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

[T.Kirkness-Little]

We have thousands of years of history and it doesn't register next to some more significant events. It's a shame but schools can only teach so much. How much are Americans taught about the Wars of the Roses?

We didn't go much into the subject, but what we were taught was that it was two houses who were supposedly the right heir to the kingdom and they fought over it.

A good summation. It was the biggest civil war in our history and included the bloodiest battle fought on British soil.

 

[pirate_wezza]

They didnt teach us about ANY wars at school. All we got was the boring tudors and stewarts crap.

 

[Korolev]

According to my father, who was educated in England, the American war for independence was barely brought up, but the teachers were sympathetic to the Americans. History books written by English authors are also sympathetic - while the Americans were a bit hasty, it was ultimately the inflexibility of the British government, and their refusal to entertain the possibility of a successful rebellion that caused the war.

Personally, I think that both sides are responsible. The Americans were annoyed that the British were imposing new taxes. In reality, however, the British were just applying the same taxes everyone else in the Empire paid to the Americans for the first time, and the Americans didn't like it. In other words, because the first decades of colonisation were perilous and unprofitable, the British decided to lessen the taxes on the companies sending people to the Americas, but once the American colonies started making money, the British (not unrightfully) demanded that the US pay their share of taxes. The British government spent a fortune on setting up the colonies, and spent a fortune keeping an army in the US to protect the colonies, and in my opinion, the Americans were pretty ungrateful. Also, as Kings go, George III was no tyrant. He was actually a lot more friendly to the people than his predecessors. Then again, the British should have realized tensions were bad and should have been less arrogant and demanding to the Americans, and given them more representation and voting power.

So both sides caused the war. In the long run, I am more sympathetic to the Americans - they decided that their culture was too different from British culture, and that they wanted their own system of republican government, and I think that a split with England was destined. So if I have to pick a side, I would go with the Americans.

 

[monkey jesus]

I seem to have been taught a little more than most, was a loooooooooooooooong time ago I'll see what I can remember.

1. Britain had the biggest Empire in history.
2. After running about spreading syphilis and nicking all the good stuff most of the colonised areas wanted us out.
3. The Empire was too big to control with force, especially due to the high number of drafted colonials who quite rightly changed sides at the first opportunity.
4. We never even wanted to keep your stupid country anyway, we've already got all the good stuff.
5. The US think we might come back at any moment so they should all have guns. In the UK there is only one privately owned firearm, guy called Keith has his Granddad's old service revolver, no bullets mind, chap could get hurt like that.
6. You've taken all our best actors yet you won't give us John Stewart in return.
7. Your TV series' go on far to long.
8. Despite the stereotypes and Fox news you are predominately nice folk.

Toodle pip!

 

[Korolev]

We'll never know, I suppose. I am mostly concerned with combating the pernicious myth that the Civil War wasn't mostly about slavery.

I think far more pernicious is the myth that the war was mostly about slavery. It's an oversimplification designed to make villains out of one side of the war, when both sides were culpable and neither treated our "guests" any better than the other.

The slavery issue was the most talked about, yes. But it was simply the last domino in the row to fall. Like the straw that broke the camel's back, that titular straw gets all the would-be "glory," though hundreds of pounds of other things did far more of the work.

As a "for instance," let's say I was to come into your house each day and take just one thing. This would probably upset you... but maybe, for some reason, not enough for you to take action. Not individually. So I keep it up, taking just one thing each day. And then one day, I show up and take a single fork from your kitchen drawer. Finally, it's enough, and you shoot me dead in the doorway.

People telling that story later would refer to it as "the time you killed that guy for stealing your fork." Why? Because that's what was going on when it became a story, and because it makes the whole thing simpler to tell. In the case of the Civil War, this telling also allows the "winning side" to claim a moral high ground over the "losing side" by painting them all as terrible tyrants, bent only on the subjugation of lesser races.

It's all for the sake of storytelling, not fact. The Civil War was the culmination of many frustrations between the agricultural South and the industrial North, and a federal government that was clearly favoring one over the other. It would have happened over one issue or another, and it just so happened that slavery was the tipping point. But that doesn't mean it's what the war was "about" by any stretch.

From every history book that I've read (Harry Hansen's "The Civil War", Hugh Brogan's "The Penguin History of the USA (not actually about Penguins), and "Empire of Liberty" by David Reynolds), the issue on the Civil War WAS about State's rights - but it was about the State Right to HAVE SLAVES. Many Southerners want to leave out the fact that the concern was about exporting slavery to new states and re-capturing slaves that fled to other states. There were many other things involved, but Slavery was NOT the final straw, it was the major straw. True, the North wasn't perfect and in many ways they treated Blacks terribly as well. But at least they didn't enslave them! Go back and read the many declarations made by the South - The South THEMSELVES saw it as a major issue. True, the North did not originally set out to destroy slavery, but to merely prevent its spread, but that is a mountain of morality further ahead than the South's desire to spread slavery.

Regardless - all I know is that under Southern Rule, Slavery would have continued merrily along. On that issue ALONE, the confederacy DESERVED to be destroyed. Slavery is pretty much the most horrific crime in the known universe. I consider it worse than murder, because murder just kills a man's body, while slavery can kill a man's soul (figurative soul).

Dred Scott, John Brown, Senator Brooks and Senator Sumner, you can't just ignore that. The South was the bastion of slavery, and slavery is always, always indefensible. The South deserved to lose and it deserved to lose horribly. You know that the Union was morally in the right.

 

[EllEzDee]

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.

The reason we're not taught much, if anything, about the war for North American independence is because it meant next to nothing to our country, nor most of Europe; it was simply a sideshow to other, more important wars going on in the rest of the world; it was a rebellion, of which there have been many through history.
In our basic history coverage, we're taught about the history which shaped the world, and more specifically, our world, such as the rise and fall of the Roman and Greek cultures, the invasion of the Vikings and Normans at 1066, the signing of the Magna Carta, and then Tudor and Victorian times, during which major events occured which shaped our nation. The loss of a chunk of North America isn't something which majorly affected the United Kingdom, especially since it wasn't ours to begin with.

However, skipping out the Vietnam war (i own an American text book i nicked from school, there's literally one page on 'Nam) is skipping out on a rather major event in American history. It was a large engagement, during which America used methods highly controversial in such times, including conscription, governmentally approved genocide, unethical weaponry, and most importantly, during which they entered a war they had no part in.
I think the real reason your country doesn't cover the Vietnam war is because it's a shameful part of American history, for the above reasons; we don't cover the Falklands War either, which was a war with Argentina for a tiny piece of land which our country had owned since the colonial period (to my knowledge), and i believe it's not covered here because our country's reasons for being in the war were ridiculous. Why was the Falklands shameful? Because Britain had adopted a policy some time after WW2 to release peacefully any colonies which wanted independence (after stability was ensured), and the Falklands war went against that policy entirely(EDIT: found a reference, i knew i'd read that before "[...]Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were available to transfer power to. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal,[162] which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact. Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong.[163]".")

Also, @ a large number of people, England is NOT the nation America was at war with, it's a country which is PART of Great Britain. It's like saying Britain was at war with Boston in the North American war of independence.
Great Britain was comprised of Scotland, Ireland and England, though Ireland has been split into The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the latter part of Great Britain.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

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.

Hold on, let me put down my bible and shotgun so I can type this post.

How long have you been alive? Anywhere from 20 to 30 years I imagine. That happens to be my age range as well. Yet, since you were born on a land mass that has had developed human settlements longer than the land mass in which I was born, you are allowed to subtly speak down to everyone living on my land mass, implicit in your belief that we are a backwards, unrefined people. I know your post wasn't intended to be outright hostile, thus, the key word being implicit.

Yes, schools here are pretty lacking. Students are allowed to pass through the ranks without a modicum of learning or effort. However, many of us, me included, actually do take some things in life seriously, and care about expanding our understanding of the world. For instance, why don't we have a conversation about Spain's bloody warpath through 2/3 of the new world? Or the drama involving the Hapsburg dynasty as it lead to the War of Spanish Succession? (I would list a hell of a lot more Spain-centric things but I believe I've made my point and appear nerdy enough already.)

...As long as I can manage to work this fancy computery-internet computer screen thingy despite my country's brief history and my backwards American brain.

I knew this would happen... and that's why I explicitly wrote "some americans here". So, I'm refering to some people from the USA who happen to be around these parts of the Internet. Yeah, I'm surely generalizing on the whole country! Common...

So, leaving aside that, what do you think about that idea about creationism? I mean, it's really impressive. In a bad way. You seem to know a lot about history; I'm really asking: how is it that 50% of your contry believes in such nonsense? Is it just because of Evangelism? :/

I think if you analyse the American response to any internal perceived internal threat even as a colony this isn't such a hard question to answer. Our society started as puritan, who believed you should work hard and ask no questions of a philosophical level. It's how the Salem witch hunts happened. Now you and I know the evil witches hunted for didn't exist, but puritans asked no questions. So a large number of people were barbequed because our response to an internal threat is, 'put your head down and charge.' And our nation hasn't outgrown that gut instinct.

So, consider that puritans were creationists. What this results in is that change is a perceived internal threat because anything atheist is easiy to consider 'different' for a creationists. Just like witches, native americans, mexicans, the spanish, the irish, communists, and liberals. If it ain't honest earthly god fearin' folk, it ain't right.

But i don't think creationists are the problem here. I think extremists are the problem here. If we didn't have people who are so stuck in their ways as to be unable to consider another viewpoint life might be easier. And just lumping creationists into that group is just as bad as, well, extremists. I've known some very intelligent, moderate creationists. They aren't hurting the world any.

 

[noobface]

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.

The reason we're not taught much, if anything, about the war for North American independence is because it meant next to nothing to our country, nor most of Europe; it was simply a sideshow to other, more important wars going on in the rest of the world; it was a rebellion, of which there have been many through history.
In our basic history coverage, we're taught about the history which shaped the world, and more specifically, our world, such as the rise and fall of the Roman and Greek cultures, the invasion of the Vikings and Normans at 1066, the signing of the Magna Carta, and then Tudor and Victorian times, during which major events occured which shaped our nation. The loss of a chunk of North America isn't something which majorly affected the United Kingdom, especially since it wasn't ours to begin with.

However, skipping out the Vietnam war (i own an American text book i nicked from school, there's literally one page on 'Nam) is skipping out on a rather major event in American history. It was a large engagement, during which America used methods highly controversial in such times, including conscription, governmentally approved genocide, unethical weaponry, and most importantly, during which they entered a war they had no part in.
I think the real reason your country doesn't cover the Vietnam war is because it's a shameful part of American history, for the above reasons; we don't cover the Falklands War either, which was a war with Argentina for a tiny piece of land which our country had owned since the colonial period (to my knowledge), and i believe it's not covered here because our country's reasons for being in the war were ridiculous. Why was the Falklands shameful? Because Britain had adopted a policy some time after WW2 to release peacefully any colonies which wanted independence (after stability was ensured), and the Falklands war went against that policy entirely(EDIT: found a reference, i knew i'd read that before "[...]Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were available to transfer power to. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal,[162] which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact. Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong.[163]".")

Also, @ a large number of people, England is NOT the nation America was at war with, it's a country which is PART of Great Britain. It's like saying Britain was at war with Boston in the North American war of independence.
Great Britain was comprised of Scotland, Ireland and England, though Ireland has been split into The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the latter part of Great Britain.

Just gonna point out that the Falklands were INVADED by Argentina, and neither then nor now had/have any intentions of becoming independent.

 

[evilomega13]

Speaking as a brit here; not at all. Never mentioned in my histroy lessons, mostly focussed on important stuff.

 

[liveslowdiefast]

look america just to say, it seems like a lot of you think we don't teach it beacause we're sore losers and we don't think that you guys don't deserve it now, but in reality i couldn't care less, and i do vagaly rember being taught about the british empire and how it dissolved. but it wasn't a major event.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Just a bit off track here, but as an Australian, I can say that the War for Independence is not taught at all in our (or at least, NSW) curriculum, nor is the Civil War. We did a fair bit on Vietnam, as well as The World Wars (both what we did and didn't do). American history just doesn't come up at all really. But hey, we didn't cover the Boer wars or the Boxer rebellion, so make of that what you will.

 

[wolfwood9099]

After ready at least 17 of the pages here(god there is so much!) i can truly understand why the british wouldn't mention the American revolution(American war for independence?) for as much as a small paragraph. One thing i do wonder though is, what about the war of 1812(not sure if it called that in England.). Wasn't that Britain trying to take the colonies back instead of just some uprising that came at a bad time? Is that more of just another thing thats mentioned or is given a bit more depth?
(side note: im american and after reading all this and thinking about my history classes, i now think of our Revolution as more of an uprising and Departure instead of a small band of Colonies fighting against tyrants, so THANK YOU escapist for giving me more info that other wise i would probably never have found on my own.)

 

[Tallim]

After ready at least 17 of the pages here(god there is so much!) i can truly understand why the british wouldn't mention the American revolution(American war for independence?) for as much as a small paragraph. One thing i do wonder though is, what about the war of 1812(not sure if it called that in England.). Wasn't that Britain trying to take the colonies back instead of just some uprising that came at a bad time? Is that more of just another thing thats mentioned or is given a bit more depth?
(side note: im american and after reading all this and thinking about my history classes, i now think of our Revolution as more of an uprising and Departure instead of a small band of Colonies fighting against tyrants, so THANK YOU escapist for giving me more info that other wise i would probably never have found on my own.)

The war of 1812 was started by the Americans as they desired to expand into the North West territories among other things including trade restrictions from Britain.

 

[Griffolion]

It happened. We technically gave birth to the most powerful country on earth, so regardless of the fact we were defeated, we're still ultimately to thank for America .

 

[EllEzDee]

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.

Just gonna point out that the Falklands were INVADED by Argentina, and neither then nor now had/have any intentions of becoming independent.

From what i've read on it, Argentina felt the land rightfully belonged to them. I highly doubt Argentina would just pop up with a claim to a piece of land belonging to a powerful nation and the go ahead and invade it...would they?

After ready at least 17 of the pages here(god there is so much!) i can truly understand why the british wouldn't mention the American revolution(American war for independence?) for as much as a small paragraph. One thing i do wonder though is, what about the war of 1812(not sure if it called that in England.). Wasn't that Britain trying to take the colonies back instead of just some uprising that came at a bad time? Is that more of just another thing thats mentioned or is given a bit more depth?

The War of 1812 was the US wanting to expand its territory, so it declared war on Britain and her North American allies.
It's not taught in schools because a larger war was going on at the time, just like in the US war for independence; the war going on at the time was the Napoleonic War(s), which "we" in my school weren't even taught about...probably because it had no effect on Britain as a whole. They simply beat back an arguably tyrannical ruler with a bunch of other nations and then went back to business as usual.

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.

You actually weren't that much of their Empire.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pinkbits1897.htm

I couldn't quickly find a 1776 map, but here's a map of the empire from 1897. It gives you a scale of The Empire. As you can see from all the pink (all those underlined names are small Island nations) the 13 colonies in both number and size are only an itsy bit of the Empire.

hm. you'd just figure it would at least be covered, considering we're at least moderately important now. especially since we become big enemies for a while and then a pretty damn important ally. *ahem, allies. just as a sidenote, y'know. ah well, now the next time the english foreign exchange student starts bitching about how dumb we americans are and how little we care about other nations history, i get to bring this up.

That's very arrogant of you.

 

[Rathands]

[/quote] .... Imperialism and colonization is a huge part of British history, and it only makes sense that they would educate students about how Great Britain took control of the world, and how it eventually lost it.[/quote]

Actually we're mainly taught about the Tudors, WW1 & 2 with occasionally a smattering of Ancient Egyptians. I don't think I know anyone who's been taught about the British Empire as such, let alone the War of Independance. If you want to know that part of History you have to study it at degree level it seems. History was taught really badly in my area though, so this might not be the case for the whole of the UK.

 

[Detective Prince]

Errrm...It's not, at least in our school I never studied it and I did History GCSE.

We did Germany's history instead. XD Twas very interesting and thankfully we had an unbiased history teacher, Mr Heinick. He was German but cool with it. Plus he's ALMOST named after a beer.