Calls to make black, asian and minority ethnic history compulsory

Originally Posted by nomadking

So no other countries had empires? Did history not exist before the British Empire arrived. Still intended to be highly selective and anti-White British.

No other countries had Empires but we live in this one. There would be less value to British students in teaching them about the relationship between France and Africa than there would be teaching them about Britain and Africa.

And I don't see why it's 'anti-White'. You each the history as it is.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

No other countries had Empires but we live in this one. There would be less value to British students in teaching them about the relationship between France and Africa than there would be teaching them about Britain and Africa.

And I don't see why it's 'anti-White'. You each the history as it is.

French, Spanish, Russian(pre-20th century), Ottoman(as I've highlighted already), and many others.
I've demonstrated that "teaching" on slavery is selective and anti-White.
Or did you mean "No[to no other countries had empires], but other countries had Empires"?

Originally Posted by nomadking

French, Spanish, Russian(pre-20th century), Ottoman(as I've highlighted already), and many others.
I've demonstrated that "teaching" on slavery is selective and anti-White.
Or did you mean "No[to no other countries had empires], but other countries had Empires"?

We live in Britain. Why do you find it hard to understand that therefore British History will take precedence?

All of those Empires are important in understanding the world but there is no Empire that had a greater impact on Modern Britain than the British Empire.

Speaking as an educator born in Nigeria when it was part of the British Empire I say teach it warts and all whilst remembering that those that went out and built that empire weren’t completely evil or wicked just products of their times.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Also as I pointed out, it was British Colonial history that brought slavery to an end in many black and Asian countries.
Slavery in Africa existed before the Transatlantic slave trade started and continued after it ended. The teaching and TV presentation on the subject is rather selective, one-sided, and biased.

There is plenty of other history that is relevant Deeney's point that isn't about who did what slavery to whom.

Personally I think it's part of the issue that anytime it's suggested that we learn more about some of the related history, it keeps coming back to the same 'look over there' talking points.

Is 'white' history compulsory ?
(Btw, when is White History Month ?)

Lots of other countries had Empires, I seem to recall a certain Italian based one invaded Britain, and took us as slaves ....

Still waiting for the apology from Italy ...

Originally Posted by Paul

Is 'white' history compulsory ?

In this context, most of the history that is taught is about British History which is predominately white.

What Deeney is saying is there are parts of British History that aren't taught.

Lots of other countries had Empires, I seem to recall a certain Italian based one invaded Britain, and took us as slaves ....

The Roman Era is usually taught in History. I certainly did it.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Roman Era is usually taught in History. I certainly did it.

I did a GCSE in their language

Originally Posted by Damien

No other countries had Empires but we live in this one. There would be less value to British students in teaching them about the relationship between France and Africa than there would be teaching them about Britain and Africa.

And I don't see why it's 'anti-White'. You each the history as it is.

Originally Posted by nomadking

French, Spanish, Russian(pre-20th century), Ottoman(as I've highlighted already), and many others.
I've demonstrated that "teaching" on slavery is selective and anti-White.
Or did you mean "No[to no other countries had empires], but other countries had Empires"?

This is what happens when you don’t adequately punctuate.

I believe Damien meant to say: “No, other countries had empires, but …”

Nomad, as per usual you’re indulging in deflection and whataboutery, none of which alters the salient facts. Whatever the French, German, Spanish or Ottoman colonial authorities did is irrelevant to the question here, which is whether BAME history should be compulsory in British schools on account of the British empire’s extremely significant role in that history.

Oh yeah! Lol sorry. Maybe there needs to be less history and more English lessons in schools.

Originally Posted by Damien

In this context, most of the history that is taught is about British History which is predominately white.

What Deeney is saying is there are parts of British History that aren't taught.

You cannot teach all history, there simply isnt the time.
Also, not the point, this was a request to specifically make "black, asian and minority ethnic history compulsory".
On the face of it, thats a racist demand - imagine if someone wrote saying "white history" should be compulsory.

Originally Posted by Damien

The Roman Era is usually taught in History. I certainly did it.

History was optional for me, and I didnt take it.

He says "..this will help to combat racist beliefs and stereotypes from an early age." No it wont, hes living in a fantasy world if he thinks that.

Maybe footballers should stick to football.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Paul

You cannot teach all history, there simply isnt the time.
Also, not the point, this was a request to specifically make "black, asian and minority ethnic history compulsory".
On the face of it, thats a racist demand - imagine if someone wrote saying "white history" should be compulsory.


History was optional for me, and I didnt take it.

History is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum

https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum

Originally Posted by Paul

You cannot teach all history, there simply isnt the time.
Also, not the point, this was a requests to specifically make "black, asian and minority ethnic history compulsory".
On the face of it, thats a racist demand - imagine if someone wrote saying "white history" should be compulsory.

No, you can't teach all history, but when we have different subjects taught there is no reason one of them cannot involve the history of one of Britain's minority populations. There would be so much to choose from. Several years ago I was in the Jewish Museum in London and there was this whole history of Jewish life in Britain that I was mostly oblivious to. That's probably the same for lots of communities in Britain.

Why not teach one of them?

I am not saying it should be compulsory but I don't think the idea it gets taught at all is silly.

Maybe footballers should stick to football.

I don't see why footballers are any more or less deserving to speak on these issues than most of the other people we have on television pontificating about things.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

History is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum

It might be now, it wasnt in the 1970's, that also makes his whole request worse.
Since history as such is already complusory, hes just trying to force whats being taught based on race/colour. What a muppet.

[nomadking]

How many examples are there about being taught about minor White British people?
The slavery topic is just one example of where only one aspect is taught, ie the anti-White one. The full picture is never given.