Colonialism and the politics of 'Chinese history' in Hong Kong's Schools

Edward Vickers, Flora Kan, Paul Morris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Writers on colonial education have generally assumed that colonial curricula were tools of metropolitan political and cultural 'hegemony'. In particular, it is alleged that colonial history curricula neglected or ignored the histories of indigenous populations. Through analysing the case of Chinese History in Hong Kong, this article demonstrates that these assumptions are highly misleading. Far from exercising 'hegemonical' authority over the school curriculum, the colonial government was to a large extent the prisoner of its local collaborators. For reasons of political as well as educational expediency, in the post-war years the government initiated a conservative Chinese History curriculum to be taught alongside the separate subject of 'History'. Subsequently, a strong Chinese History subject community evolved, who by appealing to nationalist sentiment were able to resist successfully the calls for reform. As a result, efforts by both the colonial and post-colonial administrations to resolve the anomaly of having two history subjects have proved fruitless.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)95-111
Number of pages17
JournalOxford Review of Education
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2003

Fingerprint

colonial age
Hong Kong
politics
history
school
curriculum
colonial government
prisoner
hegemony
writer
reform
community
education

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education

Cite this

Colonialism and the politics of 'Chinese history' in Hong Kong's Schools. / Vickers, Edward; Kan, Flora; Morris, Paul.

In: Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, 01.03.2003, p. 95-111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a2abac5346554ddc931c3a9da07d5c84,
title = "Colonialism and the politics of 'Chinese history' in Hong Kong's Schools",
abstract = "Writers on colonial education have generally assumed that colonial curricula were tools of metropolitan political and cultural 'hegemony'. In particular, it is alleged that colonial history curricula neglected or ignored the histories of indigenous populations. Through analysing the case of Chinese History in Hong Kong, this article demonstrates that these assumptions are highly misleading. Far from exercising 'hegemonical' authority over the school curriculum, the colonial government was to a large extent the prisoner of its local collaborators. For reasons of political as well as educational expediency, in the post-war years the government initiated a conservative Chinese History curriculum to be taught alongside the separate subject of 'History'. Subsequently, a strong Chinese History subject community evolved, who by appealing to nationalist sentiment were able to resist successfully the calls for reform. As a result, efforts by both the colonial and post-colonial administrations to resolve the anomaly of having two history subjects have proved fruitless.",
author = "Edward Vickers and Flora Kan and Paul Morris",
year = "2003",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/03054980307432",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "95--111",
journal = "Oxford Review of Education",
issn = "0305-4985",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Colonialism and the politics of 'Chinese history' in Hong Kong's Schools

AU - Vickers, Edward

AU - Kan, Flora

AU - Morris, Paul

PY - 2003/3/1

Y1 - 2003/3/1

N2 - Writers on colonial education have generally assumed that colonial curricula were tools of metropolitan political and cultural 'hegemony'. In particular, it is alleged that colonial history curricula neglected or ignored the histories of indigenous populations. Through analysing the case of Chinese History in Hong Kong, this article demonstrates that these assumptions are highly misleading. Far from exercising 'hegemonical' authority over the school curriculum, the colonial government was to a large extent the prisoner of its local collaborators. For reasons of political as well as educational expediency, in the post-war years the government initiated a conservative Chinese History curriculum to be taught alongside the separate subject of 'History'. Subsequently, a strong Chinese History subject community evolved, who by appealing to nationalist sentiment were able to resist successfully the calls for reform. As a result, efforts by both the colonial and post-colonial administrations to resolve the anomaly of having two history subjects have proved fruitless.

AB - Writers on colonial education have generally assumed that colonial curricula were tools of metropolitan political and cultural 'hegemony'. In particular, it is alleged that colonial history curricula neglected or ignored the histories of indigenous populations. Through analysing the case of Chinese History in Hong Kong, this article demonstrates that these assumptions are highly misleading. Far from exercising 'hegemonical' authority over the school curriculum, the colonial government was to a large extent the prisoner of its local collaborators. For reasons of political as well as educational expediency, in the post-war years the government initiated a conservative Chinese History curriculum to be taught alongside the separate subject of 'History'. Subsequently, a strong Chinese History subject community evolved, who by appealing to nationalist sentiment were able to resist successfully the calls for reform. As a result, efforts by both the colonial and post-colonial administrations to resolve the anomaly of having two history subjects have proved fruitless.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037363112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037363112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/03054980307432

DO - 10.1080/03054980307432

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0037363112

VL - 29

SP - 95

EP - 111

JO - Oxford Review of Education

JF - Oxford Review of Education

SN - 0305-4985

IS - 1

ER -