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

[githnaur]

Oh we are also taught not to be fooled by what we see in the movies America and Britain did not win WWII Russia did and they payed in blood

I think you'll find the Allies won WWII. As of 1941, Russia became part of the Allied effort to push back Germany.

If Britain (with massive assistance from it's colonies at the time) the USA, Russia, the free Polish along with the French resistance (who would of course be classed as IED making terrorists at the time by the Germany occupation) weren't also involved in the war and Russia stood alone, it would have been crushed. As it was, Russia, like the "non occupied western allies" you're indicating, stood against Germany. Classic pincer movement.



As for the original posting, we didn't really cover it at school in any great depth.

 

[Ciaran Lunt]

we really dont care about the war we focus on the ancient (greece egypt tudors ect) then we skip to the modern and significant at 14 so we do the time between ww2 and ww1 causes league of nations then devote time to the rise of the nazis the pre ww1 and compare two political icons. some do the cold war or the great depression and at young age we did the start of american colonization but thats rare.
Its too complex to be taught at low level but too simple and without enough significance to us to be done at gcse+

The Nazi to answer someone else's question is incredibly important in the education of German children. They are desperate to make sure it never happens again but alas like every nation as hard times hit the political ideas jump one way or the other in the middle east, Europe and north america we jump right (most eastern countries jump left its complicated but its part of deep psychological roots) and like everyone else they're jumping right ignoring the pasts lessons

 

[Ciaran Lunt]

why aren't you taught about the royalists and round heads? its far more significant to you then it is to us as it planted the ideas that your country was founded on. Answer because the event itself was irrelevant to anyone outside the country even if the ideas (or in your case the later role of the country. We learn about gandhi because he changed the world without guns or weapons without that its just another pointless war over something that is completely insignificant

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

With a lot of you guys from across the Pond I am very curious as to how the UK treats this part in your history.

Very briefly, on some school syllabus'. You see we tend to focus on our own history and delve into the history of other countries when it links into our own. The slave trade,the American for Independence and the American Civil war are all covered fairly briefly, along with what remains of British history before the 19th century, often in the year 9 (13-14 year olds to you over the pond) history syllabus I think (could be year 8 though).

Thought the level of detail various depending on the the school and what the marking board is involved.

 

[sazzrah]

I've noticed quite a few posts 'bigging up' the fact that US schools teach world history (and often specifically European history) while being infinitely confused as to why British schools don't cover the American war of independence in a more in-depth manner. Do you not consider that it's because world history IS American history. Before the US was formed, most Americans were Europeans - European history is your history too; British history, in many cases, is your history too, so it is right that you are taught about the history of the world as it existed before America came to be - if your skin is white, then chances are you are of European lineage.

Britain on the othe hand, has thousands of years of history which is greatly interwoven with the rest of Europe and so it is only right that this is what we are taught predominantly. Not to diminish the role the US gaining independence had on Britain, but in comparison to thousands of years of history, it is a footnote. If we want to know more about it, we wait for a BBC special or go study American History in university... there's nothing much else to be said about it.

From the outside, a lot of people like to think the British are still the pompus arrogant imperialists of the past, but modern Brits (speaking personally, and from my experience discussing this with others) feel a big disconnection with that part of our history. Anyone born post-WW2 grew up in its shadow - the history of the Empire became a footnote itself compared to the heroic tale of a small country cripped by war taking on the Nazi regime and winning against all odds (with a little help from our friends).

This is the Britain we identify with in the most part these days... our Empire of the past is not something most Brits think about as being part of our national consciousness nearly as much as foreigners (and I hate to say it, but particularly Americans) like to think. The public aren't bitter about not being a global power anymore (people who suggest this really get on my nerves) because the past few generations grew up in a Britain that treasures WW2 as a period in our history where we - the little people - fought and defeated an evil super power; I believe we now see global dominance and even the notion of any country becoming an overtly-patriotic super powers as distasteful; this I believe is where our national dislike of the US comes into play. It's more political than personal; although I don't deny there are Brits who just like to personally attack the American people because it's the 'done' thing without realising why it is.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Hmmm, in my Maine school - Revolution wasn't taught much. It was taught heavily in elementary and middle school, but as you grew older, you went more in-depth in the subjects that they skipped over like WWII etc. So in high-school we were doing full months of just WWII. I liked my high-school history teacher actually, in one of his history classes, we went from the start of WWII all the way to the end, talked about the generals, mistakes made on both sides etc etc. revolution was kind-of kicked to the side by that time - briefly mentioned for a week or so. Not that I found the revolution interesting, I prefer WWI and WWII. Vietnam was pretty interesting too. That was heavily involved for a good month as well. OF what NOT to do in a war lol.


Though I'm kind of surprised that the German people don't hold up Erwin Rommel as a shining example of what to be (they probably do - but from What I read in this thread, it might not). Best general the Nazi's had and the least Nazi of them all.

 

[Brandonius Beorn]

Now I dont know why it would be taught in England, but its taught in depth in Ireland. The American revolution inspired Irish Republicans like Theobald Wolfe Tone and Lord Edward Fitzgerald. It also weakened British control in Ireland as most of its armies were beaten when fighting the colonists.

 

[Randomologist]

Eh, something about a tea party in Boston where aliens show up and blast the White House. We didn't really cover it at all in history, but then my history education basically went: Romans, WWII blitz, Battle of Hastings, Wars of the Roses, Black death, witch hunts, Hitlers rise to power and 1920s America. There's just other stuff we learn. We have 2000+ years of history, whereas America has at best 400-500 odd, so maybe our scope is just broader.

 

[Altorin]

part of me thinks the whole shelbyville/springfield thing in the simpsons is an allusion to the revolutionary war, especially the episode about the Lemon Tree.

The springfielders tell stories about how the lemon tree was liberated from enemy territory, and the shelbyvillites tell stories about how the lemon tree was removed from shelbyville because it was cursed, and good riddance.

Maybe it's a little silly to take that viewpoint, but in my eyes the metaphor rings true, although I don't know how it's taught there, they probably have their own take on the situation and it definitely would throw them in a positive light.

 

[Rath709]

I wish they'd covered the Australian/American War.

 

[RichardThompson]

It isn't.

 

[SkellgrimOrDave]

Nothing at all. Minor mention if anything. It's not a big part of our history, we lost another colony, whoop de doo.

 

[gamepopper101]

US Founding nor the US revolution was taught in my school, all my teachings of that came from the cartoon series Histeria when I was little.

 

[elz_bellez]

First of all the war of independence isn't covered in the UK national curriculum. It is a side line in British history. The school system here struggles to cover our own history (e.g. The Irish troubles) other than world war 1, world war 2 and various kings and queens and their contributions.

As a graduate of european early modern history I have to say that I have covered the war of independence, but only at degree level. by this point in tuition it is not about blame nor perspective as each school of historians would classify the war differently. what is does show in my professional opinion is that, ironically, many people "rebelled" (a word i use as it is an appropriate classification of the actions that happened during that era) as they wanted the freedom to pursue their own religious ideals beyond that of the throne and a separation of church and state. Funny that this issue is still very much a contentious issue that continues to divide people.

I think that it should be taught in British schools as other former territories and empire states are commonly mentioned including causes of their losses and rebellions.

As for covering of World War 2 in Germany, while I can't confirm this first hand, but I have been told that it is taught fairly early on in school so that all students know the serious nature of what occurred. Many people in Germany feel/felt guilty of a significant period of time due to what happened. Its important as a culture and a people that it is felt it can never happen again. Germany is a beautiful, wonderful country that I have had the privilege of visiting on a few occasions and what is more they are compassionate people who remember the events of 1939 - 1945 with honesty and reverie without excuses.

 

[Country_Bumpkin]

@Emancipation: Sure, sure- Lincoln announced a plan to halt slavery's expansion, then slowly stop it. This way the South's agricultural economy would get less bum raped. It was his campaign platform (which means that people in the US, on a whole, voted for it), hence the secessions starting after he took office. It also would have been far preferable than Sherman's Assrape Spree to the Sea towards the South's economy.

It definitely would have. Slavery was a great evil... but the federal government had allowed the South's entire agricultural economy to be built on it for many years. That kind of entanglement can't be undone cold turkey, unfortunately. Many folks in the South supported the ending of slavery, but in a measured and gradual way. To those people, slavery wasn't about subjugation--it was an economic necessity of the time.

It's just not an issue that's as black/white (no pun intended) as we often want it to be. Slavery is a bad thing, and that's a clear truth... but that doesn't mean everyone participating in a slave-driven economy is an evil jackass with nothing but ill feelings toward man. The government had allowed slavery to become a necessity, while the North was getting rich off of the slave trade. Then they turned around to yank that out from under the South without recompense, and painted the entire region as morally bankrupt devils.

The problem with this version of the pre-Civil War era is that there were plenty of prominent Southerners calling for an expansion of slavery. It was far from accepted that slavery needed to die a slow death. The idea that all Americans would eventually become industrialized was viewed as being a step down from the present situation, since being on top of a slave-holding farming society was better than being just a lowly wage laborer. And since the South had an effective veto over the Federal government, there really wasn't much else to do but allow the South to grow ever more entangled in its untenable situation.

 

[blaize2010]

Its not. I don't recall it ever being covered at school.

really? you'd figure losing one of the biggest colonies britain owned during the age of imperialism would at leas warrant a paragraph. shit, now i feel inconsequential, going to have to break out the flag and the red white and blue spraypaint. is India covered? Australia? as a matter of fact, how far back does your history class go? all the way to roman conquest of the isles? it does make sense, i guess, since US has only, what? two hundred something years of history to it, while england has millenia.

 

[ColdFire75]

I think it's the Japanese lack of interest in the history of WW2 that's sorta creepy. The only war crime the poms committed was wearing red and walking in a straight line. BTW the red coats were because some paragon of the British officer class thought it'd stop the men freaking out over the wounded, as you'd hardly notice the bleeding and screaming over the loudness of their jackets

Not true, red was used way before, was cheapest dye in 1645 when Cromwell was making the New Model Army =]

And the War of Independence isn't on the curriculum, very little of the period is, not old enough to be 'old' history, not new enough to be modern. The Napoleonic wars aren't taught and they were much more important to Britain. There are thousands of years of history to cover though!