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

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So the Colonists had their relatives still living in England

I don't think that's true for most of them.

came from England

See above.

were a part of England

Really? Where is the USA on this map:

England owned America. That's not the same as America bing a part of England.

had a war and took English property

Taking English property doesn't make it a civil war. The USA took British property.

but it wasn't a civl war?

Now we're getting somewhere.

So scotland was never a part of the UK either?

don't even go there. Scotland is not a colony nor was it a conquered nation. the act of union was two independent sovereign nations joining to created a new political entity and you are the one who has insisted in calling Britain England all the way through this.

But by your definition, The Civil war in the United States was never a civil war. The south didn't wish to take the whole nation, they simply wanted independence from the other states. If they had won, it would have been a "Revolutionary war". Just as the Civil war between the colonies and England was called therafter.

except for the fact they were already part of the United states and y'know in it.

The Colonies were a part of England, and EVERYONE knows that too. LOL

 

[spectrenihlus]

Over in Australia, we got nothing about it. Got our own, and some European, but nothing on America. Unless you do what our school called Modern History, in which case you were practically gods, thanks to the war-fetishism it promotes

Practically gods?!? PShaww we are/were gods according to these guys

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

Yeah, but that was because they didn't know about the outside world. Take the Aztecs thinking the Spanish were some kind of Centaur because they hadn't seen horses before.

But this is getting off topic, so I'm stopping for the sake of the original question

Oh I think this topic I created ran amuck a long time ago. For Pete's sake we were arguing semantics a page ago. What is wrong with you people!?!

 

[Artic Xiongmao]

It is really impressive how some Americans here are isolated from the rest of the world.

1. The American Revolution WAS NOT the first nationalistic revolution... At all. I really can't make a list; nationalistic revolutions have been a part of history since the dawn of time. The modern definition of "Nationalism" is indeed more refined, but the sentiment existed before.

2. The American GOVERNMENT inspired the organization of the French Government after their revolution; the American revolution did not inspire the French revolution that much. It would've happened eitherway.

3. It is NOT that important for the rest of the world, not even for the British. I'm Spanish; we have years of World History before we even have a class just about Spanish History. We touched upon the revolution and your civil war; but considering we have THOUSANDS of years to touch upon, you're just two paragraphs. American influecen becomes important in History Class when it became important in reality; the XX century.

It is really sad how History is taught in some places. Ours wasn't that bad. We touched upon every bit of Spanish History, and believe me, we have a share of embarassing stories.

Just a Hypothesis: Considering the fact that about 50% of Americans believe in creationism, could it be in part becasue of your History class model? Those numbers, 50-50, are worse than any civilized country except Turkey. Could that be in part because you're only taught recent history? Evangelism has done it's big part, of course. But think about it.

Oh, and some people refused the idea that you're only taught recent history by mentioning Magna Carta... yeah, that's still pretty recent, you know? What about the Islamic Empire? The Romans? The Greeks? The Egyptians? The Mesopotamians? And what about Asian History? The Chinese had a civilization earlier than anyone around these parts.

 

[D.C.]

Snip

Snip

They did fight for control over a portion of their nation. You see, If Southern England goes to war with Northern England and then separates and claims the land to the south, and the north is left only with the land to the north, it is still a civil war. The colonies belonged to England. They took them from England through war. That is a civil war.

While you raise a good point with the if South went to fight against the North, The problem is the naming. The Thirteen colonies were exactly what they called themselves colonies, not British land, (theres a lot of old law about the difference), The colonies were semi-independant, and had no say in the British Houses of Parliement. Therefore it can't be a civil war, but instead a Rebellion of an area against its overlords from a different area, and hence its called the Battle For Independance and not the American civil War.


OT:

The British Government have forced by law that a third of the year in History must be spent teaching British Home history (not Imperialistic wars but people on British soil) so things like the 60's and the Industrial revolution let alone the Blitz is given quite a lot of time and teachers have to leave out the less interesting world history.

The American war for independance is mostly ignored, when it is mentioned its passed over in a single lesson at most. Because it tends to be a relativly minor spot in the history of British Imperialism, which covers, Initially colonising America, colonising Africa (the zulu's and especially Rorke's Drift are very popular and gone into detail if you dont know why wiki it or just watch Zulu, puts Custers Last stand to real Shame),the Slave trade (a.k.a. the Bristol Triangle), the exploration of Africa, India colonising-abusing-and losing, Australlia, and more, I think China is included.


In the way of American History British schools tend to focus on Slavery, The 1920's era of gangsters and a booming economy, and the civil rights movement, which is really just "the protesting to stop racism agains black people" because at the end you learn that the civil rights didnt really progress that much (especially when you look at it from the Native Americans side).

 

[rossatdi]

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.

I think the short answer would be that Great Britain grew to be the globally dominant empire it was after the American War of Independence. Its not focused on at school because its a small part of a bigger story. Around the turn of the last century, the Empire controlled approximately 1/4 of the world's land mass excluding the original 13 colonies that gained Independence.

History at my school went into great detail on the loss of the Empire following on from the two punnishing victories in the World Wars. There's no real sense of ignoring what was a loss, I think I recall learning something about it in the run up to the Industrial Revolution.

The one I'm shocked about not learning is the Irish Revolution but then there's still violence in and because of the whole sordid mess (the occupation, not the Revolution).

 

[Valkyrie101]

It's not taught at all in schools. That's all there is to it.

 

[ACman]

This semantics discussion is awesome troll bait.

 

[D.C.]

The one I'm shocked about not learning is the Irish Revolution but then there's still violence in and because of the whole sordid mess (the occupation, not the Revolution).

I guess thats because it's still not a finished history, heck Bombs and killings are still happening quite often in NI.
I know in Uni's the Irish revolution is still highly debated upon and a lot of facts are missing.
Also all these different Irish factions could probably be very confusing to learn.


Did you get the whole Irish potato famine history??

The way its taught, for a long time (while I was a dumb kid) all of Ireland just seemed like a wet grassy place lacking in potato's and being very badly off for it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Snip

Snip

They did fight for control over a portion of their nation. You see, If Southern England goes to war with Northern England and then separates and claims the land to the south, and the north is left only with the land to the north, it is still a civil war. The colonies belonged to England. They took them from England through war. That is a civil war.

While you raise a good point with the if South went to fight against the North, The problem is the naming. The Thirteen colonies were exactly what they called themselves colonies, not British land, (theres a lot of old law about the difference), The colonies were semi-independant, and had no say in the British Houses of Parliement. Therefore it can't be a civil war, but instead a Rebellion of an area against its overlords from a different area, and hence its called the Battle For Independance and not the American civil War.


OT:

The British Government have forced by law that a third of the year in History must be spent teaching British Home history (not Imperialistic wars but people on British soil) so things like the 60's and the Industrial revolution let alone the Blitz is given quite a lot of time and teachers have to leave out the less interesting world history.

The American war for independance is mostly ignored, when it is mentioned its passed over in a single lesson at most. Because it tends to be a relativly minor spot in the history of British Imperialism, which covers, Initially colonising America, colonising Africa (the zulu's and especially Rorke's Drift are very popular and gone into detail if you dont know why wiki it or just watch Zulu, puts Custers Last stand to real Shame),the Slave trade (a.k.a. the Bristol Triangle), the exploration of Africa, India colonising-abusing-and losing, Australlia, and more, I think China is included.


In the way of American History British schools tend to focus on Slavery, The 1920's era of gangsters and a booming economy, and the civil rights movement, which is really just "the protesting to stop racism agains black people" because at the end you learn that the civil rights didnt really progress that much (especially when you look at it from the Native Americans side).

So you are basing whether or not it is a civl war based on "naming"? Even though the British government considered that "their land, taxes, property"?

Oh come on! It was family fighting family from the same nation and ancestry. Family members were put at odds with each other, much the same in the blood bath that insued when the US went to war with itself.

 

[Saint of M]

Is the OP trolling?

How is the Australian Gold Rush taught in American high schools? What's that? It's NOT?!? Shock and awe!

Case in point: The whole world doesn't revolve around your country ya' kno.

Although to be fair, history belongs to the victors... so of course England probably wouldn't want to cover it.

The problem with that statement is thirteen small colonies of nothing but criminals and the butt of Europe's jokes manage to convince the most powerful empire in the world to back off, and did it again in the war of 1812.

It would be like Spain not talking about how they once owned most of the Americas.

 

[Susurrus]

Never got taught it. On the other hand, the approach to history that my schools took was based around what exams we had to pass, so that it was rather an eclectic mix of things. SO I learnt in depth about the Russian Revolution, in depth about the inter-war years in Germany (and 'the stab in the back'), a bit about the French revolution, and then I took Medieval History, so did Crusades, Charlemagne, 1066-1216 UK, Richard III, and probably some other stuff I can't recall at the moment. Oh yes, the Papacy.

On the other hand, I also never got taught about British colonialism at all, or our involvement with India. I have George MacDonald Fraser to thank for my knowledge/interest in that area of our history.

In general, UK history lessons are very Europe-centric, if for no other reason than because the EU has increasing presence/influence on the UK at the moment.

EDIT: I also don't think it was as hugely important to the UK as some other ares which also aren't taught. India would be a prime one. The Great Game another/conflict with Russia another.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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...

Actually, my last U.S. History class had a common theme "We are douchebags". We covered imperialism, our unrightful taking of Texas, the Japanese interment, basically everything that we did wrong or were jerks about.

Man you must've had a lot to to cover... my History classes were usually about how great America was... The only time we talked about any of the times where The US were being dick pistons was with my student teacher in my last semester where we were talking about the Cold War...

It was A.P. We crammed two years of material into one year. We covered everything. Most of it was negative. We came out of that class hating our country.

 

[rossatdi]

The one I'm shocked about not learning is the Irish Revolution but then there's still violence in and because of the whole sordid mess (the occupation, not the Revolution).

I guess thats because it's still not a finished history, heck Bombs and killings are still happening quite often in NI.
I know in Uni's the Irish revolution is still highly debated upon and a lot of facts are missing.
Also all these different Irish factions could probably be very confusing to learn.


Did you get the whole Irish potato famine history??

The way its taught, for a long time (while I was a dumb kid) all of Ireland just seemed like a wet grassy place lacking in potato's and being very badly off for it.

We got background on it, mostly to explain why Irish immigrants built all the canals in Britain.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So the Colonists had their relatives still living in England

I don't think that's true for most of them.

came from England

See above.

were a part of England

Really? Where is the USA on this map:

England owned America. That's not the same as America bing a part of England.

had a war and took English property

Taking English property doesn't make it a civil war. The USA took British property.

but it wasn't a civl war?

Now we're getting somewhere.

So scotland was never a part of the UK either?

don't even go there. Scotland is not a colony nor was it a conquered nation. the act of union was two independent sovereign nations joining to created a new political entity and you are the one who has insisted in calling Britain England all the way through this.

But by your definition, The Civil war in the United States was never a civil war. The south didn't wish to take the whole nation, they simply wanted independence from the other states. If they had won, it would have been a "Revolutionary war". Just as the Civil war between the colonies and England was called therafter.

except for the fact they were already part of the United states and y'know in it.

The Colonies were a part of England, and EVERYONE knows that too. LOL

go over to the politics forum and present what you think is your case to your fellow Americans.

let's see what they have to say.

i'm not interested and the your subject matter is not the same as this threads.

Actually the subject matter is a part of this thread. How American revolution is taught in the UK is the discussion here. Whether it is taught as an English civil war, an English revolt, or an English rebellion would all fall under that catagory. It wasn't like that war started between two nations.

 

[Sacman]

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...

Actually, my last U.S. History class had a common theme "We are douchebags". We covered imperialism, our unrightful taking of Texas, the Japanese interment, basically everything that we did wrong or were jerks about.

Man you must've had a lot to to cover... my History classes were usually about how great America was... The only time we talked about any of the times where The US were being dick pistons was with my student teacher in my last semester where we were talking about the Cold War...

It was A.P. We crammed two years of material into one year. We covered everything. Most of it was negative. We came out of that class hating our country.

Yeah I did something similar for second language class, not because I wanted to but because I was behind in credits... took two years worth of Spanish in less than one summer vacation... but I didn't even have to take a class to make me hate my country... MTV already provided the fuel and the flame...<.<

 

[NLS]

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...

The Germans are taught about the horrible actions of the Nazis during WWII. Probably more than any other nation. They don't want history to repeat itself, and the new generation to commit the same mistakes.
So no, it's not "Just barely mentioned". It's a pretty much big deal.

 

[bad rider]

My big problem with the war for independence, is that often I see an American cartoon on it, and what tends to be the case is that it is portrayed as six or seven locals fighting a pompous British regiment made up of a few hundred incompetents. Also that every American I speak to about this (usually brought up in an argument to be fair) tends to believe America stood on it's own two feet and single handedly defeated the British. The large contribution from the French Spanish and Dutch forces is entirely ignored. Despite that the Americans would have found it marginally difficult to destroy the British Navy, as they didn't have one. (Or at least didn't have a sizable one.)

Also, the British never surrendered to the Americans, the British surrendered to the French. Though to be honest thats probably worse.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

My big problem with the war for independence, is that often I see an American cartoon on it, and what tends to be the case is that it is portrayed as six or seven locals fighting a pompous British regiment made up of a few hundred incompetents. Also that every American I speak to about this (usually brought up in an argument to be fair) tends to believe America stood on it's own two feet and single handedly defeated the British. The large contribution from the French Spanish and Dutch forces is entirely ignored. Despite that the Americans would have found it marginally difficult to destroy the British Navy, as they didn't have one. (Or at least didn't have a sizable one.)

Also, the British never surrendered to the Americans, the British surrendered to the French. Though to be honest thats probably worse.

I think it is funny when Americans think they built the Statue of Liberty.

 

[Loiterer]

So scotland was never a part of the UK either? That is like saying Hawaii isn't a part of the US.

Scotland was part of the UK. You said England. It's like saying Hawaii isn't a part of New England.