Excerpt: The history of colonialism and the history of education have tended to be regarded as separate spheres of governance and scholarship. Our focus here, however, is on understanding the ways in which they are deeply connected, seeing them as sharing the goal of modernity that sought to transform individuals, states and society, including the modernisation of colonial relations. This special issue thus seeks to bring history of education and the history of colonialism into closer dialogue to show the ways in which ‘education’ has been directly imbricated in liberal, progressive, ‘protective’ and humanitarian responses to the conditions of settler-colonialism in this period. It explores how efforts towards ‘native education’ in this region contributed to new forms of settler governance as well as to contestations and/or mobilisations of this, not least as seen by Indigenous people. While Africa and India have featured in histories of colonial education that have been largely framed in the context of British Empire, the Pacific offers an exceptional opportunity to study interactions between British and American imperial and colonial modes of governance and their various articulations. This encompasses a focus from ‘international’ expertise and exchange, to the ambivalent circulations between ‘universal’ and local contexts and practices. Australasia and Oceania have not been sufficiently recognised as key sites in international and inter-imperial exchanges concerning the future of colonised subjects in the era of liberal, international and humanitarian imperialism that characterised the early twentieth century. This is reflective of the relative lack of attention to Oceania in terms of histories of education in general and, we argue, it is also reflective of insufficient recognition of the social sciences in settler/colonial rule.


Description: From the 1920s until the outbreak of the Second World War, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand filled British shop windows, newspaper columns, and cinema screens with “British to the core” Canadian apples, “British to the backbone” New Zealand lamb, and “All British” Australian butter. In remarkable yet forgotten advertising campaigns, prime ministers, touring cricketers, “lady demonstrators,” and even boxing kangaroos were pressed into service to sell more Dominion produce to British shoppers. But as they sold apples and butter, these campaigns also sold a Dominion-styled British identity. Selling Britishness explores the role of commodity marketing in creating Britishness. Dominion settlers considered themselves British and marketed their commodities accordingly. Meanwhile, ambitious Dominion advertising agencies set up shop in London to bring British goods, like Ovaltine, back to the dominions and persuade their fellow citizens to buy British. Conventionally nationalist narratives have posited the growth of independent national identities during the interwar period, though some have suggested imperial sentiment endured. Felicity Barnes takes a new approach, arguing that far from shaking off or relying on any lasting sense of Britishness, Dominion marketing produced it. Selling Britishness shows that when constructing Britishness, advertisers employed imperial hierarchies of race, class, and gender. Consumption worked to bolster colonialism, and advertising extended imperial power into the everyday. Drawing on extensive new archives, Selling Britishness explores a shared British identity constructed by marketers and advertisers during advertising’s golden age.




Abstract: Climate change has become a central concern on the international political agenda, challenging the decision-making of different levels of administration and types of actors. Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) have been recognized as relevant actors in climate matters, given their knowledge about territory, biodiversity, and their harmonious practices towards nature. With the evolution of knowledge on climate change, an increasing number of countries have developed climate laws. Given the provisions of the Paris Agreement to consider IPLC and their knowledge for climate action, it is relevant to assess how the contents of these types of laws pursue such ambition. By describing and categorizing the contents of climate laws, this article develops evidence-based research about how IPLC are attended to in climate framework laws of different countries. It examines whether the related contents of these laws align with the recommendation of the Paris Agreement regarding the need to consider traditional, indigenous, and local knowledge in the design of adaptation measures. The results show that only one-third of the identified climate laws refer to IPLC. Within these laws, those communities and their knowledge are scarcely attended to. However, a few climate laws develop relevant elements about these communities. The most common element relates to the participation of IPLC in deliberative bodies or climate decisions. In contrast, the least common element relates to the involvement of relevant communities in climate research. Notably, the climate laws of Finland (Europe) and Peru (South America) emerge as more comprehensive in addressing the IPLC and their knowledge than what is found in other countries. Despite the recognized relevance of IPLC and their traditional knowledge for climate change adaptation, the use of climate framework laws to formally foster such recognition is still lacking. Setting up a scheme to monitor how the translation of the Paris Agreement is being undertaken into subsequent legislative processes is desirable. Such a scheme may clarify how IPLC and their traditional knowledge are effectively being considered as initially expected.