creating borders where there had never been before, forcing rivalries where previously there had only been wandering tribesman, seizing and siphoning natural resources to aid Britain instead of those to whom they belonged. In fact, through much of the 20th century, it was cheaper for Iran to buy oil from the Soviet Union rather than use the oil drilled in their own country, due to the Anglo-Persian oil company’s imposed levies. Is it really any surprise that a part of the world that had its wealth stolen, its peoples divided, and its historical pride erased has ended up in a state of chaos with wide disdain for the imperialistic powers that caused it? And the Middle East is hardly the only example. My own grandfather would tell tales of how rebellions in Lucknow, India, would end with no single tree by the riverside left without a man, woman or child hung from it by the British forces. India’s share of the world economy before the British arrived was 23%, and when they left it was 4%. After using the subcontinent to finance their rise for 200 years, the British left India in a state of murderous partition. Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs had lived peacefully in India for centuries before they were skinned economically and left in a state of violent turmoil. The infamous Indian railways, which some use as justification of the pillage and murder of the British rule of India, were merely used to streamline the pillage itself. The teaching of British colonial history in Britain itself must be reconsidered. The groups of people who suffered from British colonialism must be seen as more than the feral natives they are often depicted as. This can be achieved by greater awareness of the ‘golden ages’ of different cultures around the world. Instead of a history of modern European history, a module covering the golden ages of science in Arabia or China, for instance, may help the next generation of students widen their knowledge of human history and achievement to beyond just Europe. The excuse of the difference in languages and text no longer holds true in the digital age, and historical teaching must catch up with the rest of the world in truly globalising its contents, not sticking to the problematic templates of euro-centric themes. Syed Imam (Year 2 History)

The Need to Diversify the History Curriculum

Studying History at university is important for the immeasurable value it has in teaching us how we have acquired our current state of affairs; how we can avoid replicating mistakes made in the past; and perhaps most importantly in the globalized, diverse modern world we live in today- it helps us overcome ignorance and hold an educated, balanced judgement. Oxford Brookes, and indeed many higher education institutions throughout the United Kingdom are guilty of systematically presenting biased views of history, which is deeply problematic in a time where acceptance, tolerance and understanding is of upmost importance. At the offset of my History degree at Brookes, I was ultimately disappointed with the lack of choice in first year modules. All bar one module that I was able to ‘choose’ from, were based solely on European history; moreover the exception to this was a history of the Cold War- therefore still limiting students to an overtly ‘white’ education. Even more worrying was the emphasis placed on the progress of Britain in some seminars, which were interwoven with a tendency towards patriotic views. One clear example on this matter were discussions on the British Empire, which revealed bias preconceptions of the seemingly beneficial aspects of the empire in aiding Indian modernisation and civilisation. When in reality, this history is much more ambivalent and complex; only through visiting India and understanding the colossal impact that it had on my own family as native Indians, was I able to gain some clear insight into this.

During my second year I studied abroad at Aarhus University in Denmark; here I was able to choose more freely from varied topics, ranging from the Middle East, to South Asia and Japan, giving me the opportunity to appreciate the development of different societies and cultures. Furthermore studying a module on the history of China provided me with the invaluable experience of learning about a country’s culture and history, without biases towards Denmark or the West’ influence. Even more pleasing was understanding China’s history from a Chinese perspective, as I was able to be more empathetic and better educated on features such as their commonly mocked and criticised ‘one child’ policy and women’s foot-binding. Learning history from a different perspective is not only crucial in truly understanding different societies and cultures, it is vital in combating intolerance, discrimination and ignorance. In recent years, understanding unbiased complexities of history have come to the forefront of Western scholarship, such as those highlighting the strategic interests of the British Empire’s partition of India and exploring the inextricable links between the USA in Afghanistan and the Islamic jihadists. Both of these topics are important in understanding the background to current affairs, and therefore are essential in helping us form more balanced and informed judgements. Perhaps it is now time for higher education institutions to also incorporate fairer and nuanced views in order to help us truly fulfil the aim of education in producing more informed, tolerant individuals who are less ignorant and more empathetic with history, but also with current affairs.

The BAME initiative is a crucial move in developing this diversity as it is university led, aiming to inspire real changes within teaching. Some adjustments to subject structures such as the extension of modules outside the European framework would enable the students to acquire important insight into the developments of different cultures and societies across time and space. Sonia Sharma (Year 3 History).

Events

Round table on bigotry and racism