Search

Toppling the statue of the slave merchant Edward Colston in Bristol, removing the monuments of King Leopold II from public places in Belgium, Black Lives Matter protests, and mass demonstrations targeting remembrance of certain chapters of the history of the Global North -- these are some of the significant events that drew attention to the ongoing disputes around the legacy of colonialism during the summer of 2020. These developments form an integral part of the long-drawn-out process of decolonisation: decolonising the culture of the former mother countries. From museology through the natural sciences and linguistics to visual arts, vast areas of the academic, scientific, and cultural scene of the Global North are crucially affected by decolonizing tendencies, with the teaching of history arguably among the most disputed ones. This paper reviews the key decolonising aspirations of history teaching in the United Kingdom by studying the goals, messages, methods, and endeavours of three movements: "Why Is My Curriculum White?," "The Black Curriculum," and "Rhodes Must Fall Oxford," address different levels of education and urge the transformation of numerous aspects of history teaching (teacher training, curricula, teaching methodology, etc). Source materials examined include the work, teaching aids, and written, audio, or video content published on various social media platforms by these three organisations, as well as parliamentary papers and reports of public and non-governmental bodies.

Contemporary North-South research collaborations are fraught with power relations originating in colonialism. Debates about research ethics have tended to turn around the "procedural ethics" formal model and the "everyday ethics" practical model. We build on that to suggest a second debate that scrutinises ethics and power relations not only in the researcher-researched relationship but also in the relationships within research teams and ethics review boards. The research asked: how can we shift power in research to decolonise research and build more equitable partnerships? We explored this with data obtained through collaborative autoethnography in a multi-country development research programme, Evidence and Collaboration for Inclusive Development (ECID). This included regular self-reflective meetings, visual methods, a self-evaluation survey, and blogs addressing power issues. Coordinated from London, the research had all the cards to adopt a 'colonial' gaze in which the North would 'research' the South. The case narrates the journey of the research team to decentralise power in the programme, which included sharing control over the selection of research topics, and the research design, budget, and publications. Drawing from the lessons learned from the research approach that was adopted in ECID, this paper offers an 8-step model towards decolonising research ethics.

According to John Adams, the real American Revolution occurred "in the minds and hearts of the people" long before the armed conflict ever began. This shared anti-British sentiment in prewar colonial America was largely fostered by committees of correspondence. Formed a decade before the revolution, the committees were the first institution of intercolonial communication. They were composed of radical, educated, mostly upper-class men who demonstrated the power of communication through pamphlets, letters, newspaper articles, and town hall meetings. The committees successfully kindled the flame of revolution among the colonists by creating an innovative system of mass communication that shared information and spread enlightening ideas. By appealing to shared values of liberty and the illustrious idea of natural rights, the committees played a crucial role in amplifying civilian voices and laying a foundation for American democracy.

We analyze the last thirty years of Argentine foreign policy over the Malvinas Islands, from the restart of bilateral relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1989. We look at the stages of foreign policy, starting from the voices of decision-makers of different governments, rereading the changes and continuities of the Malvinas Question in their different historical contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]