How is the American War for Independance taught in the UK?

[JJMUG]

I've wondered this before. I also wonder how World War 2 and the Holocaust are covered in Germany.

I always figured it was handled the same way the US Internment of Japanese citizens is handled in the US... you know barely touch upon it and have the surrounding curriculum be about how great and noble your country was and then hope nobody noticed by not even including a question about it on the test...

Classes do not even cover that German and Italians were also place Interment camps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American_internment

 

[Loiterer]

That is how it was taught here in the US. It was a civil war, where the rebels broke free.
Were the colonies ruled by England? Was their history native to the American continent, or were they sent here by England? So their ancestors were European and not Native American? It wasn't like that war was between the natives, so you cannot call it a foreign war. Nope it was a civil war between the government and their people.

Other Americans in this thread are even disagreeing with you. America was a colony. A civil war is fought within one nation. An empire is not the same thing as a nation.

Tell you what, I've added the American Revolutionary war to the list of civil wars in wikipedia. Let's see how long it lasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Early_Modern_.281550.E2.80.931800.29

 

[William MacKay]

we dont. in scotland, all we do is scottish history, and either german or russian.

 

[trooper6]

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

It wasn't a civil war. You can look at it like that if you want, as can the writer of that article, but it's decided by consensus, and the vast majority of people do not hold the Ameriacn Revolutionary War to be a civil war.

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

And everyone in the USA. Here it is not a civil War because we already have one; its just a rebellion to our history classes. All thought a massively hyped rebellion in which we beat the blood thirsty red coats(i still have much respect for the British and as far as i am concerned; land or no land you are still an Empire and a damn good one)back to England.

Civil War dosen't have the same ring to it is here its not referred to as such.

In US history class we were taught it was a civil war where the people rebelled against their government and won.

Funny, I'm also American and I also took US history classes...and it was not taught as a Civil War...so...no, not all of America was taught what you were taught.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

That is how it was taught here in the US. It was a civil war, where the rebels broke free.
Were the colonies ruled by England? Was their history native to the American continent, or were they sent here by England? So their ancestors were European and not Native American? It wasn't like that war was between the natives, so you cannot call it a foreign war. Nope it was a civil war between the government and their people.

Other Americans in this thread are even disagreeing with you. America was a colony. A civil war is fought within one nation. An empire is not the same thing as a nation.

Tell you what, I've added the American Revolutionary war to the list of civil wars in wikipedia. Let's see how long it lasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Early_Modern_.281550.E2.80.931800.29

It should stay there considering it WAS a civil war, unless some Brit comes and takes it off.
How could they overthrow their government if it wasn't their government? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

It wasn't a civil war. You can look at it like that if you want, as can the writer of that article, but it's decided by consensus, and the vast majority of people do not hold the Ameriacn Revolutionary War to be a civil war.

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

And everyone in the USA. Here it is not a civil War because we already have one; its just a rebellion to our history classes. All thought a massively hyped rebellion in which we beat the blood thirsty red coats(i still have much respect for the British and as far as i am concerned; land or no land you are still an Empire and a damn good one)back to England.

Civil War dosen't have the same ring to it is here its not referred to as such.

in that case two wars fought on American soil need a name change.

In US history class we were taught it was a civil war where the people rebelled against their government and won.

in that case two wars fought on American soil apparently need a name change.

No because the United States only had one Civil war. That civil war was between England and the English colonies, which earned them their own nation. After The United States was formed, they then had their own civil war.

 

[Loiterer]

It should stay there considering it WAS a civil war, unless some Brit comes and takes it off.
How could they overthrow their government if it wasn't their government? That doesn't make any sense.

Overthrowing a government is not the same thing as a civil war.

 

[ACman]

Typical American arrogance to assume it's taught at all.

Okay, I am American yes. But this is actually quite arrogant itself. Would it be a major subject? I would assume not like Vietnam isn't mentioned that much in American. Plain and simple, losses aren't elaborated on.

However, the sudden loss of a giant portion (Well over four times the size of their current country) of a country's land seems to be quite a major piece of history that needs be covered.

I have also wondered quite a lot by this and I'd love to know the answer. I'm glad to see someone else has asked and actually been OPEN MINDED enough, rather than arrogant, to want to know.

In Australia we studied Ancient History, English Medieval History, Australian Colonial History and 20th Century History.

The American, French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars are treated as a whole as a study of that period as an optional subject.

I think that British Schools would be similar. Teachers might touch on it but it but if they started making a big deal about the US once being an English colony then they might as well go nut on once colonizing Singapore, Palestine, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Burma, Nigeria etc....

English History is rich and America is a small part of it and vice versa.

 

[Ixnay1111]

can't they just say they shipped off a bunch of fugitives like they did with Australia? or emptied out their insane asylums by shipping em off by boat? >)

Actually England were sending their convicts to America. When America started refusing convicts, England started sending them to Australia.

 

[MrJKapowey]

we dont. in scotland, all we do is scottish history, and either german or russian.

Ah! That would explain why, when I was playing AoE 3, my aunt had to ask me twice about my enemy:

Once to ask who their leader was - Napoleon

Twice to ask which nation it was - France

I joke...

OT: I can't remember it being covered and I pushed for it to be covered in Yr 9.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It should stay there considering it WAS a civil war, unless some Brit comes and takes it off.
How could they overthrow their government if it wasn't their government? That doesn't make any sense.

Overthrowing a government is not the same thing as a civil war.

civil war 
?noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country

? n
war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation

What nation were the English colonies a part of? Oh yea, it was England. The civil war between the colonies and England resulted in them getting their own nation called the " United States of America". If they had lost, it would have just been another civl war in England.

 

[Thaliur]

I've wondered this before. I also wonder how World War 2 and the Holocaust are covered in Germany.

Intensively, sickeningly exhaustive. It's almost the only topic in our history classes from sixth grade onward.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

It wasn't a civil war. You can look at it like that if you want, as can the writer of that article, but it's decided by consensus, and the vast majority of people do not hold the Ameriacn Revolutionary War to be a civil war.

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

And everyone in the USA. Here it is not a civil War because we already have one; its just a rebellion to our history classes. All thought a massively hyped rebellion in which we beat the blood thirsty red coats(i still have much respect for the British and as far as i am concerned; land or no land you are still an Empire and a damn good one)back to England.

Civil War dosen't have the same ring to it is here its not referred to as such.

in that case two wars fought on American soil need a name change.

In US history class we were taught it was a civil war where the people rebelled against their government and won.

in that case two wars fought on American soil apparently need a name change.

No because the United States only had one Civil war. That civil war was between England and the English colonies, which earned them their own nation. After The United States was formed, they then had their own civil war.

what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

Yes, it does. If the colonist had lost, it would have just been another English Civil war. Since they had not, they earned their own Nation. The colonies were not their own nation at the time of the revolutionary war. The United States did not exist. You cannot have a civil war in a nation that does not exist.

 

[Calbeck]

Whats really interesting to me is seeing the difference in educational approaches. Like I said earlier, I am a major fan of the US, but I do wonder a lot about how you educate your kids. It often seems that outside of the world wars, it seems to be very introspective, which is very alien to Europeans.

In large part, I think that's mainly because of the old "Atlantic Isolation" factor. Our experience has been largely confined to our own continent, with few other major powers to contend with, and then not for very long.

By contrast, it's next to impossible for a European nation to teach history like that, because every one of their fates has been strongly intertwined with most of their immediate neighbors.

Personally, my real historical education came when I started playing tabletop wargames and PC games. Not shooters, mind you --- military sims like "Task Force 1942" and "Great Naval Battles: North Atlantic". These tended to come with large manuals of very interesting minutiae, including the causes and economics behind the decisions of nations.

When you find yourself directing a war for a nation's historical conflict, you discover that these reasons were actually important. That's something which history classes tend to gloss over a lot (in large part because it requires being judgmental).

 

[gphjr14]

No it wasn't theres been several instances of occupiers/invaders being ousted by those who considered themselves the native/ rightful rulers. Off the top of my head the Chinese who established the Ming Dynasty ousted Mongols to establish a Han Chinese majority government. In college I met a French exchange student who studied the American Revolution in high school not so much for those BS ideals they lecture in HS about liberty and justice but because the role the US would come to play in global economics and Euro/American expansion in North America. Colonist were pissed about taxes but they were more pissed the Crown was forbidding them to expand westward, pissing off the French and Indians. Once they could expand into Indian territories they could grow and sell more cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane; cash crops the Europeans ate up.

Occupiers/invaders being ousted by those who considered themselves natives/rightful rulers doesn't actually haven anything to do with *nationalism* which is a particular political ideology coined by Herder in the 1770s. One of the standard texts on Nationalism is _Nationalism_ by Ernst Gellner, but you don't want to read that, you can look at the wikipedia page on Nationalism. Check the History section. It is only a paragraph long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Documenting the line of social thought, and coining the term doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to the 18th century. The first paragraph, last sentence alone supports my assertion that its existed prior to the 18th century. I have a bachelors in history I've read enough to know this without referencing wikipedia, so please take my word for it. What you know as nationalism has existed well before Johan Gottfried Herder. A problem that often arises in historiography is that we (in the west) often takes a Eurocentric view of world development.

And to contribute to the question, we are not taught it here in New Zealand, but I saw the movie, The Patriot, and thought it was awesome.

Oh god please don't use anything Mel Gibson makes as a source of history. My European history professor refused to watch Braveheart and my US history professor used The Partiot as a counterpoint to American historiography.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It should stay there considering it WAS a civil war, unless some Brit comes and takes it off.
How could they overthrow their government if it wasn't their government? That doesn't make any sense.

Overthrowing a government is not the same thing as a civil war.

civil war 
?noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country

? n
war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation

What nation were the English colonies a part of? Oh yea, it was England. The civil war between the colonies and England resulted in them getting their own nation called the " United States of America". If they had lost, it would have just been another civl war in England.

by that reckoning every single war fought in an any part of the British Empire was a civil war.

they weren't.

nor have they ever been considered so.

So what nation were the colonies a part of if it were not England? According to the dictionary, it was a civil war. Is the dictionary wrong?