Teaching the British Empire Honestly Means Teaching It in Parallel

Parallel Histories is this week launching its latest eBook series- On British Empire.

Let me explain why this matters and is such an essential addition to support the teaching of contested history in schools.

The debate over how we teach the British Empire has become one of the most polarising arguments in modern British education. Some insist the Empire was a force for progress—ushering in parliamentary institutions, the rule of law, global trade, and technological modernity. Others emphasise its violence, exploitation, and the long shadows it casts over current day inequalities. What is striking is not that these views exist, but that arguments about Empire increasingly sit within wider disputes about national identity, race, belonging and how Britain understands its past. We ask students to understand one of the most complex forces in world history, yet we too often are urged to present it as a single story.

At Parallel Histories, we believe that contested history should be taught as contested. The British Empire is not a morality tale with a single lesson; it is a vast, contradictory, deeply human story. To teach it responsibly, we must teach it from both perspectives and historical explanations, tested against evidence-its architects and its subjects, those exercising power and those living under imperial rule, its beneficiaries and its resisters, its triumphs and its traumas.

These are completing claims that must be tested against evidence. The task is not to weigh benefits against harms, but to test competing claims about how Empire was justified, how it was experienced, and how it should be understood today.

Why the Empire Demands a Dual Perspective

The British Empire was never one thing. It was a global system that spanned continents and centuries, shaped by millions of people with competing motives and experiences. To reduce it to either a celebration or an indictment is to flatten the past into propaganda.

Students deserve better.

• From the imperialist British perspective, the Empire was often justified as a civilising mission, a commercial enterprise, or a strategic necessity. Many believed they were spreading law, order, and modernity. Some saw it as a source of national pride and global influence.
• From the perspective of the colonised (often marginalised in historical accounts), the Empire could mean dispossession, racial hierarchy, economic extraction, and cultural suppression. It could also mean collaboration, adaptation, resistance, and the forging of new identities under pressure.

Both perspectives are historically real. Both shaped the world we live in. And both must be taught if we are to produce citizens who can navigate modern Britain.

When students encounter these perspectives side by side, something powerful happens; they begin to think critically. They learn that history is not a set of answers but a set of arguments. They learn to weigh evidence, question assumptions, and recognise bias—including their own. They learn that people in the past, like people today, acted from mixed motives and lived with unintended consequences. They test claims against evidence, look at sources, draw inferences and confront contradictions between different interpretations.

Because students who engage in a Parallel Histories debate must commit to and defend a position before switching sides, they navigate risk. This creates stakes, so they are no longer observers, but participants in a real, live debate.

This is not just good history. It is good citizenship.

The Cost of Teaching Only One Story

The current debate about the Empire often collapses into a tugofwar between nostalgia and condemnation. But the real problem is not which side wins; it isthat students are rarely shown that there are sides.

When we teach only the positive story, we risk producing students who cannot understand why the Empire remains a source of pain and anger in many parts of the world. When we teach only the negative story, we risk producing students who cannot understand why the Empire was supported by so many at home and abroad, or why its legacy is still defended today.

In both cases, we produce citizens who are poorly equipped to navigate the complexities of modern Britain—a country whose multicultural fabric, global relationships, and political debates are all shaped by imperial history, and shaped by the decisions we the British took after the end of Empire. A single story creates fragility. Parallel stories create intellectual resilience.

What Parallel Histories Offers

Our approach is simple but transformative: we present students with competing historical narratives, each grounded in primary sources, and ask them to interrogate both. We do not tell them what to think. We teach them how to think. Students investigate the evidence from one perspective and argue from that position, and then switch to do the same from the alternative contested perspective. The strength of this process is that it requires students to weigh evidence, test conclusions and reassess their conclusions.

In our British Empire programme, students encounter:

• British politicians defending imperial expansion as a moral duty.
• Indian nationalists describing the economic devastation of colonial rule.
• African leaders negotiating between collaboration and resistance.
• Caribbean voices reflecting on slavery, emancipation, and identity.
• British soldiers, missionaries, merchants, and administrators explaining their
• motives in their own words.
• Anticolonial thinkers articulating visions of freedom and self-determination.

Students then analyse and debate from these perspectives, both perspectives—not to endorse them, but to understand them. They learn that history is constructed, contested, and alive. This method does not dilute the truth; it deepens it. It does not avoid controversy; it equips students to handle it. It does not impose a narrative; it empowers students to build one.

Why This Matters Now

We live in a moment when public discourse is increasingly polarised, when social media rewards outrage over understanding, and when young people are bombarded with simplified narratives about complex issues. Teaching contested history through parallel perspectives is not just an academic exercise—it is a democratic necessity.

When historical judgements become markers of political or cultural allegiance, enquiry becomes harder. Parallel Histories separates scrutiny from allegiance: students argue from one interpretation, switch to the competing interpretation, and then reach their own judgement.

If students cannot grapple with the contradictions of the past, how will they grapple with the contradictions of the present? If they cannot understand why people disagree about history, how will they understand why people disagree about politics, identity, or justice today? The British Empire and the degree to which it shapes everything today, or contrastingly  we are shaped by our subsequent decisions and actions is not just a chapter in a textbook. It is a living force in our national story. To teach it honestly, we must teach it in full.

A Call to Teachers and Policymakers

The question is not whether the British Empire was good or bad. The question is whether we trust students enough to let them decide for themselves. Parallel Histories stands for an education that is rigorous, evidence-led, and intellectually brave. An education that embraces complexity rather than avoiding it. An education that prepares young people not just to pass exams, but to participate thoughtfully in a diverse and democratic society. Teaching the contested history of the British Empire from contrasting perspectives is not a risk. It is a responsibility.