Can teaching schoolchildren about Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade remain optional?
Mounting evidence about how slavery shaped Britain shows that teaching about its history cannot be a matter of choice
TL;DR
- History is a foundational subject in England, intended to build critical thinking and understanding of the world.
- The author argues that the history of British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, and much of its imperial history, is treated as non-statutory content in the national curriculum.
- Non-statutory content often becomes optional and is consequently neglected by teachers due to curriculum pressures.
- Recent publications, such as the Register of British Slave Traders and Enslaving Nation, highlight the extensive connections between enslavement and British institutions.
- The government's curriculum review aims to clarify statutory vs. non-statutory content, with a promise to "strengthen" the teaching of history and incorporate Black history.
- Teaching the history of enslavement requires significant effort from teachers to find time and resources, and to defend its inclusion.
- Unlike the mandatory study of the Holocaust, topics on empire and slavery are not compulsory between ages 11 and 14 in England.
- Some argue that Britain's role in ending the slave trade should be the focus, rather than its participation in it.
- The author contends that enslavement is a fundamental aspect of Britain's history, crucial for understanding its wealth, empire, and economy.