Why drop anything when kids are already taught about slavery? After all, teaching history isn't just about teaching bare facts. It's about teaching context as well. Or do you think that slavery, as carried out by other civilisations throughout history, isn't an appropriate context for the Atlantic slave trade?.

I don't follow your logic. Are you saying it's okay for people to conquer/be conquered, as long as it's neighbours conquering each other?

Personally, I think opression is bad no matter who does it. But each to their own.

I am speaking of the wholescale colonisation and subjugation of what became the Americas by white Europeans, and the horrors that came of it.

This is very different to any localised, mainly tribal conflicts between neighbours.

Er, because there's only so many hours in the day. Add something to the curriculum and something else has to go to make way.

You could argue the same for any part of history taught in the UK, so when I was taught about the contribution of the railways to the industrial revolution the US railway system didn't get a mention - but again, something would have to have been dropped to make way for that.

So Germany did not invade France in 1940, it was an internecine war. I had not realised that invasion was specified as being of different continents. I am sure those invaded by the Inca Empire were quite content with the distinction and the Pawnee were pleased that it was purely an internecine war and not an ethnic invasion.
What you say is true in the last paragraph but I am not clear why that makes a difference other than indicating the most recent successful invader following a long line of successful invaders throughout history of which almost every ethnic group has participated with varying degrees of success and even more varying degrees of cruelty.

European colonisation and subjugation of whole continents was a completely different animal to war between modern nation states - or native American tribes in the past come to that.

Happy holidays GGP.

Long time no see!

Nice to see we're still debating the niceties of colonial/imperialist subjugation as compared with intercinine warfare...

You mean like when the Arabs conquered North Africa, Spain and parts of Eastern Europe, and attempted to conquer France? Or when the Mughals conquered parts of Afghanistan and India (not to mention the people they claimed as their ancestors; Ghengis Khan and Timur the Lame)? Or the Aztec Empire oppressing and brutalizing surrounding civilisations for centuries?

I'm sure all those kids who had their hearts ripped out by Aztec priests were happy to be murdered by people with the same skin tone, rather than people from another continent with a lighter skin tone.

I can't because I don't know if you are.

What I am saying is that the spread of these "angry white male" videos, and the use of terms such as "white genocide" are part of the far right propaganda used for recruitment & to incite racial hatred.

When posted with terms such as "war against white men", or "pandering to the BLM", that shows a strong inference of your views.

I was talking more about the moral aspects of slavery, but if you think slavery is comparable to railways then that's your problem.

When I was doing GCSE history, we had to learn about Tudor architecture. We could certainly drop that, couldn't we?

Given over 60 million died during WWII - many killed purely for reasons of their race or religion - it actually resulted in far more loss of life than the incidents you refer to.

And should we not be taught about the longest lasting imperialistic enslaving empire in the last thousand years - the Ottoman Empire which invaded and enslaved large parts of central and Eastern Europe. Their slave trade of white Europeans lasted at least 400 years longer than the Atlantic slave trade and continued for several decades after that ended.

Cos if we are going to teach kids about slavery - shouldn't it also cover the biggest and most long lasting example of slavery in Europe? Or maybe white Christian Europeans being enslaved by an Islamic country for 600 years doesn't deliver the required narrative?

How do you know? are you a chameleon

How was it different apart from bigger although even that is conjectural, Mongol Empire was pretty big and stretched to Europe, Ottoman Empire was also pretty big and was well into Europe, Japanese Empire was pretty big and much more brutal, Russian Empire was extensive and included much of Europe, Chinese, Zulu, Moorish, all had their day, acted the same and on the grand inter continental scale.

WE are part of the European Western seaboard and one has to put history into context. Who decides a 'big part' of history, for some UK coastal areas it is massive? I was taught about the Press gangs, it played no part whatsoever in much local inland history but a large part of the sea ports. What you want is history taught with your personal slant accentuated, I think we should at least try to cover all pertaining to a subject. I hasten to add I was never taught about the British military fight against slavery, I was taught about slavery and Britain's part in it as a slaving nation.

I love how narrowly focused you are on doing anything possible to minimize the effects of European colonization. it's funny. there goes that fragile white ego again.

It's genuine.

Nothing to do with minimising effects as far as I can see, more to do with ensuring the picture is in focus and encompasses the whole. Africans were taken as slaves by Britons, Britons were taken as slaves by Africans. I wonder whose ego is fragile and needs protecting?

Link? My understanding was that Britain was little affected. And of course as well as the immediate effect, there's the effect on the country today. So I studied the history of the UK's railways as they shaped the country we live in today, the US railways were not added for "context" as they have minimal impact.

Yes, British sea ports, not French or Spanish ones.

What I want is for those who want more other countries' history to be taught to the UK to explain what of our history we currently teach to be dropped.

We've already seen that your education was a little peculiar, somehow slipping into China's "one child" lessons. William Wilberforce and the consequences were certainly taught in my school.

But none of those imperialists survive off their booty today like you and I do.

If you don't understand analogy, that's your problem.

I could compare an election to flipping a coin, doesn't mean I think Theresa May is comparable to a tail.

If you prefer to learn about things that haven't shaped this country rather than things that have, yes.

They're not minimizing it. They're simply illustrating why slavery isn't a white thing where white people alone have this inherent tendency to acquire slaves.

You also have to consider how many people actually owned slaves.
Most people in Europe were serfs themselves. You get so many white people feeling guilty over slavery but the irony is that probably none of their ancestors had anything to do with slavery what with being serfs and indentured servants themselves.

There were slaves within the British Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries, but not many people may be aware that Africans on the British mainland were not slaves. If there were any cases of it then they would have been illegal.

It's all very well for white people to feel guilty over something, but it's important for them to understand why they're guilty and for what. If you don't really know what you're feeling guilty for and understand why, then while the feeling of guilt may seem real the guilt itself isn't based on any true morality within which is instigated from a real experience.

It annoys be greatly that there are a minority of people who swan around thinking they have the moral authority to point at other people and tell them that they need to be educated. But they themselves aren't educated by anything other than being told nonsense in the first place by their peers who spread fallacious myths and inaccurate depictions of history to prop up their false political ideologies.
It's even doubtful in many cases that they have learned their history by any credible authority on history.

Goodness me.

You do know how to search, this was easy enough, there are several more

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...laves_01.shtml

Not sure why you are asking me some of the above.

That is opinion. Surviving off booty is what just about every country has done and the Empire between the wars was a net loss to the UK. The destruction of much infrastructure and the debts of war meant that I did not so much survive on the booty but was brought up by my relatives paying off large amounts of debt which I continued to pay off until just a few short years ago.

Well I have previously linked you to what baby boomer were taught in terms of saving the planet. Do you recall the population bomb I linked you to. That was the thinking back then and that was passed on officially and unofficially in many classrooms.