Skip to main content

Teaching the British Empire

The school history curriculum in the UK often skips the British Empire.  This leaves children with little knowledge of what actually happened and makes them prey to the fake history that is used by political movements to divide people, those who were born generations after the empires ended, into victims and oppressors.

The most salient feature of the British Empire is that it was initially gained as the spoils of war after continual attacks on England by other European powers during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. England was Protestant and in 1570, Pope Pius V sought to depose Elizabeth I with the papal bull "Regnans in Excelsis", which declared her a heretic and so began two and a half centuries of war between England and Catholic Europe.  The Spanish and French largely lost these wars and in the process lost their footholds across large areas of the globe.

The world in 1700 Wikipedia
By 1914 the world was still divided up between empires with the British ascendant.  If you lived outside of Europe and North America in 1914 your future and that of your children was determined by which Empire ran or had run your part of the world.  The luckier ones had lived in the British Empire.  The least fortunate had lived in the Russian, Belgian, Portuguese, Chinese, Ottoman and Spanish Empires.



In Britain we have many people who have migrated here from what were once parts of the British Empire. They see the world as having been their own relatively small part of it and the British Empire.  The world was nothing like this. It is important that educators get this message across.

It is also important that educators show that it was the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions that created the wealth of ninteenth century Britain, not its Empire. There is no pot of gold acquired from Empire that the British are still feeding on. Indeed, the UK lost much of its wealth in each of the two world wars and, by industry and determination, recovered to continue as a leading developed nation.

After the Second World War the Anglo-American Alliance had conquered most of the world.  As part of their settlement they dismantled the European Empires.  The British were severely damaged by the war and so, during the Cold War, were seen by the Soviet Union as the weak link in the Alliance.  The Soviets launched a massive campaign against "Imperialism" to detach the world from affection for the West.  They were undermined in this campaign by the intention of the British to voluntarily liberate its empire but it had considerable "success" by causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as Marxist revolutionary movements attempted to destabilise countries as they became independent.

The campaign against imperialism was particularly successful among the British Upper Class intelligentsia which is why the UK still has factions that use "imperialism" as a wedge to divide British society.  These factions dominate the humanities and arts faculties of British universities, hire each other and suppress the publication of opposing views to continue their dominance. See Populism, Radicalism and Extremism.  Teachers can be seen as the victims of this radicalisation.

When teaching the "British Empire" educators should place it in its historical context and should not use it as a way to indoctrinate children with their own views by selecting events from the past and putting them in a modern context.  The classic example of this evil is to teach about slave transport and ask "were we right to have engaged in this?".  "We" live now, the last of the Empire ended over two generations ago and slavery was abolished throughout the Empire about two centuries ago.  The only possible motive for such questions would be to polarise the class of innocents into black skinned victims and white skinned oppressors.  Another classic example is to present the Partition of India without discussing the roles of Jinnah and Nehru to make children of Indian heritage feel victimised and hate their own country (the UK).  Post-structuralist and postmodern interpretations of history (Historical Presentism) are deceitful and always politically motivated. Historical Presentism is not a harmless attempt at making history relevant, it is always an evil ambition to transmit political values into children and other innocents.

It is easy to teach the "British Empire".  Put it in its historical context, ban Historical Presentism and stress that it is in the past, that it is history, it is not an indelible stain on a race.  Teachers must wake up from their latent racism and realise that if their indoctrinated venom against the British were used widely we would utterly hate the Germans, Italians, Chinese, Americans, Russians, Spanish, Belgians and French who have all done "worse" than the British by modern standards, but of course, modern standards are an absurd diversion from history.

11/02/2020


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage