[varunnrao]

> In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars.

I feel that this is a major source of why Britain (and Europe to a larger extent) is unable to come to terms with reality on a majority of issues today - immigration, foreign policy, economic policy etc. They simply have not come to terms with the loss of their empires and the wealth they brought. So they choose to not teach it. This leads British institutions today to have a serious colonial hangover whether they know it or not. The operating paradigm is still an outdated one in many cases.

They teach students what they think made Britain great -- the Romans, the Norman invasion, the World Wars, Churchill etc. -- while actually glossing over what made them great: Empire. It really brings to mind a line from the Thor: Ragnarok movie - "Proud to have it; ashamed of how they got it". The British people today might not have an idea of their Empire but the effects still linger on in their former colonies.

[KaiserPro]

> I feel that this is a major source of why Britain (and Europe to a larger extent) is unable to come to terms with reality on a majority of issues today - immigration, foreign policy, economic policy etc. They simply have not come to terms with the loss of their empires and the wealth they brought.

I would be so bold at to assert that no millennial really taught that a) Britannia had an empire and b) Britain ruled the waves.

Two world wars, and slavery is pretty much all we were taught, unless you specialised.

"modern" immigration was/is much more driven by our former membership of the EU than empire.

Empire is why our friends had Caribbean grandparents. WWII for polish grandparents, and Idi Amin why they also might have had indian parents born in Uganda.

But they were all pretty British to us. They sounded like us, dressed the same.

"modern" immigration when I was growing up was mostly Portuguese and Polish, later more baltics when that opened up to schengen.

But those later countries were also a product of another empire: USSR.

[lolinder]

> I would be so bold at to assert that no millennial really taught that a) Britannia had an empire and b) Britain ruled the waves.

Millenial here from the US. I was taught about the British Empire, extensively, in both high school and college. My high school teacher played "Rule, Britannia" (lyrics include "rule the waves") for us to hammer home the point.

Maybe you meant no millennial in Britain?

[Izkata]

Not a universal experience though: also a US Millennial, in middle school/highschool our history classes were pretty much only US history, and only touched world history as GP described. We did have a world history elective in highschool though, but it was an advanced placement class and not everyone could take it. No history classes during college.

Additionally my history classes all ended around the 60s-70s - roughly when the teachers were kids. Seemingly from their perspective "history" didn't include anything they experienced.

[KaiserPro]

Sorry, yes, I should have been more specific

[gadders]

>>the effects still linger on in their former colonies.

The rule of law, parliamentary democracy, the English language, ending Sati etc.

The empire wasn't all good, but was more benevolent than a lot of colonial empires. See the work of Nigel Biggar for reference.

[lionkor]

and of course generational poverty

[gadders]

You mean that didn't exist in India before the British? Or it is a British thing that we imported to India?

[aadhavans]

Not the parent, but:

Neither. While colonialism didn't _create_ generational poverty, the systemic genocides of the British were new. Colonial policy of prioritizing exports directly led to the deaths of millions. That's a fact.

A similar comparison would be between Roman slavery and the chattel slavery of the Americas. They are both abhorrent practices (just like the genocides caused by Indian rulers in the pre-British period), but it pales in comparison to the scale and horror of antebellum slavery.

[edwcross]

Well, if this is not mentioned at all during history classes, at least it prevents them from being taught that "British brought prosperity and development to all of its colonies, making the world better for everyone" and "they should be thankful that we went there and did all those things, how nice of us, and how rude of them not to thank us again and again!".

[hermitcrab]

>"they should be thankful that we went there and did all those things, how nice of us"

I think that is a tacit assumption that a lot of British people make.

[concordDance]

I think it comes from the general belief that poverty is bad and a simplistic view of cause and effect. "Before the Empire they were really poor, with high mortality, after the empire they were much wealthier with lower mortality".

It's just going to be the default view if one does not have further information.