**TLDR - Colonialism has massively shaped the narrative of our curriculum - this should change** It wasn't until the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests that I learned of, and considered the way in which the British curriculum is structured and taught. Indeed, looking back at my time in school, it was clear that, whilst we dealt with colonialism and its consequences, the lens in which we considered it was still often that of the colonizer. Take for instance, English Literature. In A Level, we had to study Joseph Conrad's *Heart of Darkness* and consider its critiques of colonialism, and where it also perhaps shared a colonist mindset. This was a compulsory novel, whilst Chinua Achebe's *Things Fall Apart* was only a suggested reading. One tells the perspective of the colonizer, who feels some guilt at his part in the act, whilst the other tells the perspective of a member of the Nigerian Igbo clan dealing with the effects of colonialism. Both are books with great critical acclaim, and yet because one is seen as a 'classic' (deemed a classic by cultures with deep histories as colonizers), it is made mandatory. This is of course just one anecdotal example, and yet I think many of us will have similar educational upbringings if we take the time to look back. History, Ethics, English Literature - these subjects are so often taught from colonist viewpoints, and not enough attention is given to recognizing that fact and bringing more diversity to the curriculum. The curriculum seems to almost assume a whiteness from its students, choosing to teach subjects from the white-western perspective (even as it criticises that perspective) perhaps because it assumes a shared cultural history with that perspective. But the reality is that Britain is a culturally diverse country, and many of its inhabitants have a shared cultural history with the perspective of the colonized. The curriculum should do more to reflect that. The biggest indicator in my recent memory that this change needs to happen was the discussion around Winston Churchill during the BLM protests. The discourse began around statues and then moved to him as a person. All over the country, white British men and women were proclaiming him a hero, who was instrumental in our victory in World War 2. Even my a few of my liberal minded friends were in agreement. Of course, whether through genuine or willful ignorance, these people were ignoring Churchill's involvement in the [Bengal Famine of 1943](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study), or his questionable (to put it mildly) [views on race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill). It became clear to me that we are taught only the good of these British men's deeds, with the curriculum leaving out the incredibly problematic aspects of their careers. A curriculum should offer a broad education, and thus diversifying and decolonising it will never be a bad thing.

**TL;DR- Decolonising the curriculum is definitely something that needs to be done in schools. Schools, colleges and universities should be places of learning and growing, and with a one-sided curriculum this cannot happen as so many people are left out.** During a discussion on the BBC, a student stated: ["in Year 8… my teacher started the lesson by proclaiming that slavery has nothing to do with race. I remember feeling so angry"] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z7g66v4), while another said ["my parents had taught me stuff about my own heritage, so when I saw it being actively absent in the classroom, it made me feel like I was absent in history itself"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z7g66v4). This is not how school should be, as everyone deserves a chance to learn about their own heritage, there is no excuse to prioritise white heritage and education over non-white history. Many people argue that it's hard to fit it all into the short space of a curriculum, but if there's time to include entire school terms/semesters on relatively small events such as the Great Fire of London and Henry VIII's six wives, then the curriculum could easily be made more inclusive, by simply switching out modules. [Doug Stokes, a lecturer at the University of Exeter, has claimed that calls to decolonise the curriculum are “a big mistake” since “the last thing our universities need are to have ‘male, pale and stale’ voices sidelined."] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/academics-its-time-to-get-behind-decolonising-the-curriculum) But this makes no sense- why are people suddenly so worried about white male voices being 'marginalised' when no-one batted an eye when non-white voices were (and still are) talked over, plagiarised, and ignored? Because of the white supremacy unfortunately ingrained in society. The colonial curriculum has always put white westerners at the centre, whilst disregarding those who weren't 'the victors', and this needs to change in order for fairness to exist. Anyway, decolonising the curriculum isn't even about sidelining white men, its about diversification, making room for everyone, and letting all voices be heard- what could anybody have against that?