Decolonisation of English History. The Legacy of Colonialism in British Textbooks after 1960

1. Introduction

The imperial legacy of the Colonial Age is ever-present in our modern society. Alt­hough the belief in Western superiority was implemented in the era of European colonialism, institutional racism, cultural prejudices and xenophobia are contempo­rary consequences of Europe's past as Colonial Superpower. Europe’s latest stand­ing towards refugees has constructed the resurgence of an anti-immigrant and na­tionalist sentiment within various European countries; imperialistic convictions, therefore, still operate within humankind. In particular, the national belief in Brit­ain’s exceptionalism, as mightiest European colonial power within the 19th century, controverts with its modern multicultural society. Which policymakers have influ­enced the representation of what it means to be ‘British’ after the powerful Empire had ended? To what extent has the British society undergo a change, concerning a tolerant and accepting attitude towards immigrants from former British colonies? Most importantly, how accurate has knowledge about the British involvement dur­ing the Colonial Age been represented within different time periods?

1.1 State of Research

Considering a textbook as source of knowledge transfer and cultural understanding (Grindel 272), the interrelationship between imperialism and education raises the question to what extent British textbooks have portrayed the processing of British colonial rule in a transnational perspective. In the past, however, national history was often portrayed in a light that favoured the home country, thus, certain ethnical groups were devalued. Accordingly, students were taught in order to spread and, most importantly, maintain specific ideologies over a long period of time. For in­stance, one could mention NS-Erziehung within Nazi-Deutschland. The indoctri­nated ideologies not only influenced German educational institutions, but continued to spread away the end of the German Empire.

Even though the research gap regarding the studies of British textbooks and their role within the peak era of imperialism have been mostly closed, the level of knowledge about the following decades is incomplete (Mish 741). Certainly, the propagandistic influence on educational content continued until the late 20th cen­tury, despite the process of decolonisation. In detail, imperial influence on the world was cultivated during five centuries of “studying, classifying, and ordering humanity within an imperial context”, consequently, the age of imperialism created a Eurocentric perspective (Willinsky 2). For that reason, the multi-layered conse­quences, regarding the influence of imperial colouring within British textbooks, re­main incomplete (Mish 741).

1.2 Methodology

Various European countries have to face their past as former colonial powers. How­ever, this thesis focusses on the presentation of British imperialism and the process of decolonisation within British secondary textbooks after 1960. For this reason, the thesis’ central research question investigates to what extent a connection be­tween imperialism and British education has existed. Furthermore, it aims at defin­ing how long imperial education had influence on British textbooks and investigates to what extent this influence disturbed the overall process of decolonisation within the United Kingdom. In detail, the development of political concepts and societal perceptions of a British identity will be observed during the post-war decade to­wards the early 1960s, ongoing to the 1980s, ending in the early 2010s. The thesis examines, how the conception of what it means to be British shifted within the re­spective decennials. Reasons and motivations, besides political changes, will be compared and related towards the representation of British colonial rule inside the chosen textbooks.

To begin with, this thesis provides an overview regarding British remembrance of colonialism. For this reason, the fundamental ideologies of imperialism, as well the emergence of a Eurocentric world perspective are explained. Patrick Williams’, Jens Adam’s and Erik Bleich’s concepts of British imperialism will support the first part of my theoretical chapter and portray a post-colonial discourse. This chapter examines the beginnings of European colonialism and portrays the fall of the British empire, as well. Therefore, the chosen decennials consider political representations of Britishness. Richard Ashcroft’s, Lasse Thomassen’s and Almuth Ebke’s texts consequently illustrate the political field within the United Kingdom from the post­war decade until recent developments. Furthermore, this chapter explains how the British society evolved during the process of decolonisation. Chapter three then presents a retrospective view on Imperial Education and takes a closer look at the implementation of imperial philosophies, during the late19th, and early 20th century within British History classes; John Willinsky’s eeaanning to Divide the World” will support my researches. Furthermore, Hans-Jurgen Pandel’s theory on historical consciousness is explained and evaluated towards the importance of reflective and independent thinking within history classes. The following chapter consists of the analytical part and includes the analysis of six British textbooks from key stage 3 and 4, hence, textbooks for students from year 7-11. Moreover, the chosen decen­nials include i) the starting point of decolonisation and open boarders during the 1960s, ii) the era of anti-immigrant conservatism and first approaches on multicul­turalism during the 1980s, iii) the policy of the New Labour and the evolution to­wards Brexit during the early 2000s and late 2010s. The chosen textbooks have been used in a broad area within the United Kingdom, thus, secondary schools in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have made use of them in in key stages 3 and 4. Important to note is that British history textbooks tend to differentiate be­tween various themes, thus, most textbooks are named and published after their research field, e.g. BTriissh History since 1914“. I, therefore, paid attention towards a diverse compilation of British textbooks, concerning my analysis, in order to cre­ate a holistic point of view within my researches. Besides the overall content of the textbooks, the analysis focusses on the representation of imperialism and the pro­cess of decolonisation. Eventually, the findings are contextualized regarding polit­ical and societal changes that have influenced the stance towards the legacy of the British Empire. In the end, a final conclusion summarizes the most important find­ings and offers a present-day point of view, concerning the modern United King­dom and its legacy as former colonial Superpower.

2. Rise and Fall of the British Empire

The belief in Western superiority was deeply influenced by the age of European settlement and the discovery of the New World, within the 18th and 19th century. European colonial powers conquered various countries on the African and Asian continent and demonstrated their superiority over a long period of time. In the fol­lowing chapter, this thesis takes a closer look at the origin and implementation of imperialistic and Eurocentric theories inside the United Kingdom and its former colonies. Additionally, political representations of Britishness are analysed towards their influence on the formation of a national identity.

2.1 Concepts and Implementation of British Imperialism

When the discovery of America in 1492 induced Europeans to explore the New World, hundreds of indigenous people were forced to leave their home countries, in order to work in colonies established by European settlers. The belief in mission- izing underdeveloped countries evoked the belief in European superiority. Hence, existing cultures and traditions of non-European people were believed to be inferior (Conrad 12). The British Empire started the exploitation of Africans in 1562, when Sir John Hawkins initiated the transportation of slaves from West Africa to Amer­ica. ‘Jamestown’ was founded in 1607, as first British colony in Virginia. When in 1672 the transatlantic slave trade was initialled by King Charles II, the Empire cre­ated the ‘Royal African Company’. Besides the slave trade, the company assured Great Britain the export of various spices and mineral resources (Baym and Levin 11f.; Hirsch 51).

In order to impose their power beyond national borders, Britain authorized a spec­trum of policies and created administrative institutions during the colonial era. Therefore, non-colonists were installed at head of institutions, for example the Na­tive Court and Councils, in order to maintain authority over big parts of Africa and India with minimum expenditure (Bleich 174). In detail, laws, working life and ed­ucation systems of various colonized countries were structured and authorized by the emperors. Thus, colonial rule influenced a wide range of cultural, ethnical and racial diverse societies and allowed Britain to rely on indirect rule in the empire (Bleich 172). Thus, indirect rule through a native authority was an “archetypal co­lonial pattern” that helped Britain colonize and control various countries around the world (Katznelson 176). The British empire reached its biggest extension after Eu­ropean colonial powers had fought over the colonisation of the African continent, in World War I. By 1910, the United Kingdom owned the majority of the African continent; foremost twenty percent of the world population was under British con­trol. In 1920, nearly eighty-five percent of the world was eventually colonized by Europeans (Said 122f.).

Moreover, David Thackeray clarifies that Britain decided to grant certain colonies British ‘Dominion’ status during the early 20th century (Thackeray 21). Certainly, the Dominions were allowed to self-govern their country. In 1926, the Imperial Conference declared the Dominions, including (white) South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to be “autonomous communities, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of domestic or external affairs, and freely associated as members of the British Empire” (Thackeray 21). Yet, the former col­onies’ loyalty towards the Queen and the mother country continued within the idea of the British Commonwealth that aimed on unifying former colonies of the British Empire. Consequently, the Dominions’ liberation from the British Empire confis­cated the traces “of these nations’ histories as settler colonies” and was authorized in 1931 by the Statue of Westminster (Thackeray 22).

The Age of imperialism created a holistic assumption of a Western ideology that claimed to be the dominant culture. Certainly, Eurocentrism results from Western imperialism and distinguishes between “us” and “them”, in order to place Europe above the rest of the world (Mohanram and Rajan 3). According to Adam, the ex­ploration of America as the ‘New World’, completed former Europe, the ‘Old World’. Thus, Western ideologies include European norms and cultures, as well the traditions of the United States. Eurocentrism, therefore, is best explained as a result of European humanist ideas and power relations that lead to exploiting dominance of the Western World and an inadequate thinking of Western heritage (Adam 7). Most importantly, B. Ashcroft exaggerates that the modern Western World is likely to pretend colonialism had not happened, “or was not worth mentioning”; however, the period after decolonisation proved the still existing influence of Western powers on former colonies and their cultural heritage (B. Ashcroft 26).

2.2 Political Representations of Britishness

The United Kingdom’s multi-ethnic past and present raise an issue, about the amount “to which colonial history has influenced contemporary practices of man­aging ethnic pluralism (...)” (Bleich 171). In the postcolonial era, a significant num­ber of immigrants from former colonies arrived in the United Kingdom, thus, the country needed to decide how to manage ethnic diversity within the country. With gradual decolonisation in the post-war decades, the consequences of imperial di­versity became visible eventually (Bleich 172).

According to Reet Tamme, the concept of ‘race relations’ and its representation combines approaches of intellectual history with perspectives on postcolonial the­ories and sociology. Moreover, he explains how representations cannot be viewed as complete depictions, albeit they would guide our actions (Tamme 6). Tamme refers to Roger Chartier who would argue that ‘Vorstellungs-Händler’, in this case socio-scientific experts and policy-makers, would be responsible for this represen­tation (Tamme 6). Most importantly, since these elite is in charge of the respective knowledge and power, the representations are created within discourses that are based on certain power structures. Yet these discourses are not completed, where for the knowledge is discussed continuously while it influences social interactions (Tamme 6). Consequently, the following subchapters discuss to what extent the representation of what it means to be British was influenced by British policy-mak­ers and whether they effected the development of British multiculturalism.

2.2.1 End of Empire and Open Boarders

Although historians would “still debate the precise impact of imperialism on British domestic culture”, Richard Ashcroft explains that an essential part of British na­tional identity was the Empire itself (R. Ashcroft 26). Therefore, “decolonization after 1945, therefore, threatened both Britain’s international standing and its sense of self” (R. Ashcroft 26). However, R. Ashcroft argues that the Commonwealth assured Britain the preservation of key aspects of British identity, albeit in a de­creased way. Yet, the British would try to justify their Empire and imperialism in terms of preparing their colonies to rule themselves, in contrast to other European forms of colonialism. R. Ashcroft describes the shift of power “from an overt ‘Whig imperialism’ to a more egalitarian ‘Commonwealthism’” as a “naturell response to the problem posed by decolonization” (R. Ashcroft 27). Moreover, he annotates the importance to address how the vision of the Commonwealth exemplified Britain’s belief in its exceptionalism. In other words, the vision of egalitarian transnational power, through the Commonwealth, characterized post-war Britain’s policy funda­mentally (R. Ashcroft 27).

Further, the Attlee government wanted to redefine British nationality, “since no le­gal definition of citizenship existed in UK law”, which would explain the concept of subjecthood (R. Ashcroft 27). Therefore, the British Nationality Act in 1948 granted subjecthood to people born in the British Empire and Commonwealth. Nev­ertheless, the Act distinguished between ‘Citizens of the United Kingdom and Col­onies’ (CUKCs) and ‘Citizens of Independent Commonwealth Countries’ (CICCs). Both citizenships received the rights to work, vote and live in the UK and stand for Parliament as well (R. Ashcroft 27). R. Ashcroft summarizes that Britain’s citizen­ship reform from 1948 reasserted Britain’s symbolic status as the “mother country” that allowed “legally protected mass immigration from the predominantly non­white countries of the “New” Commonwealth (R. Ashcroft 28). However, the Brit­ish government pressured Indian, Jamaican and other governments “to put admin­istrative roadblocks in the way of potential immigrants” (R. Ashcroft 28). In detail, Britain’s citizenship reform from 1948 officially awarded CICCs the right to mi­grate to the UK, unofficial ‘private’ agreements between the British government and governments of independent Commonwealth states would prevent mass migra­tion in the post-war decades (Ebke 162). In fact, mass migration was seen as a threat towards British fundamental traditions and values. Additionally, the British society would react on the strangeness of non-white people with shock and dislike (Tamme 1). In 1958, race riots in Notting Hill and Nottingham explained evolving public resistance towards non-white immigration (R. Ashcroft 29). During the early 1960s, Macmillan’s government passed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, after “ru­mours of impending controls resulted in a spike of immigrants arriving from the New Commonwealth during 1961” (R. Ashcroft 29). Macmillan’s conservative party was confronted with the difficulty of restricting immigration on the one hand, without offending British subjects by prohibiting immigration from independent Commonwealth countries, such as India and Canada, on the other hand. (R. Ash­croft 29). In further years, immigration turned even more on race and allowed “white descendants of British colonists into the UK but affectively barred non­whites” (R. Ashcroft 30). Macmillan’s conservatism was following the belief in British exceptionalism and the dominant “One Nation”, that tried to manage immi­gration by strict immigration controls (R. Ashcroft 32).

Nevertheless, post-war projects of the Labour party in the late 1950s, started to fo­cus on anti-racism and “the creation of a citizenship that provided a full range of civil, political and socioeconomic rights” as response to race-based immigration reforms (R. Ashcroft 38). Hence, race-based immigration restrictions were not tol­erated and eventually led to a distinctive form of British multiculturalism, in con­sequence of the failed attempt to construct an internationally and geographically relevant Commonwealth of Nations (R. Ashcroft 38).

2.2.2 Anti-Immigrant Reforms and Race Relations Act

When Margaret Thatcher became the first female British Prime Minister in 1979, her anti-immigrant attitude would challenge Britain’s path towards multicultural­ism. When the British Nationality Act of 1981 overturned the 1948 Act, it defined a new British citizenship status. Hence, different categories distinguished between the remaining CUKCs, however, neither of these were allowed to enter the UK (R. Ashcroft 32). Ebke explains how the Conservative party would determine young male teenagers of the second generation of immigrants, as a potential thread to­wards the preservation of British values. Additionally, the Conservatives would make young male immigrants responsible for the emergence of the ‘permissive so­ciety’. Riots across English cities happened in direct response to the new law which limited predominantly anti-white immigration and demonstrated the Conservative’s anti-immigrant policy. In other words, Thatcher’s policy “embodied a cultural na­tionalism with racialized undertones” (Ebke 162). Nevertheless, the Thatcher gov­ernment would allow for immigrant accommodations to be built and extended pol­icies made by the Labour party in the 1970s, since the societal changes needed so­lutions (R. Ashcroft 33). Moreover, Britain’s bifurcated political framework al­lowed for the imposition of an increasingly potent internal race-relations regime”, passed by Labour’s Race Relations Act from 1976 (R. Ashcroft 30). The acts would prohibit public discrimination, as well incitement to racial hatred and discrimina­tion within housing and employment. Most importantly, the Commission for Racial Equality was established after the Race Relations in 1976 and created a new ap­proach towards British pluralism, away from “assimilation to integration” (R. Ash­croft 30). Thus, national political thinking had to balance racist excluding mecha­nisms and the revival of British colonial identity, on the one hand, while longing for ethnical pluralism on the other hand. However, during this period, “British mul­ticulturalism became ’entrenched’ (...) at the local level, albeit, the 1980s proved that Great Britain, as a collective identity, was not able, nor wanted to integrate a diverse society” (R. Ashcroft 34; Thomassen 19). Most importantly, still existing laws and fundamental structures of the British social order continued to exist, while different concepts of Nation, Empire, Union and Society needed to be outbalanced (Ebke 163f.). Ebke summarizes how the process of decolonisation, followed by mass migration in the 1960s, disturbed Britain’s balance between nation and Em­pire, which had been fundamental for British Nationality law until the 1960s. How­ever, the riots in 1981 presented the urgency to revive the vision of an ethnic white and national coded British Nation, deeply connected to the imagery of a global Em­pire (Ebke 163).

2.2.3 New Labour’s Social Democracy and Brexit

During the early 2000s, Labour’s vision of a liberal democracy, influenced by social science, allowed for a renewal of multicultural approaches. In detail, the New La­bour would draw on new institutional concepts of social capital and “on a commu­nitarianism that valorised shared values and an active citizenship”, in order to re­duce exclusion (R. Ashcroft 34). Whereas Thatcher had declared there “is no such thing as society”, New Labour emphasized a “revitalized sense of citizenship, trust and obligation to the community”, by the “pluralist idea of local governance includ­ing devolution” (R. Ashcroft 34). In addition, an UK anti-discrimination law was established and relaxed the status of non-white immigration which allowed for im­migrants to bring their spouses into the UK. Most importantly, the report by the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic-Britain in 2000, created the “high-water mark” of post-war British multiculturalism (Ashcroft 34).

However, international events in the early 2000s diminished the path towards Brit­ish multiculturalism; the attacks on 9/11, the London bombing of July 2005 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq accelerated race riots in the north of England and were “the initial trigger for a revaluation of multicultural policy” (R. Ashcroft 34). Here­inafter, the government responded with the need “for immigrant and minority groups to assimilate British values and traditions” (R. Ashcroft 35). Furthermore, new nationality tests and a tightening of asylum and immigration law presented the declining shift from integration to assimilation and ruined the former approaches of the New Labour. (R. Ashcroft 35).

R. Ashcroft argues that David Cameron’s and Theresa May’s “One Nation” con­servatism, from 2011 until 2019, supported this political vein and even declared multiculturalism as ‘failed approach’. Their promise to the British citizens was to promote certain British values, since a society with different values would have led to extremism and grievance (R. Ashcroft 35). The Referendum in 2015 then exem­plified Great Britain’s resistance to immigrant multiculturalism, since British citi­zens would feel that their identity was threatened by immigration and multicultur­alism (R. Ashcroft 37). Most importantly, Britain’s vision of its exceptionalism would present the Brexit as an opportunity to relive Britain’s powerful past. Hence, aspects of liberal nationalism from the post-war decade and the Thatcher govern­ment in the 1980s, can be associated with the majority of the “Leave” votes (R. Ashcroft 35, 39). In conclusion, social democracy led to the renewal of British mul­ticulturalism in the late 1990s and 2000s, however, events since 2001 have over­shadowed these approaches and triggered the vision of plural identities within the British society.

This chapter analysed how the beginning process of decolonisation confronted Great Britain on how to deal with its colonial past and, consequently, the emergence of an ethnic and religious diverse society. Certainly, the British colonies were taught to admire their ‘mother country’. Britain’s wealth and influence as colonial power, thus, revealed opportunities, given by immigrating to the land of their for­mer colonizers. Yet, what it means to be British was foremost influenced and formed within the era of British imperialism and was built on the belief in Western superiority. Nevertheless, the political landscapes of different decennials have shown, how inclusive and exclusive the UK dealt with pluralistic identities and multiculturalism. Present-day Great Britain, therefore, has not been able to articu­late an idea of a modern multicultural Britain, without clinging to the belief in Brit­ish exceptionalism and the legacy of the ‘Old Empire’ (R. Ashcroft 39).

3. Historical Approaches on History Classes

This chapter focusses on the assumption that during European imperialism, national history was often portrayed in a light that favoured the home country, a specific religion or ethical group. How was imperialism taught during the Era of the British Empire? Which concepts were later introduced by Hans-Jürgen Pandel in the early 1980s, in order to support student’s ability to deal with historical events “cor­rectly”? How does the concept exemplify that students have to distinguish between the past and the present, regarding their personal relevance for their own future?

[...]