History amnesia ?

[quasimodo]

Why is it the history I was taught at school in both GCSE and A level was taught through a collective prism which never taught me the realities of colonialism ? While I now understand more of the truth of what occurred from an Indian perspective through my own reading and researches I must admit I don't know the truth from other parts of the world to fully appreciate movements like the movement to remove the Rhodes statutes from Oxford University.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nTno8LACH4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Brexit does become a reality and Britain opens up for trade with its former colonies it will have to confront its past.However there are just as many Indians who behold Britain with benevolence as those that don't.

http://www.historytoday.com/reviews/lit ... nd-cricket" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[loobylou]

I did virtually no history at school (taught it terribly and gave it up as soon as I could) but I love it now. I agree (not sure how old you are Quasimodo) that we were taught nothing of any potentially negative past - this was in the late 70s and early 80s for me. I love seeing that the history that my children learn appears to be (at least in part) more honest about the past.
In 1992 I went to India for a few weeks. I remember meeting a man who had a Rolls Royce from about the 50s (maybe even older). He asked me if everyone drove this car in England - he was so proud of it. His whole house was an homage to the royal family and the days of the Raj. It was amazing - he knew way more about the royal family than I did - and this was before the internet. I wonder if (with no evidence other than the fact that the man I met was the richest Indian man I met there by a very long way) there may be a correlation between those who venerate the British past in India and wealth?

[quasimodo]

How old am I ? I think I am about 4 to 5 years older than you loobylou.The outward appearance changes but we essentially remain the same internally despite any physical or cosmetic changes.

I have been lucky in that over the years I have met some very inspirational people. Whether it be the elderly British couple who used to let their mischievious next door immigrant neighbours 3 to 4 year old son come into their house for a cup of tea to watch their tv set,or my English primary school headmaster who chose to give me a lot of his fictional novels from his childhood when he was clearing his house( the first books I ever possessed and who inspired me in ways that impact upon me to this day ),the chain smoking English owner of the local newsagents shop who made me his main newspaper delivery lad and the one who went around collecting his payments from his customers homes at a very tender age and my English college tutor who inspired me to a real love of history which I carry to this day.The only mistake I made was not to pursue that love rather than to pursue a subject and vocation which was what my family wanted.I have not pursued that with my children letting them pursue their own loves.

Similar to you my first trip to India was in 1991 and I fell in love with its history and heritage.From that date on I used to purchase numerous books in India in English at a fraction of the cost compared to the UK.

Staying in five star hotels when a number are converted former palaces history and holiday combine as examples the Taj hotels in Jaipur the Rambagh Palace and in Udaipur the Lake Palace only reinforces that love of history.

http://www.travellermade.com/hotel-part ... ce-jaipur/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi-8JdveWxo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of the scenes from the Lake Palace you see in the film Octupussy.

I think you are right about wealth and the veneration of the Raj and one elite has taken over from another but not all experiences are negative even when different cultures collide.

[Catseye]

The legacy of Colonial rule is all around us-I was at a wedding in Liverpool over the w/e and spent all of Sunday wandering around the city in true tourist style with my camera fitted in quite well with the countless Chinese tourists.

Liverpool was a major slaving port and its ships and merchants dominated the transatlantic slave trade in the second half of the 18th century. The town and its inhabitants derived great civic and personal wealth from the trade which laid the foundations for the port's future growth.

The growth of the trade was slow but solid. By the 1730s about 15 ships a year were leaving for Africa and this grew to about 50 a year in the 1750s, rising to just over a 100 in each of the early years of the 1770s. Numbers declined during the American War of Independence (1775-83), but rose to a new peak of 120-130 ships annually in the two decades preceding the abolition of the trade in 1807. Probably three-quarters of all European slaving ships at this period left from Liverpool. Overall, Liverpool ships transported half of the 3 million Africans carried across the Atlantic by British slavers.

The precise reasons for Liverpool's dominance of the trade are still debated by historians. Some suggest that Liverpool merchants were being pushed out of the other Atlantic trades, such as sugar and tobacco. Others claim that the town's merchants were more enterprising. A significant factor was the port's position with ready access via a network of rivers and canals to the goods traded in Africa - textiles from Lancashire and Yorkshire, copper and brass from Staffordshire and Cheshire and guns from Birmingham.

Although Liverpool merchants engaged in many other trades and commodities, involvement in the slave trade pervaded the whole port. Nearly all the principal merchants and citizens of Liverpool, including many of the mayors, were involved. Thomas Golightly (1732-1821), who was first elected to the Town Council in 1770 and became Mayor in 1772-3, is just one example. Several of the town's MPs invested in the trade and spoke strongly in its favour in Parliament. James Penny, a slave trader, was presented with a magnificent silver epergne in 1792 for speaking in favour of the slave trade to a parliamentary committee.

It would be wrong to attribute all of Liverpool's success to the slave trade, but it was undoubtedly the backbone of the town's prosperity. Historian, David Richardson suggests that slaving and related trades may have occupied a third and possibly a half of Liverpool's shipping activity in the period 1750 to 1807. The wealth acquired by the town was substantial and the stimulus it gave to trading and industrial development throughout the north-west of England and the Midlands was of crucial importance.

The last British slaver, the Kitty's Amelia, left Liverpool under Captain Hugh Crow in July 1807. However, even after abolition Liverpool continued to develop the trading connections which had been established by the slave trade, both in Africa and the Americas.

Quite an amazing historical city with a bitter past of exploitation; suggest you take a Liverpudlian translator with you though

[quasimodo]

Quite an amazing historical city with a bitter past of exploitation; suggest you take a Liverpudlian translator with you though

I am shocked a suspected Manx supporter must have been hypnotised by the liver birds on the Royal Liver building to call Liverpool an amazing historical city.

[Catseye]

We are going to crush you in the new season.

We are; Manchester United the greatest footballing team in the world in the greatest sporting city in the world.

And our music is better than Liverpool or London- Beatles-pap, we have the original Northern Soul, Oasis, Smiths, The Stone roses, Take that, Chemical Brothers.................

I'm only joking , please go and visit Liverpool a great university city

[Surferfish]

I agree that its important to learn the realities of our history.

Interesting article about the British Empire here which makes some uncomfortable reading.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 21756.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article also mentions Winston Churchill who I guess most people regard as a national hero thanks to him defeating Hitler in WW2, but its clear that he also had a deeply unpleasant side (perhaps not too different in some ways from Hitler himself when you analyse it! )

[quasimodo]

The article also mentions Winston Churchill who I guess most people regard as a national hero thanks to him defeating Hitler in WW2, but its clear that he also had a deeply unpleasant side (perhaps not too different in some ways from Hitler himself when you analyse it! )

I don't think you can compare Churchill and Hitler in the same bracket.I think this sophisticated article on the BBC makes clear some of the differences in dealing with the controversies in his life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Surferfish]

I don't think you can compare Churchill and Hitler in the same bracket.

Well the guy that you posted youtube links to twice in your original post would appear to disagree!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 41681.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quasimodo]

I don't think you can compare Churchill and Hitler in the same bracket.

Well the guy that you posted youtube links to twice in your original post would appear to disagree!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 41681.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The guy Dr Shashi Tharoor I think overstates the case in making the links between Churchill's decisions and the famine.

One of the causes of the famine was the cutting off of the supply of rice to Bengal during the fall of Rangoon in Burma in 1943 to the Japanese.The second world war was being fought on India's eastern borders.Attempts were made by the British Government of India to direct food from surplus regions such as Punjab to famine areas in Bengal but the provincial governments obstructed the movement of grain.

The Famine Commission of 1948 and economist Amartya Sen found that there was enough rice in Bengal to feed all of Bengal for most of 1943.